PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Rory Bluelow]

I’m so fucking bored and drained of reading this nonsense I can’t bring myself to care about it anymore. It’ll take years anyway. What’ll be will be

True…and it will be…fuck all.

 

[Roy Munson]

Again we are soft and will do fuck all. Again it’s us fans that have to deal with all the shit and defend us!

What are you having to 'deal with' exactly? A few gobshite Pub Rags saying mean things to you?

Call them cunts and tell them to shut the fuck up.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Lawton looked pretty dumb there, but I’d love to watch a debate between @projectriver and some of the media goons like Delaney, Harris, Panja. Imagine how thick they would look in the face of someone with real knowledge in this area.

They aren't going to do that.

Akin to bin men advising Christian Barnard on heart surgery.

 

[theevilweasel]

“Sportswashing” is IMO a load of shite. The people who complain about it (the media) are the main ones who push the narrative that it exists. Here’s a thought…if you don’t like these regimes using sport to clean their image…stop fucking promoting it in your papers. Using us as an example, if they hadn’t been calling us “Oil Club City”, “Abu Dhabi FC” or “State-owned” for the past decade, nobody would give a toss who we were owned by. People like Harris, Delaney etc have built a career off City and our owners apparent sportswashing. Mansour isn’t benefitting from this, they are. Sportswashing is news not because these guys have a high moral compass. It’s news because it makes them money. What heroes they are.

100%. I've said for years sportswashing is a word that makes journalists not something that covers up misdemeanours of countries!

 

[BringBackSwales]

“Sportswashing” is IMO a load of shite. The people who complain about it (the media) are the main ones who push the narrative that it exists. Here’s a thought…if you don’t like these regimes using sport to clean their image…stop fucking promoting it in your papers. Using us as an example, if they hadn’t been calling us “Oil Club City”, “Abu Dhabi FC” or “State-owned” for the past decade, nobody would give a toss who we were owned by. People like Harris, Delaney etc have built a career off City and our owners apparent sportswashing. Mansour isn’t benefitting from this, they are. Sportswashing is news not because these guys have a high moral compass. It’s news because it makes them money. What heroes they are.

To be honest talking about sports washing, Harris and Delooney look like a pair of fucking tramps who could do with a damn good fucking wash

 

[Silva2021]

The Premier league have to have evidence for each of the 115 charges they have brought against City.
City do not have to disprove anything.
The burden of proof in this country is on the accuser and not the defendant.

Unfortunately, that is not case. The burden of proof on this could well be on City (I think the difference comes if the accusation becomes fraud which it could well be). It is not always the accuser who has to prove guilt.

My point is that the people on the independent panel, whilst not being unjust or corrupt they still have a slight side.

This is not a court and the panel are not there free of charge (paid by PL).

In work I have experience of this, one where I am on the board and we refer matters to an independent panel that we present to a long with the other party.

I have no doubt the integrity of the parties to make the correct decision.

However, there are small differences in us using our independent party to a truly independent party, not saying it would change the verdict but they are little differences you know from that situation.

 

[abu13]

I still struggle with how a club with zero debt can have its name dragged through the mud, while another club with a billion of debt can sign another player for £60 million with no mention of finances.

And how can a new owner suddenly walk through the door and clear a billion of debt and then be allowed to pump in even more money than their competitors just because they are new owners.

 

[jrb]

An outcome is yet to be reached regarding these charges, but Martyn Ziegler and Matt Lawton of The Times have posted a detailed update after a ‘leaked report revealed that a mystery figure from the United Arab Emirates paid Manchester City £30m’.

The two £15m payments – which were made in 2012 and 2013 – were submitted to ‘cover sums that were supposed to have come from one of their main sponsors’. This is according to an as yet unpublished UEFA report, which has ‘been obtained by the makers of a YouTube film about Man City’s finances’. The report adds.

‘The adjudicatory committee of Uefa’s Club Financial Control Board’s (CFCB) report concludes that the payments, which were supposed to come from the UAE’s majority state-owned telecommunications company Etisalat, were actually “disguised equity funding”. It alleges that funding came from City’s owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), the investment group headed by Abu Dhabi’s vice-president, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan

‘The report says that during a Uefa disciplinary hearing, City’s lawyer named the person who paid the money as “Jaber Mohamed” and stated that he was “a person in the business of providing financial and brokering services to commercial entities in the UAE”. The report adds that “…the obvious question, not answered at any point in the club’s submission and evidence, [is] why either Etisalat or ADUG should have needed any financial assistance from a broker in paying the Etisalat sponsorship liabilities.”

‘City’s case was that Etisalat repaid the money to their owners in 2015, but that was not accepted by the Uefa adjudicatory committee. It imposed a two-year European ban on City in 2019 only for it to be overturned a year later by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which ruled that the £30 million payments could not be dealt with as rule breaches because they were time-barred. Two of the three CAS panel members also cleared City of receiving disguised equity funding via the Etihad airline, saying that claim “remains unsubstantiated”.

‘Significantly however, the Etisalat payments can be dealt with by the Premier League among its charges as, unlike Uefa, it has no time restrictions. City have declined to comment on the latest allegations.’

It is also revealed that the ‘makers of the film have kept their identities secret’. While they insist that they are ‘not funded by any Middle East state or any other agency’, Man City ‘suspect there may be geopolitical motives behind the production’ amid the ‘political tensions between the UAE and Qatar’.

 

[1Basti]

It doesn`t matter if it`s true or not only the narrative matters. After the CAS judgement City missed out on lawfare against media organisations/journalists/social media influencer. If there are no consquences for lying then the narrative will never change. We should have learned from Dominion. Now it`s perhaps to late.

 

[Jack Hackett]

First off, I’ve always made it clear in all my posts whilst being on this forum that I’ve never supported FFP because it doesn’t allow clubs to break into the top 6 cartel. Why say shouldn’t a Newcastle invest to challenge! For me the PL should have greater competition so that say any of 12 clubs could win the PL.

I have not read the Times article nor seen Piers Morgan and I’ve no idea how valid the charges are against City or what evidence there is to support them.

The point I want to make is that it seems inevitable to me that legislation will at some stage be passed to create an independent regulator, something always resisted by the FA because they’ve always wanted understandably to retain self regulation.

Whether that’s a good thing or not, I don’t know but I do think the privileged position the FA and PL will come to an end. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the charges levelled by the PL against City results in their loss of self regulation?

 

[TheThirdDeano]

I’m the shadowy figure from The UAE who gave city 30 million.

 

[Chappie]

First off, I’ve always made it clear in all my posts whilst being on this forum that I’ve never supported FFP because it doesn’t allow clubs to break into the top 6 cartel. Why say shouldn’t a Newcastle invest to challenge! For me the PL should have greater competition so that say any of 12 clubs could win the PL.

I have not read the Times article nor seen Piers Morgan and I’ve no idea how valid the charges are against City or what evidence there is to support them.

The point I want to make is that it seems inevitable to me that legislation will at some stage be passed to create an independent regulator, something always resisted by the FA because they’ve always wanted understandably to retain self regulation.

Whether that’s a good thing or not, I don’t know but I do think the privileged position the FA and PL will come to an end. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the charges levelled by the PL against City results in their loss of self regulation?

And isn't it ironic that we are in favour of regulation and your club opposed it

 

[Jack Hackett]

And isn't it ironic that we are in favour of regulation and your club opposed it

I wasn’t aware of that but maybe it’s not surprising that Arsenal would back the FA and PL in keeping self regulation and probably not surprising that City would prefer an independent regulator given I imagine relations with the PL are probably not that cordial at the moment. But that’s me speculating.

 

[OrigamiNinja]

First off, I’ve always made it clear in all my posts whilst being on this forum that I’ve never supported FFP because it doesn’t allow clubs to break into the top 6 cartel. Why say shouldn’t a Newcastle invest to challenge! For me the PL should have greater competition so that say any of 12 clubs could win the PL.

I have not read the Times article nor seen Piers Morgan and I’ve no idea how valid the charges are against City or what evidence there is to support them.

The point I want to make is that it seems inevitable to me that legislation will at some stage be passed to create an independent regulator, something always resisted by the FA because they’ve always wanted understandably to retain self regulation.

Whether that’s a good thing or not, I don’t know but I do think the privileged position the FA and PL will come to an end. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the charges levelled by the PL against City results in their loss of self regulation?

The ironic thing is that big, bad, dodgy, cheating, Sportswashing, Abu Dhabi FC are the only top club that wants independent regulation. It’s almost like we don’t trust the PL and more importantly those other clubs pulling the strings for their own self-interest.

 

[jrb]

I’m the shadowy figure from The UAE who gave city 30 million.

I gave Arsenal £15mill so they could put a third and winning bid in for Rice.

That aside, I fucking hate football journalists. They have made a living out of lying, being two faced bastards, and have shame whatsoever.

 

[1961_vintage]

I wasn’t aware of that

One PL club in favour. Can you guess which one?

 

[Jack Hackett]

The ironic thing is that big, bad, dodgy, cheating, Sportswashing, Abu Dhabi FC are the only top club that wants independent regulation. It’s almost like we don’t trust the PL and more importantly those other clubs pulling the strings for their own self-interest.

I’m inclined to agree with that

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Unfortunately, that is not case. The burden of proof on this could well be on City (I think the difference comes if the accusation becomes fraud which it could well be). It is not always the accuser who has to prove guilt.
.

With respect, I'm not sure that's accurate. (Sure you're about to put me in my place now!!)

 

[Jack Hackett]

One PL club in favour. Can you guess which one?

It’s already been stated that City is alone in that respect

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Unfortunately, that is not case. The burden of proof on this could well be on City (I think the difference comes if the accusation becomes fraud which it could well be). It is not always the accuser who has to prove guilt.

My point is that the people on the independent panel, whilst not being unjust or corrupt they still have a slight side.

This is not a court and the panel are not there free of charge (paid by PL).

In work I have experience of this, one where I am on the board and we refer matters to an independent panel that we present to a long with the other party.

I have no doubt the integrity of the parties to make the correct decision.

However, there are small differences in us using our independent party to a truly independent party, not saying it would change the verdict but they are little differences you know from that situation.

The PL will have to provide evidence to support their allegations. They can't just pluck them out of thin air. They are serious allegations.