PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Bloominmarvellous said:
Gotcha, thanks for the info as I couldn't understand that part but that makes sense.
Click to expand...
Much more serious would be a finding that we represented equity funding as sponsorship. That would mean our Chairman uttered false accounts, a serious criminal offence.
 
Skrastins said:
In the same interview he said this

View attachment 129988


The most money lesser clubs are getting is from transfers, which they have crippled with those fucking regulations.

What a bellend
Click to expand...
He knows as much about football as that prick masters.
Scary to think them two are in charge of something so huge yet don't have a scoobies how to run things.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
That rules him out then (hopefully)

The nightmare scenario would be an IC panel of Rosen (AFC), Glancy (MUFC) and Hovell (LFC suspected due to Milner connections).
Click to expand...
I think the nightmare scenario would be Omar Berrada doing a Billy Meredith.
 
train man said:
I wonder if that panel member knew that before 'voting'..? Do we know?
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer, but never understood why the CAS ruling did not have clearly identified sections where the UEFA panel member justified his vote against City. As we know, the ruling states 11 times there was no evidence that proved private equity instead of Etihad sponsorship. Some have mentioned a legal convention where only the neutral panel member decides CAS verdicts, but that would mean EVERY ruling would be decided 2-1.
My guess is his justification was not published in public but was provided to City's legal team. Clearly that would provide very useful content ie help to re-inforce our defence for PL v MCFC.
 
Last edited:
manimanc said:
Highly complex because they have to go through every document and every sponsorship as masters and the red puppets have come to the conclusion that we couldn't possibly run so professionally and not be on the fiddle.

I'm just wondering if the HMRC and The Fraud Squad will be asking our owners and CEO's any questions as we're being accused of Fraud on a humongous scale.

And Omar Berrada will be grilled surely as he was the main man for sponsorship deals and the like.

I'm sure the press will be all over that as the trial continues.
Click to expand...
Re HMCE involvement I recall years ago regarding UK trade with Saudi Arabia where I think war armements (probably Tornados) were being paid for.
I think the Times made an issue of extras paid by SA for their internal use (no SA taxation at the time) but The UK revenue were only interested in where their cut was and were then happy to see it shown elsewhere.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Not a lawyer, but never understood why the CAS ruling did not have clearly identified sections where the UEFA panel member justified his vote against City. As we know, the ruling states 11 times there was no evidence that proved private equity instead of Etihad sponsorship. Some have mentioned a legal convention where only the neutral panel member decides CAS verdicts, but that would mean EVERY ruling would be decided 2-1.
My guess is his justification was not published in public but hopefully was provided to City's legal team. Clearly that would provide very useful content ie help to re-inforce our defence for PL v MCFC.
Click to expand...

He published his objections in a newspaper article after CAS iirc, at least he got a junior in his law firm to do it making it clear it wasn't his opinion. But clearly it was. I could try to dig it out if I was arsed.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Not a lawyer, but never understood why the CAS ruling did not have clearly identified sections where the UEFA panel member justified his vote against City. As we know, the ruling states 11 times there was no evidence that proved private equity instead of Etihad sponsorship. Some have mentioned a legal convention where only the neutral panel member decides CAS verdicts, but that would mean EVERY ruling would be decided 2-1.
My guess is his justification was not published in public but was provided to City's legal team. Clearly that would provide very useful content ie help to re-inforce our defence for PL v MCFC.
Click to expand...
It does knock my confidence - the way this is so casually mentioned/accepted, yet when people express a concern that the same thing could happen again - those concerns are so casually dismissed.

Surely the only 'evidence' of such matters we have is what has happened before?

Because of this 'convention' we have had years of the 'red-masses' bemoaning that we were allowed to get away on a technicality and that we appointed 2 of the judges. That narrative has been so effective it has become fact in so many peoples eyes.
 
chris85mcfc said:
There were 100 apples, all worth £5 each

ADUG owned 78
Silver lake owned 18
Other people owned 4

Some more apples are made, so now there's about 104 apples

Instead of splitting the extra in the same way as above ie ADUG get 78% of them, SL 18%, others 4%

We are going to give ADUG about 76% of them, SL about 20% and others 4%

So now everyone owns more apples, but SL own a little bit more than they used to, and ADUG own slightly less

That swing would have been a little bit bigger had they not been NEW shares, as owning 76% of 104 is bigger than owning 78% of 100....just!

I appreciate this may have confused you even more, but there is no idiots guide to Accountancy, unfortunately!
Click to expand...
So we're only worth a bag of apples ffs haha
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Not a lawyer, but never understood why the CAS ruling did not have clearly identified sections where the UEFA panel member justified his vote against City. As we know, the ruling states 11 times there was no evidence that proved private equity instead of Etihad sponsorship. Some have mentioned a legal convention where only the neutral panel member decides CAS verdicts, but that would mean EVERY ruling would be decided 2-1.
My guess is his justification was not published in public but was provided to City's legal team. Clearly that would provide very useful content ie help to re-inforce our defence for PL v MCFC.
Click to expand...
I can't fully get my head round the claims here that the proposed panel members vote with those who proposed them. Never seen it claimed anywhere else and seems to defeat the purpose of having a three person panel.
 
Oldham Exile said:
Because of this 'convention' we have had years of the 'red-masses' bemoaning that we were allowed to get away on a technicality and that we appointed 2 of the judges. That narrative has been so effective it has become fact in so many peoples eyes.
Click to expand...
Even if the vote had been unanimous, they'd still have said we got off on a technicality and that we chose 2 of the judges. The 'convention' (if it exists) wouldn't have changed that because they want us to be guilty no matter what the evidence shows
 
halfcenturyup said:
He published his objections in a newspaper article after CAS iirc, at least he got a junior in his law firm to do it making it clear it wasn't his opinion. But clearly it was. I could try to dig it out if I was arsed.
Click to expand...
I had it bookmarked :)

The duty to cooperate - questions arising from the Man City v UEFA decision - LawInSport

This article is written by Björn Hessert, University of Zurich. By way of disclosure, Björn works as a research assistant for Prof. Dr. Ulrich Haas, who was one of the three CAS arbitrators in the Manchester City FC v UEFA proceedings. Björn would like to stress that he himself was not...
www.lawinsport.com www.lawinsport.com

You can register for free for up to 3 articles per week or month I think.
 
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