PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[eastmanc]

The only problem there is that given how the emails were obtained it would be almost impossible to ascertain that the emails were the original emails and not doctored in any way, so even with the metadata of the emails it would be extremely hard to present them and only them of evidence of wrongdoing you would basically have to have video footage of someone typing the email with a copy of the days paper next to him to confirm that those emails had not been doctored in anyway.

There will be a paper trail of emails which show the context of that one email.

 

[meltonblue]

For those of us that can’t remember the details (and lots of other things these days!) can somebody explain in simple terms how we explained our way out of these “problem” emails. Ta.

Ultimately we did it by witnesses going on the record saying that the actions alluded to in the mails didn’t happen. That and backed it up with some audit and financial evidence to support it.

 

[eastmanc]

I thought we explained all that at CAS? Well, certainly for the e-mails that were under scrutiny at CAS. They accepted our explanation, hence us winning the appeal.

The e-mails themselves can be interpreted a multitude of different ways. Sure, they can look bad if you interpret them a certain way, but there are plausible explanations that have already been put forward and accepted. In fact, it's utterly ludicrous and downright stupid to think that we'd have employed disguised owner funding to make up most of the Etihad deal because there literally was no need to ever do that as the perfectly legal route of using central funds was available to us, which is what we demonstrated at CAS.

If City were to have done what we are being accused of the last thing we would have done would be to leave behind a trail of emails to show our guilt to everyone.
Wouldn't we have been a lot more careful than that.

 

[M12Blue]

Funny how little the human rights issue gets mentioned any more in the media or social media, it's all about 115 and nothing else. Almost as though those talking about human rights abuses in the Middle East weren't very interested in those issues at all except as a kneejerk criticism of a football team they didn't support.

They’ll be back when we are cleared

 

[meltonblue]

If City were to have done what we are being accused of the last thing we would have done would be to leave behind a trail of emails to show our guilt to everyone.
Wouldn't we have been a lot more careful than that.

Not just that either. We’ve had people from ourselves and the sponsors now go on the record at CAS categorically stating the allegations were false. I highly doubt anyone would have risked perjuring themselves, the consequences of that for the individuals are potentially huge.

 

[eastmanc]

They’ll be back when we are cleared

Sports washing anyone.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

We provided one at CAS.

I was under the impression that the particular emails in question where we are seen to "admit" what we're being accused of were only released into the public domain after the CAS case, hence why Pearce and others are now being accused explicitly of lying?

IE, original emails which were hacked showed alleged intention, this was subsequently explained at CAS, now the more recent emails are alleged to completely contradict the explanation our representatives provided.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Not just that either. We’ve had people from ourselves and the sponsors now go on the record at CAS categorically stating the allegations were false. I highly doubt anyone would have risked perjuring themselves, the consequences of that for the individuals are potentially huge.

I agree fwiw. In my mind there is zero chance that those under oath at CAS wouldn't have had an awareness that further emails might be in circulation which would contradict their testimony and leave them liable to perjury charges should they have came to light. Otherwise we've paid a fortune on lawyer fees and been given ridiculous advice!

I am fully on board with the club answer of "irrefutable evidence", and that the emails WILL be explained.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I was under the impression that the particular emails in question where we are seen to "admit" what we're being accused of were only released into the public domain after the CAS case, hence why Pearce and others are now being accused explicitly of lying?

IE, original emails which were hacked showed alleged intention, this was subsequently explained at CAS, now the more recent emails are alleged to completely contradict the explanation our representatives provided.

Which emails were these that "admit" the allegations? I have seen emails and attachments that talk about AD sponsorships as "shareholder funding" and I have seen the emails where Pearce takes it on himself to "arrange" some payments having stated to CAS that he had categorically never arranged any payments.

Are you thinking of any other emails?

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I thought we explained all that at CAS? Well, certainly for the e-mails that were under scrutiny at CAS. They accepted our explanation, hence us winning the appeal.

The e-mails themselves can be interpreted a multitude of different ways. Sure, they can look bad if you interpret them a certain way, but there are plausible explanations that have already been put forward and accepted. In fact, it's utterly ludicrous and downright stupid to think that we'd have employed disguised owner funding to make up most of the Etihad deal because there literally was no need to ever do that as the perfectly legal route of using central funds was available to us, which is what we demonstrated at CAS.

My recollection of the emails published by der Spiegel - and it is only recollection - is that some of the phraseology appeared highly incriminating but was explained to the satisfaction of the court by City, who also provided other evidence in support of our explanation. One of the more sinister remarks made was that "we (City) can do what we like" in regards to the payment of a sponsorship contract. Taken together with remarks about getting "the Sheikh" to make the payments I think we would have all agreed that some explanation was required. City pointed out that "doing what we like" was simply an explanation that the sponsorship deal need not involve payments of equal sums each year over the length of the deal but could be front loaded, as Arsenal's deal with Emirates had been. "The Sheikh" referred not to Sheikh Mansour but to the head of state and could only do so by UAE protocol. I'm not aware of any new emails which appears as incriminating as those put before CAS - but perhaps some know better?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I was under the impression that the particular emails in question where we are seen to "admit" what we're being accused of were only released into the public domain after the CAS case, hence why Pearce and others are now being accused explicitly of lying?

IE, original emails which were hacked showed alleged intention, this was subsequently explained at CAS, now the more recent emails are alleged to completely contradict the explanation our representatives provided.

I think Pearce testified that he had never arranged for funds to be paid back into the club by ADUG or ADEA or anyone else. Sneaky twats that they are, Der Spiegel, who appeared to have held one email back from the original batch that formed the basis of UEFA’s case, then released that email. It pretty much directly contradicted what Pearce had told CAS, which was, erm, awkward. I seem to recall @Prestwich_Blue at the time deeming it not an issue though……although I stand to be corrected…….so unless the PL have got something else, Magic Twat can, in the words of Dean Edward Rooney, come on over and smooch my big ol’ white butt!

 

[Lord Blue]

Quite a few of the email points mention include the phrase "funded via ADUG" which i've always considered harmless as i thought ADUG held our sponsorship dosh and we request it as needed?

I thought ADUG held onto our funds as some sponsorship deals cover multiple clubs. And we request it as needed.

It would be dodgy as hell if we held sponsorship money on behalf of NYC for example so it makes sense.

I'm probably way out but that was my understanding.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Not to piss on an obvious joke on your part, but the emails in question state that we've already done X, not that we plan to do it.

Unless I'm badly misreading the situation which is possible, we will have to explain why those emails exist if we didn't actually do X. I can't think of a plausible explanation but I trust that we have one. If we don't provide an explanation, the balance of probabilities suggest we've done exactly as we've admitted to doing on the emails.

Like I’ve said, I could email you now saying Ive just bummed Michelle Keegan in her city kit. I could go into deep detail about it.

But if I didn’t bum her, and there’s evidence I didn’t, ie she says it never happened she’s never even met me before, the emails don’t mean anything.

It’s the actual action carried out (or not) that matters not an email.

 

[1964]

Even if the emails show intent, which I don’t think they do, they are not confirmed by any action unless you believe we uttered false accounts. The chances of that are NIL.

i sent a utd fan at work a e mail saying i was putting a grand in his bank account ,that was a week ago ,he is still waiting

 

[Stoned Rose]

I was under the impression that the particular emails in question where we are seen to "admit" what we're being accused of were only released into the public domain after the CAS case, hence why Pearce and others are now being accused explicitly of lying?

IE, original emails which were hacked showed alleged intention, this was subsequently explained at CAS, now the more recent emails are alleged to completely contradict the explanation our representatives provided.

Where you getting this from?

 

[norman]

Having read again the CAS judgement I can see why the EPL felt justified in pursuing the matter. The full email chain was not requested or produced by or to the UEFA appeals panel due to time restrictions namely they required a verdict before the next season started whereas the EPL are not under that restriction. It depends therefore, as far as I can tell, on whether or not it is more difficult or impossible for City to refute the allegations when all the emails are produced. However if there is damning evidence against City when ALL the email chain is examined this means, as Stefan has said, that numerous executives/international organisations have effectively conspired to produce fraudulent (in the context of FFP/PSR rules) accounts. Furthermore City’s witnesses would have to have lied and one in particular, Mr. James Hogan, former President and CEO of Etihad would face criminal prosecution - para. 254 of the CAS judgement. Also City’s legal representatives must have either ignored or not requested or seen such evidence. I can envisage no situation in which such eminent lawyers would defend City without full knowledge of all relevant facts and documents and thus risk severe damage to their reputation and call into question their integrity.
I also cannot imagine that all involved in this “conspiracy”, which on my reading could include the Lawyers, did so on the basis that having been cleared by CAS the EPL would drop the case against City meaning the additional emails in the chain might never have to be disclosed.
As for non cooperation City strived might and main to restrict the information they were required to provide including an application to the Commercial Court and subsequent appeal, both of which they lost but if subsequently City did provide the information having effectively been obliged to do so by the Court’s decision then at worst they could be deemed to have employed delaying tactics and may be subject to a penalty under the good faith provisions of the EPL rules but if they are cleared of the substantive allegations any penalty beyond a fine would in my view be draconian and likely overturned on appeal. The above is purely my non ITK reading of the situation, and I am happy to be corrected, but I think cautious optimism is appropriate.
Nevertheless, as Stefan has said, don’t take anything for granted especially in a case such as this with the enormous complexity involved.

 

[homerdog]

a pile of oil.

Some might even describe it as a 'well of oil' - or even an oil well. ;)

 

[meltonblue]

Where you getting this from?

It’s all from the Der Spiegel leaks, they released a tranche post CAS.

 

[manimanc]

I'm not being funny but if we're being accused of something that happened years ago and then there was no evidence to prove we did, then surely if the same allegation has come round again then I'd say we're in the clear.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I think Pearce testified that he had never arranged for funds to be paid back into the club by ADUG or ADEA or anyone else. Sneaky twats that they are, Der Spiegel, who appeared to have held one email back from th original batch that formed the basis of UEFA’s case, then released that email. It pretty much directly contradicted what Pearce had told CAS, which was, erm, awkward. I seem to recall @Prestwich_Blue at the time deeming it not an issue though……although I stand to be corrected…….so unless the PL have got something else, Magic Twat can, in the words of Dean Edward Rooney, come on over and smooch my big ol’ white butt!

I recall reading those emails but I don't recall reading them and thinking "Oh shit. Pearce lied.". In fact I do recall thinking there was nothing particularly sensational to see, but people like Harris, and that snake Conn, were all over them. I even think they may have been revealed in the CAS hearing.

It seemed to me it was a final grasping at straws, and was all very reminiscent of that famous scene in Downfall, where Hitler summons up Steiner's mythical army group.