Currently nobody, apart from the two parties to the case, "knows" exactly to what the charges refer to. As invested fans and some more experienced legal and accounts based professionals have commented, we can have a very good guess though as we have the point source of the investigation, which is the emails, as well as the distinct wording, in some parts, of the charges.
Despite and more likely because of the length of the investigation it would appear that no smoking gun evidence has been "revealed", although this is currently surmised, our position (fans) is that it cannot be found as it doesn't exist.
We also can refer to the charges made by UEFA and the CAS decision and judgement as a source of information as confirmation of the allegations of the alleged financial malfeasance.
It would seem that both the Etihad and Etisalat sponsorship deals are clearly the contractual arrangements the PL are alleging constitute those leading to a breach of the rule below.
1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs,
We know CAS heard the evidence regarding the Etihad deal from both parties, that evidence is laid out in the judgement. The plaintiffs argument, based solely on the emails, was we disguised sponsorship money as owner investment. That substantial parts of the money to fulfil the contract between City and Etihad was paid by ADUG, our owners company. We refuted that and offered substantial rebuttal evidence to those allegations with testimony under oath by City executives and testimony from Etihad executives. Also separate accountancy audited evidence by a third party. We all know CAS found in our favour and the judgement clearly states that their was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of conspired, sustained fraud between all these parties and that the panel was not satisfied of the truth of the allegations to a comfortable satisfaction.
It would therefore seem the PL want to test the same argument, allege the same conduct, this time breaking their rules of "submission of financial information" in relation to sponsorship revenue, in good faith (ie fraudulent accounts) with exactly the same evidence but in a UK court action on the balance of probability and expect a different outcome.
One could argue that position is reasonable if the original findings were legally perverse or subsequently found to be based on false or incomplete evidence where new cogent evidence has become available. Currently none of the above seems likely. Should we believe the PL position is therefore unreasonable? That of course will be the clubs' fans position.
The Etisalat issues are more complicated in that although evidence from both parties was heard at CAS, the emails versus our rebuttal evidence regarding the 2 x £15 million payments, no ruling by the panel was given, as the matters were deemed time barred by UEFAs own rules, once the panel had decided on the exact date from which to measure the required eligibility. That was neither date offered by UEFA or City but certainly a date which ruled the matters time barred. I think in addition CAS opined that UEFA offered no evidence in the matter despite Citys wealth of counter evidence.
Clearly as the matter has not been ruled on the PL may be seeking to include this as part of their "submission of financial information" in relation to sponsorship revenue breach.
It would seem that if so, they must establish, by submission of such cogent evidence, to allege fraudulent activity by City or its executives to bypass what would clearly be time barred by UK law under the limitations. If I'm correct in that assumption, we as fans are again wondering where is this evidence?
I've also been left wondering the fact that "fraud" is part of a criminal statute yet here it's attempting to be established in a civil case. When offering evidence to establish such "fraud" what burden of proof is required to establish the presence of the alleged "fraud" to negate the time barring issue?
I think it's clear our advocates will seek to have these alleged breaches time barred although it would appear not to be a thoroughly satisfactory outcome from a general publics opinion standpoint, if that were to be the case. Although I think we all know the great unwasheds opinion is already immovably formed thanks to the UK media and its red lackeys.
There are of course several other charges in relation to player and nanager remuneration causing fiduciary breaches but none seemingly as serious as the sponsorship issues in respect of creating false accounts and all of which UEFA were aware of but never challenged as a breach of FFP rules.
The judgement in this case is going to be an epic read. Let's hope like a good Thai massage it has a City happy ending.
