Think you're wrong here boss. CAS said if we had disclosed to UEFA what we did go CAS then the investigation wouldn't have got past the first chamber. We stopped cooperation with UEFA cos there were lots of leaks particularly from Tariq Panja and Rory Smith (I think). We even asked for the case to be thrown out because of this. No doubt there is a mountain of paper work to work through but that doesn't imply guiltCAS relied very heavily on witness statements but on the flip UEFAs expert witness was never afforded access to the full records . I can’t remember the quote but it was something like he had seen the tip-off the ice berg but not what went on below.
CAS weren’t in a position to test the witness statements because UEFA didnt have evidence to back up the emails although when the accounts were particularly made available the amounts and timing of payments was in accord with the second email.
People are reading too much into the CAS judgment. For 1 it’s in accord with Swiss Law and 2 it, ad it’s something I keep repeating UEFA didn’t pursue to the end the fact that some documents were never disclosed they in effect gave up on that approach had they focused on that it’s highly likely that CAS would have come to the same conclusion as UEFA.
I just can’t see how City will even remotely be able to defend full non disclosure( if that’s what happened) when there was a HC ruling on the matter and indeed a PL arbitration panel has likewise confirmed contractual obligations
When the PL and City disclose in full the evidence they will rely on at the tribunal other than the hearing where that evidence will be examined it’s unlikely that even if it goes to a further hearing that either party will be allowed to reduce any further info.
I agree. The number of charges from the PL is due to sheer frustration with City. The PL wanted the world on a stick and City no doubt took advice and said we don't need to give you that information. The PL were hoping for the world on a stick so they could do a fishing expedition. They got so pissed off so they threw the kitchen sink at City and said 'Fuck you!' in a really loud growly voice followed by maniacal laughter...'that'll teach those nouveau riche upstarts' etc....followed by more maniacal laughter...The charges are vast 130? But according to @projectriver & @Prestwich_Blue those charges fall under 4/5 headings. So why is it taking so long? Lawyers will want it to drag on for financial gain. City will want each claim contested and then wait for the league to respond.
So what is it? Trumped up charges with no substance or 4/5 main charges? The irrefutable evidence should be able to squash the majority of claims levied against us.
4 years and over a hundred charges! City must have been keeping a record every time the premier asked for more and specifically what area they wanted to constest. City say we have nothing further to give you as it doesn’t exist but we have irrefutable proof that all was above board.
The amount of time this is going to take would led me to believe that it’s about defamation and fuck all else. The financial charges are a side show.
Almost like, the premier got sick of the non co operation and thought fuck you. We will charge you will everything.
This may help you budThe charges are vast 130? But according to @projectriver & @Prestwich_Blue those charges fall under 4/5 headings. So why is it taking so long? Lawyers will want it to drag on for financial gain. City will want each claim contested and then wait for the league to respond.
So what is it? Trumped up charges with no substance or 4/5 main charges? The irrefutable evidence should be able to squash the majority of claims levied against us.
4 years and over a hundred charges! City must have been keeping a record every time the premier asked for more and specifically what area they wanted to constest. City say we have nothing further to give you as it doesn’t exist but we have irrefutable proof that all was above board.
The amount of time this is going to take would led me to believe that it’s about defamation and fuck all else. The financial charges are a side show.
Almost like, the premier got sick of the non co operation and thought fuck you. We will charge you will everything.
Reckon our KC is a bigger and better twat than theirs…I think that as a subsection of a profession, other than possibly surgeons, KCs will have a higher proportion of sociopaths than any other. Plenty are sound, many are not.
I guess it is rooted in being at the top of a profession that requires industrial levels of confidence and self-belief where winning and losing are a direct consequence of your professional output. That landscape is bound to bring forth more than its fair share of twats.
The biggest and the best, hopefully!Reckon our KC is a bigger and better twat than theirs…
There is a UKSox expected to land within the next year, which brings the UK more in line with USSoxI thought Sox was US entities only? And other countries that adopted similar like Japan, but not UK?
Indeed - Almost every single big financial scandal that we've heard of would involve one of the Big 4 as auditors.Don't panic mate, those are isolated and incredibly rare incidents across multiple countries.
BDO aren't 1 company in essence, they have offices across the globe that act as completely separate businesses under the same brand name so an error by BDO Spain has no bearing on BDO UK, USA etc. In fact, each firm will also have separate teams specialising in different types of audit as well from FS Audit to Pharmaceuticals and everything in between.
Every single accounting firm on the planet including the Big 4 will have instances of getting things wrong or making mistakes, it's very rare though, BDO included so don't read anything into those headlines at all
This is a very interesting post and I suspect your opinion "that the charges are the punishment" may well hit a very large nail right on the head.Interesting take. I am the opposite. Going into CAS I was very apprehensive because I had the feeling that there was a groundswell of opinion that regardless of the rights and wrongs of what we'd done, we needed to be banned simply because of the Football Leaks revelations. Everything was 'fresh' in that moment and the time lapse between UEFA's announcement and the CAS case was months.
Things are hugely different this time round and the major difference is time. We're looking at a process that is going to take upwards of 18 months, so by the time we're at something approaching a decision from the panel, we'll be well into 2025 if not 2026. Glazers will be gone. FSG will be gone. The landscape in the league will be totally different. The power dynamics also totally different.
You also have to look at the charges themselves. Whilst UEFA pointedly accused City of inflating sponsorships, which in many respects COULD have been argued just with the Football Leaks documents, PL charges are of false accounting. FL even on their face, can only 'prove' things from the relevant years of the leaked documents. The PL is relying on a discovery process where City will hand over documents which I presume they think will make us more guilty. That's naive beyond some belief. The PL have to prove false accounting all by themselves. The discovery process won't help them IMO.
I've seen the commentary around a potential whistleblower, and it feels remarkably far fetched to me. A whistleblower, at best can testify to what they saw, or were asked to do. But that is one person. On the other side City will be able to wheel out dozens of people, and dozens of documents and filings which attest to the veracity of their accounts. It is an enormous ask of any 'independent panel' to start accusing high ranking board members and executives all of lying based on the word of what would surely be a disgruntled employee. But in any case, I think it is unlikely that a whistleblower even exists, because if they'd had one, this wouldn't have taken 4 years to get here, and it would be all over the media that the league had a whistleblower.
Finally, there is the actual reasoning for why we've been charged now and in the manner that we have. My personal opinion is that the charges are the punishment. The idea here is simply to inflict maximum reputational damage onto the club. I reckon after 4 years they've realised "we'll never be able to prove this case, but if we bin it we'll forever be panned for not trying" so they've gone with the big long charge sheet knowing that it is now the panel's job to find us innocent but the smears will stick in the meantime.
The politicking at play is on another level to anything we've seen since Abu Dhabi came in.
gill n parry for meAlex Ferguson & Jurgen Klopp would be my guess.
"I'm BDO till I die, I'm BDO till I die. I know I am, I'm sure I am, I'm BDO till I die."Not BDO, I’ll hazard.
I don’t think city fans think anything is up with Bayern or other sponsorships or at least not seriously so and all of what to say is true. It’s also true that it makes sense for example Etihad to pay more to sponsor City than other clubs be it due similar synergies as with Bayern and there sponsors. That being said there is an assumption that city sponsors are related or at least acting as related parties and over paying yet there is less crossover (no common share ownership involved in Etihad etc and City) however there is with Bayern and it’s key sponsors yet it’s not even questioned in the media or elsewhere and I don’t believe but correct me if I am wrong declared as such or been valued by anyone UEFA etc to check it’s fair value. I think the same would apply to stoke bet 365 Leicester King Power etc
Also some of the allegations may be time barred.I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:
That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.
- Mancini's contract,
- Sponsorships,
- Image rights.
Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.
If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).
Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.
But in the end, it comes down to these three things.
- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?
I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.
So you don't believe that your major sponsors - who are also shareholders - don't get to influence anything? Because major donors to, say, political parties, only do it out of altruistic motives and don't expect anything back in return of course.I am not a Manchester City expert. But the first difference is that Bayern is owned to 75 % with a majority by their own fans whereas the companies that have shares are stock traded companies with minority shares - no possibility to really influence something. The companies are totally independent from the others. Bayern wanted to get some money to build the stadium and Campus and therefore sold some of their shares to companies that since ages are sponsors. And for the companies it is a good and solid investment.
Again - there is no related parties - no majority shares. There is no reason to check that because of the different construction. It would be totally different if this would be majority shares.
But I know that other German clubs - like Leipzig and Wolfsburg get checked thourougly like City is. But we talk about different owner constructions... And when I see Salzburg and Leipzig and how they trade a lot of their players I am suspicious, too.
Also some of the allegations may be time barred.
In addition, it's hard to believe that there wouldn't have been constant dialogue between City and both the footballing and tax authorities around what was/wasn't permissible to outsource to Fordham.I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:
That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.
- Mancini's contract,
- Sponsorships,
- Image rights.
Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.
If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).
Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.
But in the end, it comes down to these three things.
- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?
I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.
I doubt it. For one thing there's no limitation clause in the PL rules. And, for another, as petrusha explained, if there's a potential suspicion of criminality, any limitation probably isn't valid anyway.Also some of the allegations may be time barred.
Genuine question…..why City of all clubs ? Do we have a rich history of cooking the books, cheating & general underhandedness ? Do our owners have that kind of reputation? And I think you’re massively underestimating what relegation would mean, the Viking would end up being Alfie not ErlI find it incredibly hard to believe that City of all clubs haven’t cheated over the past 14 or so years. It’s almost idiotic to believe otherwise.
Ironically, I think relegation would be a brilliant thing for the club. We’ve got to used to winning back to back titles and spending the casual 100 million. Maybe we need some slumber to remind newer fans of the troubles we had 40 years ago. Yeah, Pep (despite all comments) would probably leave, players and other staff following soon after.
But the Premier League, however vile, racist, ‘turn a blind eye and pretend it never happened’ they are. They will need to set some sort of premise. That most likely being a multi-million quid fine.
But, I reckon relegation would be great. No more slapping up the lennons and rags, but watching the viking get absolutely clattered every game. It’ll be great fun.
CTID x
It is hard to believe. But the law, tax regulations and financial standards can be very widely interpreted, which is why we have things like tax tribunals.In addition, it's hard to believe that there wouldn't have been constant dialogue between City and both the footballing and tax authorities around what was/wasn't permissible to outsource to Fordham.
Er - Peter Swales?Genuine question…..why City of all clubs ? Do we have a rich history of cooking the books, cheating & general underhandedness ? Do our owners have that kind of reputation?