PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

wolviedinho said:
Why would the club choose this course of action?
Click to expand...

All imho, but :

First, because the club thinks, under the rules, they aren't required to.

Second, because if the club started giving information they aren't required to, the PL could have asked for more and more and a refusal to do so, having done it once, could be seen negatively. It's a question of controlling the information flow.

Put it this way, at CAS the club provided an analysis of payments made by ADUG over a certain threshold to show that no monies had gone from ADUG to Etihad. UEFA had some concerns about this report. Had the club presented this report to the CFCB, UEFA could have asked for changes to the report, different information. At CAS, the tribunal could only balance the relevant of weight of the report presented and UEFA's concerns on it. There were no negative connotations to be drawn from the procedure.

Always a rule. Never volunteer information.
 
Inter Me Nan said:
My WhatsApp group has lit up because of this Forest news, could any of you more intelligent people refute this?

The reason a lot of people think they are guilty is there were leaked documents which UEFA were given which showed there was false accounting (and I think City maybe even admitted to it?). But under UEFA's rules too much time had passed to charge them, whereas the Premier League doesn't have a time limit in its rules.
Click to expand...
Given that senior officials from UEFA were systematically leaking confidential business information about City throughout the process I am certain that if there were any "smoking gun" documents they would also have been leaked. Remember that CAS reduced our non-co-operation allegation to a much lower fine because they accepted that UEFA had leaked information.
 
Blue warrior said:
He’s already decided we’re guilty, he hates City our ownership model. “Frankenstein club” even if City are cleared he won’t accept it. He’s a posh speaking tosser!!
Click to expand...
Posh ! He’s a corner boy who thinks he’s a big noise using the odd big word failed owner of a football club which took a proper business man to fix ..
 
halfcenturyup said:
All imho, but :

First, because the club thinks, under the rules, they aren't required to.

Second, because if the club started giving information they aren't required to, the PL could have asked for more and more and a refusal to do so, having done it once, could be seen negatively. It's a question of controlling the information flow.

Put it this way, at CAS the club provided an analysis of payments made by ADUG over a certain threshold to show that no monies had gone from ADUG to Etihad. UEFA had some concerns about this report. Had the club presented this report to the CFCB, UEFA could have asked for changes to the report, different information. At CAS, the tribunal could only balance the relevant of weight of the report presented and UEFA's concerns on it. There were no negative connotations to be drawn from the procedure.

Always a rule. Never volunteer information.
Click to expand...
Very informative mate. Can I keep you on retainer? -:)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Close enough :)

The most important point, in my opinion, is that the emails in themselves don't prove anything. Ask any lawyer. What is important is what actually happened after the discussions in any emails. UEFA couldn't prove that what they thought was discussed in the emails actually happened. They couldn't even prove what they thought was discussed in the emails was what was actually discussed. So a combination of the accounting records which did show what actually happened and personal statements from people who actually knew what happened, describing what did actually happen (and what UEFA thought happened didn't) along with some external financial evidence from sponsors and owner, all carried more weight than a few unsubstantiated allegations.

The same will happen to the PL allegations, imho.

And yes, the tine-barring is a red herring, the evidentiary situation is the same.
Click to expand...
This right here is the point, emails in of themselves dont prove anything, there has to be concrete evidence outside of the emails to prove it. In effect it would be like me emailing a car dealership and saying i would like to buy this car, i have the money and them sending me the car on the strength of that email.

Unfortunately thats not how things work.
 
halfcenturyup said:
All imho, but :

First, because the club thinks, under the rules, they aren't required to.

Second, because if the club started giving information they aren't required to, the PL could have asked for more and more and a refusal to do so, having done it once, could be seen negatively. It's a question of controlling the information flow.

Put it this way, at CAS the club provided an analysis of payments made by ADUG over a certain threshold to show that no monies had gone from ADUG to Etihad. UEFA had some concerns about this report. Had the club presented this report to the CFCB, UEFA could have asked for changes to the report, different information. At CAS, the tribunal could only balance the relevant of weight of the report presented and UEFA's concerns on it. There were no negative connotations to be drawn from the procedure.

Always a rule. Never volunteer information.
Click to expand...
Also given that the pl leaks like a sieve when it chooses to and there is evidence to support this, giving them commercially sensitive information that they arent privvy to would be an incredibly bad business decision.
 
Ste68 said:
There is substantial material in the CAS findings to refute this rubbish.

The CAS found that “leaked email number four is in fact a combination of two separate emails” which gives a “somewhat distorted impression”, and they based their decision on the originals, rather than the hacked versions published by Der Spiegel.

City had said the leaked emails should not be admissible, but still answered the allegations based on them, and eventually agreed to release the original emails – there were six of them and one attachment used, out of around 5.5million hacked emails.

The panel found that the accounts also do not contradict City’s case, and that Uefa had singularly failed to provide any real proof that the Blues had breached FFP rules. They added: “There is no doubt that Etihad fully complied with its payment obligations towards MCFC and that MCFC rendered the contractually agreed services to Etihad in return.”
Click to expand...

Just on that last bit, that’s just them setting the context, it was never alleged that Etihad didn’t comply with its payment obligations as such, it’s the rest of the conclusion that was the important bit (as in, there was no meaningful evidence of funding into Etihad to cover it).
 
meltonblue said:
Just on that last bit, that’s just them setting the context, it was never alleged that Etihad didn’t comply with its payment obligations as such, it’s the rest of the conclusion that was the important bit (as in, there was no meaningful evidence of funding into Etihad to cover it).
Click to expand...

And Etihad fair value wasn't questioned in 2019, or in 2014 for that matter. So it was all squeaky clean.
 
Metalartin said:
There was never really a big 5 in the 80s though IMO. From what I can deduce, that was a PR campaign bought and paid for by those very clubs. The original plan set in the late 80s, was obviously to create are legitimate big 5 in the PL era. Then it quickly became a big 3, when it eventually arrived. Spurs were a mid table club at best for the first decade and half of the PL era. Everton faired slightly better without really challenging much(how many title challenges, how many trophies in the PL era?).

It was a big two at best going into the PL era, Liverpool for the success(miles clear of everyone in major honours with 32 by the end of the 80s), United(15 m-h) for their attendances(have to give them that unfortunately).

Arsenal(16 m-h), Everton(14 m-h) and Spurs(14 m-h) had no legitimate claims to put themselves above the other traditional top clubs of old english football. There were too many clubs, too close to them to claim they were bigger. Wasn't there only 1 televised game a week for most of that era(Liverpool taking most of the limelight)?
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right about 1 game per week, apart from cup games, but we could all get 3 live games of Italian football on channel 4 every Sunday.

The big 5 came from, the under handed way these clubs along with Sky, went about setting the Premier League up. Every club was promised to be treated equal, with all clubs receiving a vote on policies and financial structures, apart from the so called big 5 whose votes would be worth double that of the others.
 
While we're in this stage of waiting for the legal process to conclude and because of a total lack of Sub judice, an obvious pattern has emerged, and it seems we just have to suck it up. So, if any other club, player, manager and soon probably even fan, find themselves on the wrong end of a disciplinary process this will be followed by an internet plie on of the form, "What about City". I wouldn't be surprised soon if it's used by a player when appealing against a red card, or a fan fined for pissing in public. Also, any significant win, trophy, new player signing by City will bet met with an internet pile on of the form "What about the 115 charges". We can just expect it 100% of the time until the final outcome. What the club, Etihad Airways and Etisalat chose to do with the mountains of defamatory evidence only time will tell ?
 
Last edited:
Just had a listen to the segment about City with Stefan this morning.

Jordan can bleat on about it taking “too long” and ”the good of football” all he likes. The process is the process and takes the time it needs to come to a decision.

All he’s doing is shouting his opinion. It doesn’t change anything.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Just had a listen to the segment about City with Stefan this morning.

Jordan can bleat on about it taking “too long” and ”the good of football” all he likes. The process is the process and takes the time it needs to come to a decision.

All he’s doing is shouting his opinion. It doesn’t change anything.
Click to expand...
Just said that to my son. We are talking about very serious allegations here. These allegations are bigger than the game when you are talking about fraud and lying under oath.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Just had a listen to the segment about City with Stefan this morning.

Jordan can bleat on about it taking “too long” and ”the good of football” all he likes. The process is the process and takes the time it needs to come to a decision.

All he’s doing is shouting his opinion. It doesn’t change anything.
Click to expand...
Deliberately mis-stating the position in the process such as today when he said UEFA did prove its case (based on the fact they said they did so it must be true). Interesting logic.
 
jaiguruKun said:
Deliberately mis-stating the position in the process such as today when he said UEFA did prove its case (based on the fact they said they did so it must be true). Interesting logic.
Click to expand...
Which then got overturned at CAS. And no Simon it wasn't because it was all time barred.
 
Last edited:
jaiguruKun said:
Deliberately mis-stating the position in the process such as today when he said UEFA did prove its case (based on the fact they said they did so it must be true). Interesting logic.
Click to expand...
He's just a mouthpiece to the talkshite and twitter morons so they can all just spout off on there day and night.

I'm willing to bet that he hasn't even been arsed to read the CAS statement....just like 99% of the knobheads on twitter X.

He's like the sheep on twitter who just say "city are guilty, it's obvious" .. and none of them know the facts or state any facts it's just "obvious you've cheated" it's getting really tedious now but unfortunately it's gonna take as long as it bloody takes.
Doesn't help when jordan the dick gets a platform to mention " its taking too long and show us the evidence to clear your name city"
fucks sake
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top