nmc
Well-Known Member
You got me bang to rights GT.
These "115 charges" are a total myth. As I've said, from what we know (which admittedly isn't complete by any means) there are three substantive charges.
That's it seemingly. All the rest either flow from that or come from each of these being split over multiple rules and multiple years. So, to take the Mancini contract as an example, it's almost inconceivable that it breached Rule x one year but not the next. Or that it breached Rule x but not Rule y.
- The Mancini Al Jazira contract, which is a total red herring and irrelevance.
- The image rights payments via a third party, which UEFA knew (& weren't bothered) about.
- Some of the sponsorships, probably Etisalat mainly, that was done ore-FFP and that we showed UEFA had been done properly in order to meet FFP when it was introduced.
The 115 charges was probably the brain child of the PL PR / Media department rather than the Legal Counsel. It’s all about headlines and sullying our name and reputation, I’m inclined to speculate. The number of charges is a ‘red herring’ and I don’t know what you think but I’m still thinking that to prove any of the charges the PL are gonna have to find some level of fraud or serious misrepresentation in our filed accounts - which would have serious implications for both our auditors and some of our sponsors (and maybe Silverlake too). As time goes by I feel less inclined that this will get resolved by compromise- and that there will be a judgment in favour of one party over the other. Do I think our owners will be disgraced and declared deliberately corrupt and guilty of serious fraud - no I don’t. Do I think the PL are a bunch of chancers egged on to make a catalogue of unsubstantiated accusations by a group of jealous American owners who have convinced themselves of our guilt without the facts to back up their accusations- probably; given the weakness of similar accusations presented at UEFA.
