PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

View attachment 102278

This explains what happened in June 2023, when the charges were refined & released.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...m-sponsorship-payment-mystery-figure-UAE.html

View attachment 102280

Go to the following link & read sections 11, 12 and 13. The Etisalat & Etihad sponsorships were investigated in 2014, but UEFA contended their findings wouldn't count toward our sanctions & fines.

"While these sponsorships had been investigated by the Investigatory Chamber and mentioned in the Referral Decision, they were not directly considered by the Adjudicatory Chamber in the Appealed Decision."

However, with the 2018 Der Spiegel publication, UEFA reopened the Etisalat investigation because of what they believed was the missing smoking gun.

If you then go to Section A: The Appellant, & read from 13 - 30, it explains how CAS saw this different to UEFA.

"D. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Etisalat and Etihad met their sponsorship obligations in full in return for valuable rights and that the sponsorship payments were not funded by ADUG"

https://jusmundi.com/en/document/de...l-uefa-arbitral-award-monday-13th-july-2020-1

I meant a source for Etisalat being "investigated' in 2014 to the extent of looking at how it was funded. Iirc, it was only in relation to its third party nature, and its fair value. I don't remember any discussion of its funding until the 2018 investigation.

 

[halfcenturyup]

They all thought it was the smoking gun, until City provided the full email transcripts which added the missing context. Once this was qualified by Etisalat, Etihad, City finance chiefs & our auditors, CAS ruled we had nothing to answer & overturned our ban.

However they found us guilty for non-compliance saying if we'd cooperated, this case could've been settled at the UEFA stage.

However City countered that in 2014, UEFA used our submissions to change their FFP rules which led to us being sanctioned & heavily fined, hence the non-cooperation this time around.

And are you sure about your last paragraph. The decision not to cooperate with the UEFA investigation was due to the leaks which had previously been referred to CAS, iirc.

 

[CC1]

Yes. Structural & academy funding don't affect FFP. It's just player transfer fees, wages, & the sponsorship, TV, gate receipts & merchandising monies that are used to offset these costs that's subject to FFP.

Essentially anything related to a club strengthening on the pitch to challenge the elite G14 clubs is affected by FFP, just as intended.

Thanks for that. so - our makeover at the Etihad will have no impact on player purchase? I guess the issue is that a club has to either borrow it & have interest & payback issues or a generous owner who will pay without charging interest on his investment. He will possibly want the money back though - which means they have to use their income on repayment rather than the team.? (Unlike our owner )

 

[Dribble]

I meant a source for Etisalat being "investigated' in 2014 to the extent of looking at how it was funded. Iirc, it was only in relation to its third party nature, and its fair value. I don't remember any discussion of its funding until the 2018 investigation.

The investigation uncovered Jaber Mohammed's involvement in 2014, & although it raised suspicions, after their investigstions, UEFA dropped it from their final verdict.

It was only exhumed in 2018 because of the stolen emails, so it wasn't one of the major aspects contributing to our guilty verdict in 2014.

Essentially UEFA asked why we were receiving funds for Etisalat sponsorship from Jaber Mohammed? I think our line was it was paid on behalf of Etisalat, who reimbursed Mohammed in 2015.

When the accounts were audited, the invoice was for Etisalat & the funds received went into Etisalat's account on our ledgers. This was also audited, & crossed referenced with bank transfer receipts & statements.

It was viewed as "unusual", but fine in law & under UEFA rules, until the Der Spiegel articles which suggested the payments were paid to Jaber Mohammed by ADUG who then paid City, so it wasn't Etisalat sponsorship fees, it was ADUG equity funding disguised as Etisalat sponsorship money.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The investigation uncovered Jaber Mohammed's involvement in 2014, & although it raised suspicions, after their investigstions, UEFA dropped it from their final verdict.

It was only exhumed in 2018 because of the stolen emails, so it wasn't one of the major aspects contributing to our guilty verdict in 2014.

Essentially UEFA asked why we were receiving funds for Etisalat sponsorship from Jaber Mohammed? I think our line was it was paid on behalf of Etisalat, who reimbursed Mohammed in 2015.

When the accounts were audited, the invoice was for Etisalat & the funds received went into Etisalat's account on our ledgers. This was also audited, & crossed referenced with bank transfer receipts & statements.

It was viewed as "unusual", but fine in law & under UEFA rules, until the Der Spiegel articles which suggested the payments were paid to Jaber Mohammed by ADUG, so were not Etisalat sponsorship fees, they were equity funding disguised as sponsorship money.

Not trying to be pedantic, but do you have a source for the part where UEFA were aware of the funding of the Etisalat sponsorship at the time of the 2014 settlement?

And, just as a reference, the club wasn't found guilty in 2014. They settled without admitting any guilt.

 

[WRicko]

What we weren't charged with in 2014 was part of the investigation in 2014 anyway.

With the Der Spiegel publications, the investigations were exhumed, after UEFA said they were satisfied in 2014. The new email revelations were seen to provide fresh evidence of guilt on our part.

UEFA charge & find us guilty. We appeal to CAS who throw the case out, bar the non-compliance with the investigation aspect, but now it seems the PL has picked up the baton & decided to run with "The PL submits all PL club's accounts to UEFA, so if City lied to UEFA, defacto to they lied to the PL, which is a serious breach".

I'm finding it difficult to get past double jeopardy with this. To my knowledge the PL isn't presenting anything new that we haven't already covered with UEFA & CAS. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

I am not on about double jeopardy as such more the allegations being so serious other people should be investigating or they are complete rubbish and everyone knows it

 

[WRicko]

That won’t happen. It might be used faut de mieux to get an appeal to a court.

Why won’t it be used when this seems to be what is going on I don’t see how the panel are on position to rule on most of the charges

 

[Dribble]

Thanks for that. so - our makeover at the Etihad will have no impact on player purchase? I guess the issue is that a club has to either borrow it & have interest & payback issues or a generous owner who will pay without charging interest on his investment. He will possibly want the money back though - which means they have to use their income on repayment rather than the team.? (Unlike our owner )

No. The improvements to the stadium, the surrounding area (Coop Live), & the CFA & Academy players are outside FFP considerations.

We can raise money by borrowing, or by selling shares, both of which we've done.



Sheikh Mansour has previously converted loans in to share equity, & he's now a member of the richest family on the planet!

Yup! Bloomberg have just named the Al Nayan family of Manchester City Football Club's Sheikh Mansour as the richest on earth, worth an estimated $1.5trn!

I doubt another billion quid invested in City's infrastructure, Academy & the surrounding area of the stadium is gonna have him waking up in a sweat at night.

Just look how proud & animated Khaldoon was when handing out the medals at the CWC? I don't think I've ever seen him so chipper!

Regardless of the spectacle the Saudis put on, it was to ultimately award & honour an Abu Dhabi owned team, just crowned the best in England, Europe & now the world.

We shouldn't underestimate the seismic effect this win will have within the competing Gulf States.

https://www.financialexpress.com/li...e-world-in-2023-know-their-net-worth/3340070/

 

[Dribble]

I am not on about double jeopardy as such more the allegations being so serious other people should be investigating or they are complete rubbish and everyone knows it

The best way I can put it is imagine you're a member of a private members club, & they've a rule saying you have to wash up your cup after use, or you could be fined, suspended or both.

You claim you washed the cup, they point to an unwashed cup. They find you guilty & ban you. You appeal to the private members club association who on appeal are told by witnesses, they saw you wash the cup.

Your ban is lifted, buy you're fined for not producing the witnesses earlier. Now this maybe a big deal down at the local CONservative club, but in law even if you didn't wash the cup, it's not a criminal offence & you've broken no laws.

Essentially, the members club are bursting a blood vessel as if the unwashed cup is the end of the world, but in reality it's not.

You know the charges were trumped up by rivals vying with you for top spot at the club. They can't beat you fair & square for the election of Chairman, so they've created onerous rules in the hope of tripping you up.

Bit of a mad analogy, but it's the simplest way I can think of explaining it. If these charges were anywhere near as serious as is being made out, where is the SFO, FCA, HMRC & the local plod? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[Dribble]

And are you sure about your last paragraph. The decision not to cooperate with the UEFA investigation was due to the leaks which had previously been referred to CAS, iirc.

Yes. In March 2014 we submitted our interim accounts to UEFA, who passed them.

They were told we'd submit our full audited accounts 4 weeks later, but in the interim period of seeing our accounts submission, UEFA shifted the monitoring period back by 12 months, meaning we went from being £3m inside FFP, to £3m outside, hence the sanctions & fines.

This is why Khaldoon was apoplectic with rage in 2014, & said we'd "take the pinch" this time, but if they came after us again, rather than pay a £30m fine, we'd instead spend £30m hiring the world's best lawyers & splatter UEFA in court.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yes. In March 2014 we submitted our interim accounts to UEFA, who passed them.

They were told we'd submit our full audited accounts 4 weeks later, but in the interim period of seeing our accounts submission, UEFA shifted the monitoring period back by 12 months, meaning we went from being £3m inside FFP, to £3m outside, hence the sanctions & fines.

This is why Khaldoon was apoplectic with rage in 2014, & said we'd "take the pinch" this time, but if they came after us again, rather than pay a £30m fine, we'd instead spend £30m hiring the world's best lawyers & splatter UEFA in court.

Yes, I understand and agree with all that (mostly), but the CAS award refers to the leaks as the reason for the non-compliance. Anything else is just conjecture imho.

 

[Dribble]

Not trying to be pedantic, but do you have a source for the part where UEFA were aware of the funding of the Etisalat sponsorship at the time of the 2014 settlement?

And, just as a reference, the club wasn't found guilty in 2014. They settled without admitting any guilt.

I posted it earlier in this thread. I'll find it again & repost it.

Essentially UEFA had our audited accounts, bank transfers & statement referring to Jaber Mohammed paying funds to City for the Etisalat sponsorship. This money was repaid by Etisalat to Mohammed, which was all checked & fine.

However in one of the stolen emails, one of our finance guys mentioned if "We could get his Highness" (or a moniker to that effect) to make the payment for Etisalat so we had the money banked.

This is what triggered the 2018 investigation. UEFA were of the thinking ADUG paid Mohammed, he paid City & Etisalat repaid Mohammed in 2015 to tie up any loose ends.

It's the email comment from the City finance fella UEFA were hanging their case on. However, unless they got ADUG, Mohammed's & Etisalat's audited accounts & banks statements which is out of their jurisdiction, it's essentially our explanation vs their accusations.

As per the CAS findings I posted earlier, UEFA didn't prove its case, & the burden of proof was on them, not City.

 

[Dribble]

Yes, I understand and agree with all that (mostly), but the CAS award refers to the leaks as the reason for the non-compliance. Anything else is just conjecture imho.

These leaks were in relation to the 2018 case. Khaldoon already made it clear after our 2014 experience that City wouldn't trip itself up by being so open with UEFA again.

Not only did we complain about leaks & press briefings of a supposedly confidential process, we cited this & 2014 as the reasons why we weren't giving UEFA full access to our financials.

We told them make your claims, & we'll provide the relevant evidence. UEFA were essentially on a fishing exercise, as they had nothing outside the "his Highness or whatever" comment in the stolen email.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I posted it earlier in this thread. I'll find it again & repost it.

Essentially UEFA had our audited accounts, bank transfers & statement referring to Jaber Mohammed paying funds to City for the Etisalat sponsorship. This money was repaid by Etisalat to Mohammed, which was all checked & fine.

However in one of the stolen emails, one of our finance guys mentioned if "We could get his Highness" (or a moniker to that effect) to make the payment for Etisalat so we had the money banked.

This is what triggered the 2018 investigation. UEFA were of the thinking ADUG paid Mohammed, he paid City & Etisalat repaid Mohammed in 2015 to tie up any loose ends.

It's the email comment from the City finance fella UEFA were hanging their case on. However, unless they got ADUG, Mohammed's & Etisalat's audited accounts & banks statements which is out of their jurisdiction, it's essentially our explanation vs their accusations.

As per the CAS findings I posted earlier, UEFA didn't prove its case, & the burden of proof was on them, not City.

Maybe we should leave it here as we seem to be going round in circles, but just for clarity's sake, I understand the timing of everything that happened, with one exception: that UEFA knew of the Etisalat funding issue in 2014. I think they only learned of it in the 2018 DS leaks, so if you have a source I would like to see it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

These leaks were in relation to the 2018 case. Khaldoon already made it clear after our 2014 experience that City wouldn't trip itself up by being so open with UEFA again.

Not only did we complain about leaks & press briefings of a supposedly confidential process, we cited this & 2014 as the reasons why we weren't giving UEFA full access to our financials.

We told them make your claims, & we'll provide the relevant evidence. UEFA were essentially on a fishing exercise, as they had nothing outside the "his Highness or whatever" comment in the stolen email.

Where did the club cite the 2014 settlement as a reason for non-compliance in 2018/9?

Sorry for pushing this, but I think it's important to separate documented fact from conjecture on the history of all of this (meaning the PL investigation and subsequent arbitration).

 

[Dodge]

The best way I can put it is imagine you're a member of a private members club, & they've a rule saying you have to wash up your cup after use, or you could be fined, suspended or both.

You claim you washed the cup, they point to an unwashed cup. They find you guilty & ban you. You appeal to the private members club association who on appeal are told by witnesses, they saw you wash the cup.

Your ban is lifted, buy you're fined for not producing the witnesses earlier. Now this maybe a big deal down at the local CONservative club, but in law even if you didn't wash the cup, it's not a criminal offence & you've broken no laws.

Essentially, the members club are bursting a blood vessel as if the unwashed cup is the end of the world, but in reality it's not.

You know the charges were trumped up by rivals vying with you for top spot at the club. They can't beat you fair & square for the election of Chairman, so they've created onerous rules in the hope of tripping you up.

Bit of a mad analogy, but it's the simplest way I can think of explaining it. If these charges were anywhere near as serious as is being made out, where is the SFO, FCA, HMRC & the local plod? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

There's no way City would commit to washing all our cups after use.

We'd be doing it all day.

 

[Dribble]

Where did the club cite the 2014 settlement as a reason for non-compliance in 2018/9?

Sorry for pushing this, but I think it's important to separate documented fact from conjecture on the history of all of this (meaning the PL investigation and subsequent arbitration).

You have to knit what Khaldoon said in 2014, & what he said in 2018 together. The distrust bred in 2014 led to the other, with the added issue of damaging briefings against us to the press. This is where the non-compliance originated from.

We played fair in 2014, but UEFA were determined to stiff us. It was all a game of move & counter move, as the G14/UEFA created rules to halt our progress, whilst we were trying to find legal ways to traverse them.

In respect to Jaber Mohammed, it was evident UEFA were aware of all this in 2014. All the financials at the time showed everything necessary.

What changed it all was the email suggesting ADUG could have paid Jaber to pay City, albeit they have no audit trail beyond Jaber to City twice, & Etisalat to Jaber once in 2015.

UEFA connected the dots & made an inference, but without any firm evidence beyond Jaber Mohammed's two £15m transfers to City, & Etisalat's repayment to Mohammed to back it up. But they still found us guilty.

 

[KS55]

Why won’t it be used when this seems to be what is going on I don’t see how the panel are on position to rule on most of the charges

1. Because this is arbitration with a panel selected according to the PL rules.
Whatever the implications of their findings, they will be ruling based on the evidence before them not on possible implications of their decision, which may be a factor in the level of proof required.
2. We will concentrate on the evidence and keep our council on any misgivings we have so as not to muddy the waters.
As I suggested, such a tactic would be a Hail Mary best left until we need it.

 

[Iassel]

What would happen if Pannick said the tribunal or panel etc are not qualified to find on the matters as they relate to accusations of fraud and time barring and double jeopardy ?

The club tried that back in 2020 - there were 2x arbitration panels to try and move forward, City then challenged in commercial court that the PL had jurisdiction to try any allegations (and were also biased) but this was thrown out by the Commercial Court and passed back to the PL with City ordered to produce all requested documents.

 

[CC1]

No. The improvements to the stadium, the surrounding area (Coop Live), & the CFA & Academy players are outside FFP considerations.

We can raise money by borrowing, or by selling shares, both of which we've done.

View attachment 102289

Sheikh Mansour has previously converted loans in to share equity, & he's now a member of the richest family on the planet!

Yup! Bloomberg have just named the Al Nayan family of Manchester City Football Club's Sheikh Mansour as the richest on earth, worth an estimated $1.5trn!

I doubt another billion quid invested in City's infrastructure, Academy & the surrounding area of the stadium is gonna have him waking up in a sweat at night.

Just look how proud & animated Khaldoon was when handing out the medals at the CWC? I don't think I've ever seen him so chipper!

Regardless of the spectacle the Saudis put on, it was to ultimately award & honour an Abu Dhabi owned team, just crowned the best in England, Europe & now the world.

We shouldn't underestimate the seismic effect this win will have within the competing Gulf States.

https://www.financialexpress.com/li...e-world-in-2023-know-their-net-worth/3340070/

Thanks again. If Sir Jim gives rags 2OO million of his own money to improve OT, I’m sure he’ll want it paying back over time, which leaves less for football issues?