CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

[jimmygrimblesboots]

As soon as the Dippers drop points the media straight back into FFP/Premier league , predictable and quite tiresome , if the Premier league are going to take action why would they wait so long.
Media claw clutching , why the f*ck do we let these c*nts into our footbaLL ground , if we banned them all would it really be any worse, we are already despised by the hacks , we have played the long game and taken all their shite maybe a different approach is now needed.
We only need to get one of them in court for slander etc., and the rest will soon back off.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

FFS he’s gone and done it again. I really really should learn.
Every time I get emotional and over-stressed about a CL defeat and start to doubt him, he comes out with something like this that makes me feel small, and mean-spirited for ever thinking even for a second that he doesn’t get us and doesn’t want City to win 1000x more than even I do.
I don’t think he’s going anywhere for a good number of years after watching that.

 

[MCC]

The same type of Subject Matter Experts that had their pants pulled down at CAS?

 

[KS55]

Has this not been going for years…
Why are they only now appointing subject matter experts
Who the fuck has been running it til now

Running it till now Bird and Bird solicitors appointed by premier league. They just happen to be the firm that advised Liverpool on the round robin letter. Funny coincidence!

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Here are the two splinted “Subject Matter Experts”

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I wish I could find a report that shows our annual prize money we have earns every season since the takeover and match it against our net transfer spend.
My prediction is there wouldn’t be a lot in it. If such a report could be generated it might shut a few anti City supporters up.

420m in past 5 years worth of European tv money alone

 

[Keeper!]

FFS he’s gone and done it again. I really really should learn.
Every time I get emotional and over-stressed about a CL defeat and start to doubt him, he comes out with something like this that makes me feel small, and mean-spirited for ever thinking even for a second that he doesn’t get us and doesn’t want City to win 1000x more than even I do.
I don’t think he’s going anywhere for a good number of years after watching that.

This guy is going nowhere, I genuinely think he could do a Fergie, he clearly gets this club and be in charge for a long , long period, he clearly understands what the Yank owned clubs agenda is.

He is one of us, no one should doubt that, especially OUR OWN fans.

 

[Keeper!]

As soon as the Dippers drop points the media straight back into FFP/Premier league , predictable and quite tiresome , if the Premier league are going to take action why would they wait so long.
Media claw clutching , why the f*ck do we let these c*nts into our footbaLL ground , if we banned them all would it really be any worse, we are already despised by the hacks , we have played the long game and taken all their shite maybe a different approach is now needed.
We only need to get one of them in court for slander etc., and the rest will soon back off.

The journos are feeding on the sh1t given them by the Yanks, they are devious bastards , just look at Chelsea and the buyout.

Who the hell in their right minds would pay 2-3 billion for Chelsea? Well the sought of people who create cartels than will ultimate run the world of football and ultimately take the top clubs into a super league.

Are you watching Garry Neville?

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

The journos are feeding on the sh1t given them by the Yanks, they are devious bastards , just look at Chelsea and the buyout.

Who the hell in their right minds would pay 2-3 billion for Chelsea? Well the sought of people who create cartels than will ultimate run the world of football and ultimately take the top clubs into a super league.

Are you watching Garry Neville?

The Yanks want the Premier league to themselves and our ownership is a thorn in their side , expect the FFP bullshit to be ramped up if the Yanks takeover Chelsea , the Yanks see the Premier league as a cash cow , Sheik Mansour sees the it as an investment opportunity. But the media is also Yank driven in this country so our owners will never get the plaudits , quite the opposite they are being vilified for good business practice

 

[Damanino]

again, what a funny timing of the PL investigation article. did Pool just drop points while we are about to play crucial game?

 

[WRicko]

Mail article is interesting.For the following reasons.

Nothing new but it could be all over soon.

The article claims that we got off due to the evidence being time barred. That’s not my understanding the evidence was not time barred ( the emails ) they where illegally stolen not proof of what actually happened out of context and edited.

What was time barred I thought was UEFAs ability to re examine our relationship and there treatment of the minor UAE Sponsors though I don’t think they would have been able to get round international definitions of related parties had they been able to reopen this part due to it not being time barred.

Can someone confirm I am on the right lines with this ?

 

[moomba]

It's time for the league to wrap this up one way or the other.

If they don't have enough evidence after 4 years to charge us they need to move on.

As it is, having an ongoing investigation just leaves us open for accusations and slander.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Mail article is interesting.For the following reasons.

Nothing new but it could be all over soon.

The article claims that we got off due to the evidence being time barred. That’s not my understanding the evidence was not time barred ( the emails ) they where illegally stolen not proof of what actually happened out of context and edited.

What was time barred I thought was UEFAs ability to re examine our relationship and there treatment of the minor UAE Sponsors though I don’t think they would have been able to get round international definitions of related parties had they been able to reopen this part due to it not being time barred.

Can someone confirm I am on the right lines with this ?

What was time barred was anything prior to the CAS-imposed cut-off date, which was 5 years prior to the filing of charges (which effectively was anything up to and including our 2013 year end accounts. Anything in the 2014 accounts and beyond was in scope.

On the basis that the PL haven't (as far as we know) charged us with anything as yet, and the assumption that a 6-year UK Statute of Limitations will apply, then if they charged us tomorrow, they couldn't legally look at anything that happened prior to 9th May 2016 in theory. So that might be the 2015 accounts and prior years (as May 2016 would fall within the 2015/16 financial year).

We also know from the CAS ruling that the CFCB case concerned the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships, which started prior to the cut-off date but continued beyond it and are still in place today. So if ADUG had been providing the money for these sponsorships during or after the 2013/14 financial year then they would have been able to look at that. However it was quite clear that it was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, not ADUG, who were supplying the funds to Etihad (not us, which was the point of some of the emails). The sponsorships were never owner funded so the time-barring claim is a complete red herring.

What also just occurred to me is what exactly the PL are looking at? Their financial rules are very different to UEFA's FFP rules and merely concern looking at losses, which are allowed to total £105m over 3 years. I think these rules only came into force in the 2015/16 season. The only thing I can think of that they're looking at is whether we would have broken their rules (not UEFA's) if sponsorship was artificially inflated. We know it wasn't so I struggle to see how they'll come up with any charges unless they have a smoking gun that UEFA/CAS didn't have.

 

[Newman Noggs]

It's time for the league to wrap this up one way or the other.

If they don't have enough evidence after 4 years to charge us they need to move on.

As it is, having an ongoing investigation just leaves us open for accusations and slander.

In my opinion they will wrap it up their enquiry in the close season and leak to the press shortly after it is known if we have won the league. Even though the clubs pushing it will be enjoying dragging out commercially damaging rumour and innuendo for as long as possible, there comes a time when its impact diminishes.

Since, again in my opinion, they can't give us the all clear without incurring the wrath of the super-league movers, I reckon they will charge us with something, find us "guilty" based on their "experts" and impose a punishment putting the burden us to prove our innocence and thus breathing new life into the whole thing.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Mail article is interesting.For the following reasons.

Nothing new but it could be all over soon.

The article claims that we got off due to the evidence being time barred. That’s not my understanding the evidence was not time barred ( the emails ) they where illegally stolen not proof of what actually happened out of context and edited.

What was time barred I thought was UEFAs ability to re examine our relationship and there treatment of the minor UAE Sponsors though I don’t think they would have been able to get round international definitions of related parties had they been able to reopen this part due to it not being time barred.

Can someone confirm I am on the right lines with this ?

Prestwich blue explained the time barrings to me a year or so ago, I should have print screened it as I’ve forgot what he said about it now. He might be kind enough to explain it again, although I do think he said he wasn’t sure if they would have had any impact if they were within the time limit.

Does make me laugh that these reports always miss out out the fact that CAS found no evidence ADUG funded the etihad deal. That was the reasoning for the champions league ban, yet it’s missed out every time.

 

[wahablue]

When all this crap is finally thrown out,I would love the Club to state that anymore slanderous innuendo will result in court proceedings,and finish this once and for all.

 

[CC1]

What was time barred was anything prior to the CAS-imposed cut-off date, which was 5 years prior to the filing of charges (which effectively was anything up to and including our 2013 year end accounts. Anything in the 2014 accounts and beyond was in scope.

On the basis that the PL haven't (as far as we know) charged us with anything as yet, and the assumption that a 6-year UK Statute of Limitations will apply, then if they charged us tomorrow, they couldn't legally look at anything that happened prior to 9th May 2016 in theory. So that might be the 2015 accounts and prior years (as May 2016 would fall within the 2015/16 financial year).

We also know from the CAS ruling that the CFCB case concerned the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships, which started prior to the cut-off date but continued beyond it and are still in place today. So if ADUG had been providing the money for these sponsorships during or after the 2013/14 financial year then they would have been able to look at that. However it was quite clear that it was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, not ADUG, who were supplying the funds to Etihad (not us, which was the point of some of the emails). The sponsorships were never owner funded so the time-barring claim is a complete red herring.

What also just occurred to me is what exactly the PL are looking at? Their financial rules are very different to UEFA's FFP rules and merely concern looking at losses, which are allowed to total £105m over 3 years. I think these rules only came into force in the 2015/16 season. The only thing I can think of that they're looking at is whether we would have broken their rules (not UEFA's) if sponsorship was artificially inflated. We know it wasn't so I struggle to see how they'll come up with any charges unless they have a smoking gun that UEFA/CAS didn't have.

It appears both sides are keeping this issue as private as possible. Question for PB - is it possible that it’s City that are the accusers - ie pursuing the PL & 9 clubs who wrote “the letters”, for damages as a result of their constant “accusations”

It just seems strange that there are no leaks from anyone associated with the PL - & it could be that it’s us that has some damaging accusations against the PL & some of its members - which they are defending.

Or is this wishful thinking?

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

What was time barred was anything prior to the CAS-imposed cut-off date, which was 5 years prior to the filing of charges (which effectively was anything up to and including our 2013 year end accounts. Anything in the 2014 accounts and beyond was in scope.

On the basis that the PL haven't (as far as we know) charged us with anything as yet, and the assumption that a 6-year UK Statute of Limitations will apply, then if they charged us tomorrow, they couldn't legally look at anything that happened prior to 9th May 2016 in theory. So that might be the 2015 accounts and prior years (as May 2016 would fall within the 2015/16 financial year).

We also know from the CAS ruling that the CFCB case concerned the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships, which started prior to the cut-off date but continued beyond it and are still in place today. So if ADUG had been providing the money for these sponsorships during or after the 2013/14 financial year then they would have been able to look at that. However it was quite clear that it was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, not ADUG, who were supplying the funds to Etihad (not us, which was the point of some of the emails). The sponsorships were never owner funded so the time-barring claim is a complete red herring.

What also just occurred to me is what exactly the PL are looking at? Their financial rules are very different to UEFA's FFP rules and merely concern looking at losses, which are allowed to total £105m over 3 years. I think these rules only came into force in the 2015/16 season. The only thing I can think of that they're looking at is whether we would have broken their rules (not UEFA's) if sponsorship was artificially inflated. We know it wasn't so I struggle to see how they'll come up with any charges unless they have a smoking gun that UEFA/CAS didn't have.

PB. Thanks, as usual a good read. Have you a view on the third party / illegal payments angle which also seemed to be a to be an element of the matters flying around on the internet last year?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It appears both sides are keeping this issue as private as possible. Question for PB - is it possible that it’s City that are the accusers - ie pursuing the PL & 9 clubs who wrote “the letters”, for damages as a result of their constant “accusations”

It just seems strange that there are no leaks from anyone associated with the PL - & it could be that it’s us that has some damaging accusations against the PL & some of its members - which they are defending.

Or is this wishful thinking?

I think that's wishful thinking to be honest.

 

[wahablue]

Good one. CCI