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

[CC1]

I think it us keeping it quiet is totally expected. That is the way the club tend to do things.

The fact the PL are keeping it quiet could be as a result of the way Uefa didn't, and got criticised for it by the club, the lawyers and even CAS, at one point even potentially risking their own case by showing they could well be biased. I would guess the PL are looking to avoid any such suggestions.

The PL area looking even more ridiculous than ever by dragging this out for so long. A reasonable case would have been brought to a conclusion months ago.

 

[Coatigan]

It will never stop.

Too much money at stake for the clubs we have disposed from their comfy cash cow competitions and free runs at players they where guaranteed to get.

It won't stop. Even after the cas verdict which was published and stated there was nothing to suggest wrong-doing, And parts of the previous were also time barred, the headlines they run with is that we were cleared because it was time barred. Which just implies guilt and getting off on a technicality. Which clearly was not the case.


What is also annoying is how quickly a reason to bring it back up can be found when needed. With this one, although the timing is obvious at the pressure end, I honestly thought there had been some new development worthy of putting in the papers.

Turns out, it came from a totally banal question on comparing Newcastle's ambition and wealth to ours, and then taking Pep's response out of context and out of timing to generate the MoS article, which then is echoed by others.

 

[KS55]

The PL area looking even more ridiculous than ever by dragging this out for so long. A reasonable case would have been brought to a conclusion months ago.

They have been told by the court to get on with it.
Getting to the stage now where we could claim the action is overbearing.

 

[Coatigan]

Depends what context this statement was made. Anyone would leave a company on principle if the company had lied to them and they considered it a betrayal of trust. Not read the story but they could ask the same question of all other profession football managers and get the same answer.

It is totally taken out of context, and also out if its own complete point.

Watch the full thing. Then watch how some tit jumps at the chance to put words into Pep's mouth for a possible headline.

They make it sound in the articles like Pep is reacting to new developments and risks in the ongoing case with the PL. The reality is, they are generating the impression there are new developments based on something Pep said on the past cas process.

 

[Coatigan]

The PL area looking even more ridiculous than ever by dragging this out for so long. A reasonable case would have been brought to a conclusion months ago.

Possibly, but we genuinely don't know what the case actually is. It is assumed, that they are looking at us for financial wrongdoings related to the der spiegel leaks, purely because thats what the headlines have assumed. But could be something totally different, heck could be the other way round and we have an equally lengthy case vs them, who can know.

 

[BolinCell]

It is totally taken out of context, and also out if its own complete point.

Watch the full thing. Then watch how some tit jumps at the chance to put words into Pep's mouth for a possible headline.

They make it sound in the articles like Pep is reacting to new developments and risks in the ongoing case with the PL. The reality is, they are generating the impression there are new developments based on something Pep said on the past cas process.

yeah, that's what I thought. Some journo trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[<.*.>]

They are so desperate hahaha

 

[Gray]

Why can other Clubs spend obcene amounts of money without anybody batting an eyelid?

 

[johnevans]

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.

As ever, excellent review/summary of the latest in the 'Get City' saga, from you and others such as 'Petrusha', 'KS55', 'Bobbyowen', 'Psychedelic Casual' and so on. Grateful thanks, all.

It's particularly useful in helping the rest of us bat away complaints from tiresome friends/others who support the teams behind this seemingly never-ending attempt to undermine our club (especially the Twin Red Filths at either end of the East Lancs..) despite all the evidence, freely available in the public domain, that demonstrates City has acted correctly.

One thing - looking again just now at the conversation in this thread from yesterday onwards, while I did so the i-Thingy device I had on 'random play' here picked out Don Maclean's beautiful 'Vincent'. In one of those odd moments of 'synchronicity', it occurred to me how apposite to this campaign against City are the final two lines:

'They did not listen, they're not listening still/ Perhaps they never will?'

Sums up the partial media and those numpty fans of other clubs in one.. they never learn..

 

[WRicko]

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.

Tell if I am confused or missing something ? Der speigal and the leaked emails where reported as showing that the some sponsors artificially inflated our sponsorship with money from our owner

Assuming the Premier League are looking at this again.

Hypothetically let’s say after extra work and many many years they find something UEFA did not.

So what how would they get round the non related party and not inflated by outside auditors.

I don’t think I will be able to explain this correctly and the example might not work but let’s say for example I sponsor AFC Fylde Match ball for 10 pound and I get my mates mates to chip in the rest I have saved x and Fylde have received more than they otherwise would have but the person who helped me find them is not related party to me or Fylde via international standards and the amount paid is still a normal amount that is comparable to other deals so Nothing could be done anyway ? So is this not the situation with City ?

Separate question will City ever go after anyone for false reporting on this issues or be more pro active on the PR and explaining everything if we are cleared again and it should all be over