PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[johnevans]

That's right. Some guy called Mohammed. Shouldn't be too difficult to track down in the UAE.

For sure, that's got the wrong'un cornered..

 

[M18CTID]

Exactly right, and not just The Mail, although it is the most repulsive. It knows its target audience and how to rile them up. The front pages are full of spite about Prince Harry, ’lefties’, the Unions, ’remoaners’ etc, and the back pages casually target City as a natural born enemy of United and Liverpool, the clubs with the most fans. Get them clicking away and you’re quids in.

I have to say though that the reactions of many of those fans, whilst unquestionably having their strings pulled by elements of the media, isn’t hard to understand. If it were say Arsenal who had had their emails hacked and who had been the ones apparently fronting up the cash on behalf of a sponsor, I too would be jumping up and down wanting answers. It looks like disguised equity funding and tbh I’m still not sure how it isn’t. I thought I had a semblance of a grasp on it on here a couple of weeks ago when someone said we got the Abu Dhabi Executive Authority (central funds) to pony up the shortfall, but now the suggestion is that ADUG paid it themselves. The matter was time barred at CAS, so we didn’t actually get a verdict on City’s explanation, but it may not be time barred this time (cos I’m pretty sure that 6 year English law limitation will not apply) around.

Piers Moron and those backing that You Tube non-shock revelation, may be utter cnuts with an agenda, but I think casually dismissing the issue, as many on here seem to be doing, on the grounds that CAS looked at it previously, is not a mistake that City will make in front of the Tribunal

As @halfcenturyup said, you’re getting mixed up between Etihad and Etisalat. All this latest kerfuffle is to do with the Etisalat deal - nobody, not even City, ever claimed that the payments on that particular deal came from central funds and City have been up front about where it came from initially (and later paid back by Etisalat). You’re right that it wasn’t ruled on by CAS so it’s potentially a matter of concern but no-one can claim it was disguised equity funding as we’ve not made any attempt to disguise it from what I can see. I do worry a little that the independent panel might flag it up and rule against us but on the other hand you have David Dein saying that he doesn’t believe it’s that much of a smoking gun.

 

[give it to gordon]

If it ever meets.

We're getting on for six months now and yet we still have no panel, no idea what its remit is, or its powers.

I remember something or other about City taking legal action over the legitimacy of this Star Chamber, Kangaroo Court, Ducking Stool thingamajig.

It's all gone very quiet on that front.

Agree I dont understand how you can have a discipline procedure without the right to appeal. That in itself leads you to think kangaroo court.
It also undermines the appeal proceedings as it does really have to follow any rules, just the made up rules they made.

Football doesn't live in the real world from the top to grassroots its badly run.

Going of topic I was banned for 4 yrs without a hearing just got a letter from kent fa lol.

Football doesn't seem to have to follow any sensible laws or rules. It's a basic common right to be able to appeal a decision. Yet in the pl you cant. You can see why City want an independent committee.

 

[waspish]

Would be interesting to know what the steps were from the emails being stolen, to the cut and paste , publication by der speigel I.e who was pulling the strings , might make an interesting story.

If your a hacker you ain’t going to just look for Man City emails unless someone had paid him to do it

 

[ZanteWeatherman]

You can always get @twosips to invite you on to his YouTube, saying that he's a bit of an A- lister nowadays

Or Big Steve's youtube channel, proper top lad.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Exactly.

Been saying this for years, that there's a story (or even two or three..) to be uncovered and told about who's been driving this vendetta against City for the past decade and a half.

All it would take is for one of the lard-arse UK sports journalists, helped by an expert finance journalist or other, to either get off that lard-arse or else to grow the cojones (..or even both..) to do the hard yards and investigate it all, then bring into public discussion and awareness.

I hasten to add, I won't be holding my breath while they decide to do so..

The other story is how Uefa used stolen emails to attack a club because of the likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Liverpool and United couldn’t compete with how well City are run. Barring Madrid everyone of these clubs are in sort of turmoil financially or looking for new owners. These said clubs then went on to try and destroy the football pyramid in European club football but City are the bad guys,

 

[halfcenturyup]

Apologies, I conflated the two. Etisalat is the one I’m talking about currently. Leaving the time barring issue to one side, how is ADUG effectively paying their sponsorship money for them for 2 years, not disguised equity funding?

It's not equity funding because they got the money back. It's short-term financing if it's anything. In effect, selling a receivable at the worst.

As I understand it, Etisalat couldn't pay the amounts because the renewal contract signature was delayed while some issues were ironed out. Until that happened, the parties were working under an MOU. Services were performed under the MOU and Etisalat's liability under the MOU recorded. Invoices were issued.

I imagine the club had budgeted the cash from the renewed contract and needed it to meet payments. So, until Etisalat could pay under a signed contract, ADUG advanced the money. When the contract was signed, Etisalat paid the sponsorship money to ADUG. In fact, when the contract was signed, it stipulated that money should be paid to ADUG.

There are some questions around all this, I only have the information from CAS, but in my opinion, it is in no way equity funding.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

Absolutely this
I notice that the WhatsApp wankers Delooney, Harris and McGeehan have been unusually silent about it all as well
Especially as they are usually all over anything slagging us like a tramp on chips
Wasn’t the latter even featured in the video?
If he’s involved then doubt it would be Qatar. That was a deliberate attempt at deflection/distraction imo by the Times, to try and hide the true identities of the culprits
Strange indeed the WhatsApp group silence. Almost like they are all collectively trying not to draw attention to themselves all of a sudden….

Tebas, as well, hasn’t stuck his fat fuck face into it either.

Perhaps they have a whiff of something on the wind

 

[M18CTID]

Apologies, I conflated the two. Etisalat is the one I’m talking about currently. Leaving the time barring issue to one side, how is ADUG effectively paying their sponsorship money for them for 2 years, not disguised equity funding?

It was paid back by Etisalat though. Also, it could be that Etisalat is a related party? I’m not sure we’ve ever had a definitive answer on that but if they are then surely it doesn’t get off the ground anyway. Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me that UEFA and the PL only rule if a company is a related party or not when it suits them. In this case, it doesn’t suit the PL for Etisalat to be a related party.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

As @halfcenturyup said, you’re getting mixed up between Etihad and Etisalat. All this latest kerfuffle is to do with the Etisalat deal - nobody, not even City, ever claimed that the payments on that particular deal came from central funds and City have been up front about where it came from initially (and later paid back by Etisalat). You’re right that it wasn’t ruled on by CAS so it’s potentially a matter of concern but no-one can claim it was disguised equity funding as we’ve not made any attempt to disguise it from what I can see. I do worry a little that the independent panel might flag it up and rule against us but on the other hand you have David Dein saying that he doesn’t believe it’s that much of a smoking gun.

Cheers, that certainly helps clarify Dein’s comments for me. So the actual issue with Etisalat then is that we simply paid the money ourselves, but didn’t hide that fact? A breach of FFP then, but not false accounting?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Agree I dont understand how you can have a discipline procedure without the right to appeal. That in itself leads you to think kangaroo court.
It also undermines the appeal proceedings as it does really have to follow any rules, just the made up rules they made.

Football doesn't live in the real world from the top to grassroots its badly run.

Going of topic I was banned for 4 yrs without a hearing just got a letter from kent fa lol.

Football doesn't seem to have to follow any sensible laws or rules. It's a basic common right to be able to appeal a decision. Yet in the pl you cant. You can see why City want an independent committee.

I may be well off the mark here, but the PL rules give a right of appeal to an appeals panel after the disciplinary committee. The problem is the appeals panel is also appointed by the PL. But after that there is another avenue to an actual independent tribunal, the members of which are selected one by each party, and the two choices choosing a third. The possibility of appeal to the tribunal is pretty narrow but I would be surprised if our guys aren't anticipating that and looking at ways to get to the tribunal.

Our lawyers on here can tell me where I am wrong on this I suppose. They are never slow to tell me what I have wrong. :)

 

[M18CTID]

Cheers, that certainly helps clarify Dein’s comments for me. So the actual issue with Etisalat then is that we simply paid the money ourselves, but didn’t hide that fact? A breach of FFP then, but not false accounting?

That’s the way I’m reading it but I’m no expert on this. Maybe @Prestwich_Blue can clarify?
Of course, the independent panel might see it differently so I wouldn’t say we’re totally out of the woods on that one. Although City being up front about it gives me encouragement that the club aren’t that worried about this particular line of investigation.

 

[Claytop]

We don’t actually know how advanced the case is do we? A panel could have been chosen but it won’t be public knowledge? Or it shouldn’t be, are we just assuming we’ll get leaks of all the major parts of it…

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

It's not equity funding because they got the money back. It's short-term financing if it's anything. In effect, selling a receivable at the worst.

As I understand it, Etisalat couldn't pay the amounts because the renewal contract signature was delayed while some issues were ironed out. Until that happened, the parties were working under an MOU. Services were performed under the MOU and Etisalat's liability under the MOU recorded. Invoices were issued.

I imagine the club had budgeted the cash from the renewed contract and needed it to meet payments. So, until Etisalat could pay under a signed contract, ADUG advanced the money. When the contract was signed, Etisalat paid the sponsorship money to ADUG. In fact, when the contract was signed, it stipulated that money should be paid to ADUG.

There are some questions around all this, I only have the information from CAS, but in my opinion, it is in no way equity funding.

Excellent, cheers for that. First time I’ve had a proper handle on it as a result! This stuff’s a feckin’ nightmare for the financially challenged…..

 

[SilverFox2]

Tebas, as well, hasn’t stuck his fat fuck face into it either.

Perhaps they have a whiff of something on the wind

I think Mr Tebas is still smarting from RM losing a 400 milion dollar claim against one of ADs Investment Companies that our Mr K is CEO of.

 

[halfcenturyup]

That’s the way I’m reading it but I’m no expert on this. Maybe @Prestwich_Blue can clarify?
Of course, the independent panel might see it differently so I wouldn’t say we’re totally out of the woods on that one. Although City being up front about it gives me encouragement that the club aren’t that worried about this particular line of investigation.

Management have had 4 years to get their Etisalat ducks in a row. I am sure they have any explanations and documentation tied down.

 

[cheekybids]

No Yves Leterme former Chief Investigator of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body he was the man that City accused of leaking confidential information during his investigation. He also accidentally cocked-up the investigation into PSG leaving it too late to charge them. He's also got a dodgy history as a disgraced Belgian PM. City went to CAS before the main case to get the investigation thrown out as it breached UEFA rules however, CAS couldn't rule. It was seen though as a tactic to highlight the issue later, in fact CAS agreed that their had been breaches and sided with City's reasons for non-cooperation and reduced the e30M fine to e10M couldnt throw it out as City had clearly not cooperated

Yeah I remember him & how he was well entrenched into Qatari jizz.

I was thinking Parry quickly moving onto the EFL to continue his Scouse ops & ensure they don’t ask for too much from the prem.

 

[cheekybids]

That's right. Some guy called Mohammed. Shouldn't be too difficult to track down in the UAE.

I knew a Mohammed from Pakistan, I wondered if they’ve looked there. Jeez it’s like they aren’t even trying to find him……….

 

[OB1]

What permantly pisses me off is the very one-sided coverage this gets and the farce of it all.

Whatever City are or are not guilty of; all our owner has ultimately done is invest in his club for success.

Has anyone added up what the sums invovled in the alleged breaches amounts to and compared it to what has been invested overall and where City's turnover stands now?

I expect the amounts are not particulalry significant through that window. And why does the media not question more what right / expertise the football authorities have to set limits on investment. What is a fair amount? Haven't city proved beyond question that their investment has been finacially sound?

City don't lead the pack just because of significant investment, they do so because they are so well managed.

IF City did bend the rules, other complain it's not fair and it's wrong because they got an advantge others didn't because they stuck to the rules but did they really? Have other big clubs activities been looked into cloesly enough?

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Surely, you can’t be serious about including Spurs in the Sky Six…you mean Sky Five…unless you include the best team in the world, it can’t be six ;)

by including Spurs he was putting all the bitter and jealous cunts into the same bracket.