PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[M18CTID]

Great OP. On the emails, whilst it’s the same source as in the Pinto/Der Spiegel leaked emails, there were quite a few that were released post the CAS verdict.

Only one was released post-CAS from what I recall. It was a couple of weeks or so after the verdict and smacked of one last desperate throw of the dice by that bellend Christoph Winterbach at Der Spiegel. IIRC, @petrusha re-tweeted him, calling out his pathetic straw-clutching. It begs the question as to why they waited until then to release it. If it was a genuine "smoking gun" then there's no chance they would've hung onto it for so long. IMO it's rather simple - they only did it because they couldn't accept the CAS result like a grown-up would so instead tried to undermine CAS.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

This thread has now entered a whole new parallel universe.

So the club should contact the police / HMRC and ask them to conduct a thorough investigation into our finances on the basis that we are completely innocent and have nothing to hide so that it can be shown that the PL are acting in bad faith? Alternatively, we as fans should demand such an investigation.

Summer 2025 or whenever the judgement will be handed down can't come soon enough.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

In terms of contracts, don't they have to be in accordance with UK Law?

EG: "In our street racing contract, you're limited to speeds of 100mph, but we clocked you at 110mph on Hyde Road, so you're in breach."

If the police picked up on this, could the street racer in breach not say it's none of their business, it's a private contractual dispute?

I looked at the CPS definition for Malicious reporting, which made me look again at several of the carefully crafted statements by the PL, which verge on accusations of "fraud" (I'm not saying you're guilty of arson, but I saw you set fire to your own house).

Where's the line drawn between essentially an inference of fraud in a contract between parties, & the CPS definition Malicious reporting, in the public interest (the courts deemed the issue could be reported on), leading to wasting police time & reputational damage?

The scenarios I put forward are done so for clarification by BM legal/finance experts (of which I'm not one). I'm merely a fan who's sick & tired of the bullshit & just wants to get back to the football.

In truth I have an element of legal & finance training as part of my job which gives me a VERY light laymans working knowledge.

When situations like this arise, like many City fans struggling to get their heads around this, I take my head out of the weeds, stand back & take a global over all view of what's happening.

Cutting to the chase, FFP/PSR is a bullshit witch hunt specifically crafted to stop Manchester City Football Club, & to protect the G14 & Spuds from ever being challenged. That's the short & tall of it.

Sometimes we've gotta stop getting dragged into football's silly legal/contractual/accounting games & call out FFP/PSR for the protectionist con it is.

Most opposition fans couldn't care less about the detailed minutiae contained in this thread, because in their minds we've been correctly accused of cheating, dominated football unfairly & only won what we have because we're crooks, & there's little any of us can say which'll change their minds.

Ultimately my suggestion of calling in the authorities to look at our business because of all the spurious public allegations made, which are causing huge reputational damage & hurt to our fans, can be characterised by the bolded type in your quote above.

That's all it takes to switch the spotlight of guilt by Manchester City, to the feeling of a witch hunt by the PL.

If the UK courts deemed the PL tribunal could be reported on because its in the public interest, surely City calling in the Feds to see if we have a criminal case to answer, would settle this farce legally, which would be in the public interest & considered a fair conclusion?

Yes, it is a protectionist con and all the arguments were chronicled in great detail on here before UEFA FFP was introduced in 11/12. Back then there was even some media acknowledgement that it would suit the "big boys" best.

But the club chose to work within the rules and not to challenge the legalities of FFP as a construct. Hence, we took the pinch in the 2014 settlement rather than shouting from the rooftops about the protectionist con.

 

[WRicko]

I get that the FOA would not announce it but I do not see how they can wait till after the panel decides. Plus investigations eventually become public given that most of the information is in the public domain or could be got by turning up at the Etihad we would know about the later. So think no investigation is happening because nothing ring happened. Would also add that I assume the prem would refer us if they actually thought we had done what they are alleging. Plus I suspect the likes of Harris would have asked the Premier league the police or city about this and if they got an odd answer i.e. a non denial denial or an affirmative of a investigation they would have printed it

 

[M18CTID]

Am I right in thinking that there would have been no need for any “disguised owner investment” under the current rules which allow a certain level of owner investment?

So In other words, the rules that we are supposed to have been cheating to get around no longer apply.

United are taking in investment from Scruffy Jim to allow them to spend more than would have been allowed, so are they not doing exactly what we were not allowed to and are accused of committing fraud to achieve?

Funny how these rules were so important but aren’t now!

I'm not sure whether that's correct but it could be. What I would say is that there was no need for disguised owner investment even back then because the sponsors in question could source the money from central funds (which is definitely what happened with Etihad) rather than asking Mansour to cough it up out of his own pocket. In other words, we'd have to be more stupid and amateurish than Peter Swales to have used disguised owner investment when the option was there to use a perfectly legitimate avenue.

 

[jrb]

So, as it stands, not much to worry about apart from what the PL might have on City that City don’t know about? It could be nothing. It could be something. City won’t know until the hearing. And what then? Do City have the time and the right to look at it, and to address it, or does the panel just accept it as it’s put before them by the PL?

 

[meltonblue]

Only one was released post-CAS from what I recall. It was a couple of weeks or so after the verdict and smacked of one last desperate throw of the dice by that bellend Christoph Winterbach at Der Spiegel. IIRC, @petrusha re-tweeted him, calling out his pathetic straw-clutching.

No, there were a few a couple of years after. It’s when the Mancini contract was fully leaked too.

There is slightly more for us to explain than was available to CAS.

 

[Blue_eyes]

HMRC wouldn't comment in public on any investigation they had carried out (unless it lead to a prosecution)

Interesting, could this be our irrefutable evidence perhaps, a clean bill of health from HMRC.

Their investigation not being in the public domain because there is nothing about us to prosecute.

Would this clear us of any fraud related accusations, or would the pl refer to their own "rules" still, and if so,would that situation be legal.

 

[M18CTID]

No, there were a few a couple of years after. It’s when the Mancini contract was fully leaked too.

I always thought the Mancini one has been in the public domain since the original Der Spiegel articles in 2018? Is that not correct?

 

[meltonblue]

I always thought the Mancini one has been in the public domain since the original Der Spiegel articles in 2018? Is that not correct?

The allegation was, not the (alleged) full contract.

I think the bigger issue that came out was the invoices though, as in who was actually paying him for the Al Jazira contract and negotiating about it.

 

[Chris in London]

In terms of contracts, don't they have to be in accordance with UK Law?

EG: "In our street racing contract, you're limited to speeds of 100mph, but we clocked you at 110mph on Hyde Road, so you're in breach."

If the police picked up on this, could the street racer in breach not say it's none of their business, it's a private contractual dispute?

I looked at the CPS definition for Malicious reporting, which made me look again at several of the carefully crafted statements by the PL, which verge on accusations of "fraud" (I'm not saying you're guilty of arson, but I saw you set fire to your own house).

Where's the line drawn between essentially an inference of fraud in a contract between parties, & the CPS definition Malicious reporting, in the public interest (the courts deemed the issue could be reported on), leading to wasting police time & reputational damage?

The scenarios I put forward are done so for clarification by BM legal/finance experts (of which I'm not one). I'm merely a fan who's sick & tired of the bullshit & just wants to get back to the football.

In truth I have an element of legal & finance training as part of my job which gives me a VERY light laymans working knowledge.

When situations like this arise, like many City fans struggling to get their heads around this, I take my head out of the weeds, stand back & take a global over all view of what's happening.

Cutting to the chase, FFP/PSR is a bullshit witch hunt specifically crafted to stop Manchester City Football Club, & to protect the G14 & Spuds from ever being challenged. That's the short & tall of it.

Sometimes we've gotta stop getting dragged into football's silly legal/contractual/accounting games & call out FFP/PSR for the protectionist con it is.

Most opposition fans couldn't care less about the detailed minutiae contained in this thread, because in their minds we've been correctly accused of cheating, dominated football unfairly & only won what we have because we're crooks, & there's little any of us can say which'll change their minds.

Ultimately my suggestion of calling in the authorities to look at our business because of all the spurious public allegations made, which are causing huge reputational damage & hurt to our fans, can be characterised by the bolded type in your quote above.

That's all it takes to switch the spotlight of guilt by Manchester City, to the feeling of a witch hunt by the PL.

If the UK courts deemed the PL tribunal could be reported on because its in the public interest, surely City calling in the Feds to see if we have a criminal case to answer, would settle this farce legally, which would be in the public interest & considered a fair conclusion?

I suppose it's a matter of judgment, and mine is that the cub would not be interested in giving Plod free access to our books in the hope of getting an all-clear, nor (at least at this stage) would Plod be interested in doing so. If the charges are proved my guess is the SFO would facing mounting public pressure to launch an inquiry of their own, and would do, but I still doubt that even in the event of the PL charges being successful there would actually be any criminal charges brought.

Others may see it differently, but I don't.

 

[Berts Neck]

Chris,

A wonderful succint post.Just a few questions.

1. Is this a summary on publically available information or from another source ? If from another source I appreciate the fact you will not disclose that !! A few other well respected posters like PB have made similar comments, so it perhaps would be important in such a clarification to explain how (if you can) you came to this conclusion.
2.The potential allegation of fraud.Not a lawyer, but a friend of mine was accused of fraud.Later exonerated.This involved an unexpected attendance by the police who confiscated his PCs laptops and all mobile phones in the house.I would imagine if the SFO had any inkling of fraud they would surely by now have acted in a similar fashion ?
3. The Roberto payments.Would Roberto have to be involved in any discussion in this matter, and if he or others decline,especially as they live abroad, does that not make the matter that much more complicated in terms of proof ? Just wondering if the PL have approached RM and he has said nothing to do with me.I would imagine his input would be critical in any charges against City.

Once again thank you.I am absolutely not questioning your veracity, but point one in particular would be useful to have an answer to !!

Bert

Moved from the 115 thread!!!!!

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Thanks, but it was more the "our owners" comment. Thought I had missed something ....

It was the baby of @Prestwich_Blue when he linked to documents filed in a New York court about the Open Skies legal case between the Big 3 American airlines v the Arab airlines from UAE and Qatar. Colin's point was that the documents were in the public domain and proved ADEC funded Etihad to the tune of £100mil. The link to this has been taken down but I have a 400 page PDF if you want it.

But the court also has another document. I went down the rabbit hole about a year ago and dug up loads of documents relating to the New York case including an Etihad legal submission to the court in 2015 denying categorically that the Abu Dhabi government funded the City sponsorship.

My view is this all a red herring and for a number of reasons is irrelevant now as far is this case is concerned.

 

[M18CTID]

The allegation was, not the (alleged) full contract.

I think the bigger issue that came out was the invoices though, as in who was actually paying him for the Al Jazira contract and negotiating about it.

Have you got a link to an article when the news of that first broke?

 

[Dribble]

Yes, it is a protectionist con and all the arguments were chronicled in great detail on here before UEFA FFP was introduced in 11/12. Back then there was even some media acknowledgement that it would suit the "big boys" best.

But the club chose to work within the rules and not to challenge the legalities of FFP as a construct. Hence, we took the pinch in the 2014 settlement rather than shouting from the rooftops about the protectionist con.

But in 2014 Khaldoon continued that if they came at us again, rather than pay a £30m fine, we'd spend £30m assembling the finest legal team in the world.

The Red Top Mafia & Spuds just keep coming at us. If this thread has shown me anything, it's in the big scheme of things, normal business practices are being hyped up to Enron levels of corporate fraud & criminality.

UEFA & the PL just won't leave us alone to play football. Even Aguero was accosted during an interview last week, where he emphatically told the journalist every trophy he gained at City was won fair & Square on the pitch.

At what point is enough, enough?

 

[meltonblue]

Have you got a link to an article when the news of that first broke?

The article where they included all the docs for the first time was this one -

Manchester City's Cozy Ties to Abu Dhabi: Sponsorship Money – Paid for by the State

Since the sanctions imposed on Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, links between English football clubs and authoritarian states have been in the spotlight. Internal documents show that Manchester City has received funding from a government agency in Abu Dhabi.

www.spiegel.de

 

[halfcenturyup]

It was the baby of @Prestwich_Blue when he linked to documents filed in a New York court about the Open Skies legal case between the Big 3 American Airlines v the bad Arab airlines from UAE and Qatar. Colin's point was that the documents were in the public domain and proved ADEC funded Etihad to the tune of £100mil.

I went down the rabbit hole about a year ago and dug up loads of documents relating to the New York case including an Etihad legal submission to the court in 2015 denying categorically that the Abu Dhabi government funded the City sponsorship.

Presumably the government was completely funding Etihad at that point? Maybe they meant the sponsorship specifically, but, like I say, I didnt follow that at all. I would be interested if you could add more, or give me some links to the court documentation?

 

[Berts Neck]

Would you mind re posting this in the main thread? Happy to answer, but just want to keep as much of the discussion as possible in the one thread

Have done so, but please clarify what you wish posters to discuss on this thread as clearly there is some crossover.

 

[meltonblue]

I suppose it's a matter of judgment, and mine is that the cub would not be interested in giving Plod free access to our books in the hope of getting an all-clear, nor (at least at this stage) would Plod be interested in doing so. If the charges are proved my guess is the SFO would facing mounting public pressure to launch an inquiry of their own, and would do, but I still doubt that even in the event of the PL charges being successful there would actually be any criminal charges brought.

Others may see it differently, but I don't.

Depending what they find us guilty of, I don’t think it would show that much anyway, it’d need access to the books of the sponsors and ADUG more than us. I’ve always thought any potential criminal act (for fraud at least) would potentially be with them.

 

[M18CTID]

The article where they included all the docs for the first time was this one -

Manchester City's Cozy Ties to Abu Dhabi: Sponsorship Money – Paid for by the State

Since the sanctions imposed on Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, links between English football clubs and authoritarian states have been in the spotlight. Internal documents show that Manchester City has received funding from a government agency in Abu Dhabi.

www.spiegel.de

Thanks. Is that the first time the Mancini allegations surfaced though? Could've sworn DS mentioned that before 2022.

In any case, the article itself smacks of a hatchet job and is full of innuendo, just like their original "revelations". I should've stopped reading at this:

"Manchester City, represented by almost a dozen top lawyers, appealed the ruling at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). UEFA lost the case, despite the existence of clear evidence for the questionable business practices employed by Manchester City." That bolded bit is nothing short of a disgrace and totally ignores the CAS findings
Then there is this when talking about the PL investigation:

"According to information obtained by DER SPIEGEL, that investigation is focusing on three primary allegations.

1. Underage players were allegedly pressured to sign contracts with Manchester City through monetary payments, in violation of the rules.
2. Club sponsors in Abu Dhabi are suspected of having provided only a portion of their payments to the club themselves, with the majority apparently coming from Sheikh Mansour himself.
3. Roberto Mancini, who is currently the trainer for the Italian national team but who spent the years from 2009 to 2013 as the trainer for ManCity, is thought to have received a significant portion of his compensation secretly by way of a fictitious consultancy contract."

Now I could be wrong but I'm sure the first one isn't a part of the PL investigation, yet DS reckons it is and is implying that they've been told this. Either they're lying or someone is leaking details of the investigation to DS. Not totally beyond the realms of possibility but I'm calling bullshit on that.