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

Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
So the time barrings is just something picked out of the verdict by journalists to keep our name in the dirt despite all evidence within the time frame was legal and above aboard?

If the etisalat deal was within the time limit, they could have investigated it and found ADUG was funding that deal, although to me it’s very unlikely that they would be doing that considering we proved the Abu Dhabi Executive Council had been funding our main sponsorship deal. Why would ADUG be funding small deals like the etisalat deal yet not putting any money into the Etihad deal which is a lot more lucrative?
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
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
Click to expand...
100% true, I can see this getting very nasty in the next few years, but at least we have some support from the Barcodes, and their owner is not a man to be pissed about.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
The Mancini ones? Nothing to do with us, as petrusha and I explained above.
Click to expand...
Ta PB. I should have been clearer. Last year one of the ‘three strands‘ reported in some media said enticement payments to under 16s and payments to pressure young players to sign contracts was mentioned.

A real can of worms for every club I would imagine!
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
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
Click to expand...
What's the difference between a cash cow and an investment opportunity, ultimately?
 
What really makes me laugh about this is the books are what they are, it's why when supposed journalists were saying City had cooked the books and hidden where money had come from, our accountants will have basically told Uefa that they checked them and all was correct and as far as accountancy goes that is that, Unless I'm hugely mistaken Uefa/PL etc don't actually have the jurisdiction to say an accountancy firm haven't done due diligence etc correctly and recheck them, it has to be taken as gospel, the accountancy firms would never take the risk of hiding anything for any amount of 'backhanders' as they would end up not trading and potentially in prison for fraud which they just aren't going to do, no matter how much these idiots in the press want to believe.
 
What everybody needs to realise is that MOS have these articles on tap ready to go whenever the opportunity arises.

We had the ridiculous Nick Harris ‘survey’ during international break, now this nonsense in response to Peps presser on Friday.

No new evidence. Just regurgitated nonsense based on emails from over a decade ago. The idea that they engage with SME’s 3 1/2 years into an investigation is lunacy.

Like all the other articles, it won’t get another mention until the MOS think the timing is right to run again and again.
 
Do what the Dippers do, threaten and take legal action against any individual or media who claim as fact we have cheated. Once we start taking the first few to the cleaners, others will think twice.
But the mail should be banned from the ground years ago
 
BeerIsTheBest said:
Ta PB. I should have been clearer. Last year one of the ‘three strands‘ reported in some media said enticement payments to under 16s and payments to pressure young players to sign contracts was mentioned.

A real can of worms for every club I would imagine!
Click to expand...
Sorry. Yes, that would be a can of worms at most clubs I would also imagine.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
As usual, very informative and negates any fear we may have. Well done Prestwich Blue.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
I posted this last year. The image is now out of date but I’ve added the last two years at the end…


The majority of our squad has been bought during these years:

View attachment 42456

(Only Fernandinho and Foden were on the books before 2014-15)

TV revenue alone would have paid for our signings each season.

We had a net transfer spend of:
£65.05m in 2014-15
£126.68m in 2015-16
£161.69m in 2016-17
£203.54m in 2017-18
£18.89m in 2018-19

In 2019-20, our revenue was £474.35m, and the TV revenue alone was £168.3mm, with a net transfer expenditure of £79.67m.

In 2020-21, our revenue was £552m, and the TV revenue alone was £153.5m, with a net transfer expenditure of £37.03m.
Click to expand...
That’s a fantastic report PB. I cannot understand why the club doesn’t, issue these figures to help shut up everyone calling the club cheats, etc, etc. Looking at the figures shows me we have a wonderful setup at City and it must be just pure jealousy from our rivals.
With what all the club have done and will do with the CFG group, the amazing infrastructure around the area off the ground, a squad probably more valuable than most of the worlds top teams, sister clubs setup all around the world, surely this signifies that our club is the best run club in the world.
We are here to stay so I say “fuck you“ to all the bitter twats who are trying to destroy our fantastic club.
 
Stuuuuuu said:
What's the difference between a cash cow and an investment opportunity, ultimately?
Click to expand...
The only difference is that Sheikh Mansour has a long-term strategy and makes his money by growing the value of the club and its surrounds and other related deals he can make such as property investments in Manchester itself, tech investment at Manchester University (eg Graphene), the Arena etc. The club is the spark for everything else. This is what he is trying to do in New York City which is why the stadium delay there (hampered by a posionous media campaign from our commercial rivals) has been a big problem for CFG.
The US model is to take as much money as possible out of the football club itself as a short-term cash flow like MUFC and Arsenal. The Americans like the "get rich quick" strategy and don't give a shit about the local community or the good of English football. LFC and MUFC do the bare minimum they can get away with in their local communities. They are very good at PR spin...all froth and no substance.
 
applecentral said:
As usual, very informative and negates any fear we may have. Well done Prestwich Blue.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately such logic doesn’t always come into play. They may be happy to gamble and give us a charge which will drum up a huge media and public frenzy. Even if the charge got overturned at a later date then any reputational damage would remain. Ultimately that’s the goal of the clubs who are pushing this behind the scenes.
 
HelloCity said:
Unfortunately such logic doesn’t always come into play. They may be happy to gamble and give us a charge which will drum up a huge media and public frenzy. Even if the charge got overturned at a later date then any reputational damage would remain. Ultimately that’s the goal of the clubs who are pushing this behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

This.

Evidence of wrongdoing has always been of little to no consequence and it’s all about damage to our club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top