PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
For example (note to those of a nervous disposition: this proves nothing other than some people in the club equated monies from sponsors as AD equity funding. There could be lots of reasons for this, it could have been corrected quickly, or later. We don't know. It can be countered with witness evidence and accounting information from the sponsors and ADUG. And, once again, the way this is labelled proves absolutely nothing about where the money came from and the PL will have no evidence to back up the allegation):

View attachment 131338
Click to expand...
this is just out of context forecasts and has nothing to do with actualities. probably Written in January to March 2012 (you can tell that by the comments box) what happened in April 13 is all that matters
 
halfcenturyup said:
Of course the PL has more "evidence". They have had access to much more information from the club, basically all the relevant emails (not just those leaked by der Spiegel in 2018) and, I would imagine, all the club's relevant accounting information over a much longer investigation. No-one sensible is claiming they don't have more "evidence".

The point is that, firstly, even if they have a hundred times as many emails, they still have the same problem UEFA had at CAS, which is that they prove nothing and, secondly, that the real incriminating evidence (in the very unlikely case there is any) would be held externally and to which they have had no access.

So, while a hundred times the number of emails may increase their evidential weight and some of the things discussed in those emails may seem incriminatory, that "evidence" will, imho, be trumped by the witness statements and financial accounting from external parties that the club can choose to provide, in the form and to the extent they want, to counter the PL's "evidence", as at CAS.
Click to expand...
As you say if the evidence of high ranking sponsors be disregarded to find us probably guilty then maybe they leave themselves open to actual legal issues from our sponsors never mind what City will do.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
this is just out of context forecasts and has nothing to do with actualities. probably Written in January to March 2012 (you can tell that by the comments box) what happened in April 13 is all that matters
Click to expand...

That was the point I was trying to make, but it is "evidence" nonetheless as is the point about Pearce "arranging" payments. My point was that the PL will inevitably have more "evidence" either from the 2022 leaks or from their own four year investigation. As @petrusha once reminded me, for the PL it's about being "meticulous in devising as many reasons as possible to chip away at the other side's evidence to give the IC as many reasons as possible to doubt the (....) case" (although he was talking about the reverse case and the club's requested email disclosure from the PL).

Yes, the documents can probably be explained, but the fact that sponsorship income was actually being discussed as shareholder funding in budget documents for the board is significant and gives additional weight to the PL's "evidence". I don't think for a minute it proves anything, but it raises the level of doubt in the panel's minds, maybe.

Same for Pearce. If he has been "arranging" payments to the club after his CAS testimony, he needs a good explanation otherwise it may taint his witness evidence in front of the panel. As I keep saying, though, he is an experienced businessman, has been involved in many cases more substantial than this one, I suppose, and is being advised by the best lawyers, so I am sure he will be fine.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
For example (note to those of a nervous disposition: this proves nothing other than some people in the club equated monies from sponsors as AD equity funding. There could be lots of reasons for this, it could have been corrected quickly, or later. We don't know. It can be countered with witness evidence and accounting information from the sponsors and ADUG. And, once again, the way this is labelled proves absolutely nothing about where the money came from and the PL will have no evidence to back up the allegation):

View attachment 131338
Click to expand...
I don't think you can infer from that we treated equity funding as sponsorship revenue. It clearly separates partner funding from equity funding but makes the point that some sponsorship revenue would be offset against monies due to or from ADUG.

The Etisalat sponsorship is a case in point. ADUG paid that initially and reclaimed that from Etisalat later on. So the monies due to us from Etisalat were offset against the money they owed to ADUG. You can see that there's £15m due from Etisalat and £15m going from us to ADUG effectively meaning Etisalat repaid the money they owed ADUG.

In my younger days, when I lived at home, I'd be going out and need some cash. My brother would lend me £20 but he'd also borrowed £30 from our dad the week before. So I'd repay the £20 I owed my brother direct to my dad.
 
Last edited:
Gordyola said:
Also he wears multiple hats and is not just a CFG board member

"Simon Pearce, a British-Australian spin doctor who has orchestrated the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) Western public relations efforts for over a decade. Officially holding the title of ‘Special Advisor to the Chairman of the Executive Affairs Authority of Abu Dhabi,’ Pearce operates within the inner circle of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ). Renowned PR outlet PRovoke hails him as “one of the UAE’s most influential officials,” entrusted with a substantial budget and a colossal mission: to build and safeguard Abu Dhabi’s reputation"

brusselswatch.org

Simon Pearce: The Global PR Strategist Shaping Abu Dhabi's Image - Brussels Watch

In the world of international public relations, there exists a hidden force, skillfully crafting narratives and influencing perceptions. One such figure is
brusselswatch.org brusselswatch.org
Click to expand...

‘PR strategist’ funny.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I don't think you can infer from that we treated equity funding as sponsorship revenue. It clearly separates partner funding from equity funding but makes the point that some sponsorship revenue would be offset against monies due to or from ADUG.

The Etisalat sponsorship is a case in point. ADUG paid that initially and reclaimed that from Etisalat later on. So the monies due to us from Etisalat were offset against the money they owed to ADUG. You can see that there's £15m due from Etisalat and £15m going from us to ADUGz effectively meaning Etisalat repaid the money they owed ADUG.

In my younger days, when I lived at home, I'd be going out and need some cash. My brother would lend me £20 but he'd also borrowed £30 from our dad the week before. So I'd repay the £20 I owed my brother direct to my dad.
Click to expand...

That's right, you can't infer anything from that document as to what actually happened, but including the sponsorship amounts in shareholder funding on the document can only strengthen the PL's circumstantial case. I don't think it's a big problem, but it's not helpful. I was just using it as an example of the evidence the PL has that UEFA didn't have at CAS.

The good thing is the club knows what "evidence" the PL has and can ramp up it's counter-evidence from third parties to counter any new "evidence". I think :)

Edit: And 20 quid? That was luxury when I was growing up .....
 
bluenova said:
Weren't there differences in the experience for City and Inter fans? That was due to organisation of different routes, and UEFA messing up (and that was even after what happened the year before, when you'd think they'd put a marginal bit more effort in).

Whatever the situation with fake tickets, and ticketless fans, the route that Liverpool were sent down was grim, and was always going to be an issue. Bear in mind UEFA also had advance notice of fake tickets, so had a duty to those with genuine tickets, and still put in a system where they were checking tickets in a bottle neck, with nowhere to send people who didn't pass the check.

It's easy to just mock all Liverpool fans as being exactly the same, but I know you're not daft. There are plenty of people who will have just bought a ticket for a match, never cause trouble, and turned up to a dangerous mess.
Click to expand...
There are 2 ways to look at any problem. You state that Uefa chose a route for the dippers that had bottlenecks and Uefa should have worked into the problem the fake tickets.
I look at that purely as Liverpools problem, a huge one. The idiot manager encouraged fans with no tickets to travel over. The idiot fans produced hundreds (more) fake tickets and many went to jib in as well. How do Uefa get the blame for that ? The bottle necks were caused by French police trying to stop the jibbers and the fake ticket mob. If they had not been present the bottle necks would be either, non existent or easily managed.
It was totally different to our problems. Ours was logistics. A stadium miles from anywhere that could only be reached by the underound train or a notoriously congested motorway. We got the motorway.
If anyone jibbed in I'd be very surprised and I doubt anyone turned up without a ticket. The difference was that our fans behaved, theirs never do.
 
Blue Mist said:
There are 2 ways to look at any problem. You state that Uefa chose a route for the dippers that had bottlenecks and Uefa should have worked into the problem the fake tickets.
I look at that purely as Liverpools problem, a huge one. The idiot manager encouraged fans with no tickets to travel over. The idiot fans produced hundreds (more) fake tickets and many went to jib in as well. How do Uefa get the blame for that ? The bottle necks were caused by French police trying to stop the jibbers and the fake ticket mob. If they had not been present the bottle necks would be either, non existent or easily managed.
It was totally different to our problems. Ours was logistics. A stadium miles from anywhere that could only be reached by the underound train or a notoriously congested motorway. We got the motorway.
If anyone jibbed in I'd be very surprised and I doubt anyone turned up without a ticket. The difference was that our fans behaved, theirs never do.
Click to expand...

So, if someone gets a fake copy of your ticket, and the police tell City that it's happened, but they let in the faker, and then make you queue for 3 hours, and then don't let you in. That's your problem? Because you support the same team as the person with the fake ticket?

I appreciate that Liverpool fans have a reputation for using fakes/jibbing, but that doesn't mean the people who bought genuine tickets and had a shit time, deserve it.
 
As the hearing is (seemingly) underway I have a couple of questions regarding procedures.

How much of it will be 'in person'? Obviously there are gaps for reading the submissions etc but when the PL put their case forward, for example, will that be in front of the panel? Will witnesses such as Simon Pearce (if required) be there at the hearing so they can be cross examined by the opposing briefs and would they need to be available if recalled following further evidence?

Although I assume it is highly unlikely, is it possible even at this stage that an agreed resolution could be reached which would then remove any need for panel deliberations and a judgement?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I don't think you can infer from that we treated equity funding as sponsorship revenue. It clearly separates partner funding from equity funding but makes the point that some sponsorship revenue would be offset against monies due to or from ADUG.

The Etisalat sponsorship is a case in point. ADUG paid that initially and reclaimed that from Etisalat later on. So the monies due to us from Etisalat were offset against the money they owed to ADUG. You can see that there's £15m due from Etisalat and £15m going from us to ADUGz effectively meaning Etisalat repaid the money they owed ADUG.

In my younger days, when I lived at home, I'd be going out and need some cash. My brother would lend me £20 but he'd also borrowed £30 from our dad the week before. So I'd repay the £20 I owed my brother direct to my dad.
Click to expand...
once again.....
1726048970940.png
 
bluenova said:
So, if someone gets a fake copy of your ticket, and the police tell City that it's happened, but they let in the faker, and then make you queue for 3 hours, and then don't let you in. That's your problem? Because you support the same team as the person with the fake ticket?

I appreciate that Liverpool fans have a reputation for using fakes/jibbing, but that doesn't mean the people who bought genuine tickets and had a shit time, deserve it.
Click to expand...

No it’s the Liverpool fans who bought the fake tickets, the jibbers & the Dipper Manager who encouraged. None of those gave a flying fuck about the ones who bought genuine tickets.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
As the hearing is (seemingly) underway I have a couple of questions regarding procedures.

How much of it will be 'in person'? Obviously there are gaps for reading the submissions etc but when the PL put their case forward, for example, will that be in front of the panel? Will witnesses such as Simon Pearce (if required) be there at the hearing so they can be cross examined by the opposing briefs and would they need to be available if recalled following further evidence?

Although I assume it is highly unlikely, is it possible even at this stage that an agreed resolution could be reached which would then remove any need for panel deliberations and a judgement?
Click to expand...

Maybe this helps?

1000000757.png
 
bluenova said:
So, if someone gets a fake copy of your ticket, and the police tell City that it's happened, but they let in the faker, and then make you queue for 3 hours, and then don't let you in. That's your problem? Because you support the same team as the person with the fake ticket?

I appreciate that Liverpool fans have a reputation for using fakes/jibbing, but that doesn't mean the people who bought genuine tickets and had a shit time, deserve it.
Click to expand...
You are equating City fans as equal to dippers there not. It happens year on year with them and it is accepted by all their fans that it will happen. You rarely hear a dipper complaining about their own fans, they always blame the authorities. Jibbing is treated as a joke, forgery is expected, if the genuine ones don't kick up a fuss then yes they deserve it.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Produce these emails then. I suspect you've not fully understood or misinterpreted what you've read, as any emails like that would have seriously damaged our case at CAS.
Click to expand...
I don't think Sorriano would have said that UEFA's claims were "simply untrue" had such emails existed, nor would Khaldoon have have spoken in such uncompromising terms about the PL charges. I am of course assuming that both men are aware of the club's funding arrangements!
 
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