PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Skip Donoghue said:
Ahh OK but what do they have?

if the CAS hearing was a private matter between CITY and UEFA, what do the Premier League have?
as from what I can gather the findings are not in the public domain

And if that is so they have no evidence from City with regards the time barred issues and I recon that's what they want to see and that's what City want to show
Click to expand...
There was a massive report published a couple of week after the decision.
 
Keepingthefaithsince1976 said:
Etisalat are a mobile communications provider who sponsor City and have every right to pay City for that honour. Surely if Sheik Mansour wants to support Etisalat as a company from his homeland he has that right also. Why wouldn't he want to grow his homelands profile?
Click to expand...
That's not the issue. The question is whether he paid those funds as sponsorship, as a way of putting in investment. There is provision with FFP for an owner/investor to sponsor clubs however so it's not necessarily against the rules.
 
Jazzyblue said:
I've got loads of Red mates too - and family. Never once rubbed the Glazer situation in their faces. Always sympathised. Always acknowledged when they've done something I felt was admirable. Horrible behaviour on his part but always sad to lose a friend - I hope you guys patch it up and before long he'll be crying about something - the Super League, the Glazers, some scandal...and you can take the high ground.
Click to expand...
Nah..fuck him. The ****.


Only joking. I’m sure in time when tempers have calmed and emotions on both sides aren’t quite so raw we will get back to a kind of normal.
I tell you though, I won’t ever forget the gloating I’ve witnessed this week.
Piss-taking is one thing. We’ve done it about football for decades to each other. But gloating and flaunting disgusting racist tropes about our owners is something I may forgive in time, as emotions on both sides were frayed by then, but I won’t ever forget.
There’s a reckoning coming and when it arrives it will be most glorious.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That's not the issue. The question is whether he paid those funds as sponsorship, as a way of putting in investment. There is provision with FFP for an owner/investor to sponsor clubs however so it's not necessarily against the rules.
Click to expand...
OK. Excuse me for taking up your time as your clearly more intelligent & knowledgeable than me in this stuff. But if he did... he can...so what's the issue? The amount?

Edit; I'm generally interested not trying to be condescending.
 
Last edited:
I think you're both probably right - handed over, but not reviewed/considered because it was time-barred.
I think the club would have wanted to be obviously cooperative with CAS, but the first legal move came down to whether it was barred.

The fine for not cooperating was probably not something worth arguing. The leaky UEFA committee had already been raised with CAS, but you have to fine people for not cooperating, or the next time will see no cooperation at all.
 
Skip Donoghue said:
Ahh OK but what do they have?

if the CAS hearing was a private matter between CITY and UEFA, what do the Premier League have?
as from what I can gather the findings are not in the public domain

And if that is so they have no evidence from City with regards the time barred issues and I recon that's what they want to see and that's what City want to show
Click to expand...

Do you know for a fact that the case, findings and process are a private matter? Asking, rather than arguing.
 
Bez said:
If there is no right of appeal and the PL rules state that they can impose unlimited fines, what is stopping them fining City 1 trillion pounds?
Click to expand...
The latest Premier League handbook I found on line starts with:

Premier League Chairmen’s Charter
Season 2020/21
Foreword
The Chairmen’s Charter is a statement of our commitment and aim to run Premier League football to the highest possible standards in a professional manner and with the utmost integrity. With that aim we, the Chairmen of the Clubs in membership of the Premier League, are determined:
• To conduct our respective Club’s dealings with the utmost good faith and honesty.
• At all times to maintain a Rule book which is comprehensive, relevant and up-to-date.
• To adopt disciplinary procedures which are professional, fair and objective.
• To submit to penalties which are fair and realistic.
• To secure the monitoring of and compliance with the Rules at all times.

That's why I think the amout of money involved is interesting.
How much money can be translated to how much differece it made.
And how much difference it made must, for professional, fair and objective procedures must translate to what a fair and realistic punishment is.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I think that UEFA looked at it, as part of their original investigation after Der Spiegel published it. But once CAS decided what the relevant cut-off date was, I doubt it was examined as part of that hearing. Some of it would have been earlier Etihad payments. so there should be no issue there. Another time-barred sponsorship was one from Etisalat, where Der Spiegel showed this had apparently been paid by ADUG iirc. But we know how selective DS were and I definitely recall seeing something about Etisalat later repaying ADUG.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there an issue with emails being cobbled together for different years.
 
F-Lee-Bailey-OJ-Simpson-attorneys-verdict-Oct-3-1995.jpg

what law firm do these work for, miracle workers
 
Thought it was irrelevant if sheikh Mansour funded the sponsor deals as long as they were deemed fair value
 

Manchester_lalala said:
I hope it is. Letermes comments yesterday point towards this, imo. He said they had hard evidence against City, which I presume is the Etisalat time barrings.
Click to expand...
Not sure how relevant the Etisalat sponsorship will be given that it was about ten to thirteen years ago.
Was the sponsorship amount was ever disclosed?
Also my recollection is that the payments were in accordance with the rules.
 
Keepingthefaithsince1976 said:
OK. Excuse me for taking up your time as your clearly more intelligent & knowledgeable than me in this stuff. But if he did... he can...so what's the issue? The amount?
Click to expand...
If he was the business owner, then it could potentially be a related party transaction and subject to the market value test that would have been applicable under FFP at the time. I don't think it was for a huge amount so I'm not too bothered about that side of things.

I can't remember the exact dates of that arrangement but it might have been just before FFP came in (so no rules against it other than a general requirement to declare any Related Party transactions.) We didn't declare it so clearly thought it wasn't an RPT. It's possible that FFP came in and we felt that it was a problem, and Etisalat therefore reimbursed ADUG.
 
Maybe the PL should have instructed someone to read the Bluemoon forum. They could have saved a lot of time and decided “Fuck it, what’s the point.”

One thing I know about lawyers is that they will tell you what you want to hear especially if there is a chance they can make a lot of money. Bird and Bird have strung this along for 4 years and despite everything that went on at CAS they have told the PL they have a case. Admittedly the PL have not been helped by pressure from the red tops.

Not worried in the slightest
 
eastmanc said:
Wasn't there an issue with emails being cobbled together for different years.
Click to expand...
Out of the millions of emails hacked Der Spiegel highlighted seven. Five were cynically taken out of context and the other two were spliced together with malicious intent to change their meaning and significance completely. At CAS UEFA's 'evidence' consisted of photocopies of Der Spiegel's articles on the subject.

Hence CAS's mention of 'no evidence' no fewer than 11 times in their summary judgement.
 
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