PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Kippax Street 1880]

Miggles getting over excited. I think uber-cretin Piers Moron tried to make issue out of the same point in that shite anti-City expose he sneezed out last year, only for ex-Arsenal chairman David Dein to piss all over his chips by firmly declaring it ‘not a smoking gun!’

Dein was a shrewd bloke and Arsenal went to shit for a few years after he stepped down.

 

[Matt Diablo]

Why aren't they wearing our home kit?

This very much an away game

 

[manimanc]

Jsut ask yourselves one question.

Would the club be spending millions on re developing the stadium if they had a whiff that we may be on dodgy ground.

Construction would have been the first thing that would have stopped. No way would the owner risk losing pointless millions, if he thought we were in danger of getting relegated, banned or whatever else is on the table.

Also add in that we've announced new sponsorship deals and extended existing deals with different sponsors.

Does that sound like a club in turmoil and on the brink of alleged ramifications for fraud and inflating sponsorship deals?

Throw in the fact Etihad Airways was throwing their books open to the public and you get the sense that it's business as normal when all around us opposition teams and the red cartel media are losing their shit.

Can't wait for the outcome and I want us to name and shame every single one of the gobshites in the press who have said and written slanderous lies about us for years.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

It's to do with the Etisalat transaction looked at by UEFA. He arranged payment of 30 million to MCFC on behalf of ADUG in respect of the sponsorship in advance of the receipt of the cash by ADUG from Etisalat. Etisalat later reimbursed ADUG.

Why did ADUG pay instead of Etisalat? Because the new contract with Etisalat stated Etisalat> ADUG> MCFC as the payment method.

Why did they pay in advance? Because the contract hadn't been signed and the parties were operating under a binding HoA. Etisalat, with their regulatory and statutory requirements, couldn't pay until the contract was signed.

It's all in the CAS award.

Thank you.

 

[Pontypool Blue]

I asked someone I know at the club what the mood was like now that the case has finally started, and he said no-one is even really talking about it, which is hopefully a sign of supreme confidence. There doesn't seem to be any emergency contingency plans being drawn up, or people fearing for their jobs or anything like that, just business as usual. Given what's at stake, namely an existential threat to the club, you'd expect there to be a bit more concern if they truly feared the possibility of a guilty verdict.

What did the new kit man say?

 

[cheekybids]

It's to do with the Etisalat transaction looked at by UEFA. He arranged payment of 30 million to MCFC on behalf of ADUG in respect of the sponsorship in advance of the receipt of the cash by ADUG from Etisalat. Etisalat later reimbursed ADUG.

Why did ADUG pay instead of Etisalat? Because the new contract with Etisalat stated Etisalat> ADUG> MCFC as the payment method.

Why did they pay in advance? Because the contract hadn't been signed and the parties were operating under a binding HoA. Etisalat, with their regulatory and statutory requirements, couldn't pay until the contract was signed.

It's all in the CAS award.

Which clearly DeLooney still can’t be arsed reading.

 

[mancboy]

The one person i want to see us sue is tebas, that racist old fuckwit is slanderous at best and corrupt at worst and should be absolutely nowhere near football.

 

[jamesha]

Feels like this somehow...

If Bertnado is one of the hobbits, we'll piss it!

 

[slbsn]

The mitigation will be the same as UEFA. Why should we co-operate with an organisation that has carried out a smear campaign against us? If the PL was professional it would have been rigidly impartial. It is supposed to act for ALL clubs. It has acted in bad faith all the way through. Just last week the official PL Comms Office attacked its own selected panel over the Leicester case. That is totally unethical.

As it happens a) I don't think that will work b) won't be our defence. I suspect they will say they did disclose and cooperate fully and hope that they if they have won on the substantive charges, the Panel will be onside. If they have lost on the substantive, it will be largely irrelevant (albeit an aggravating factor potentially)

 

[Rammy Blue]

The one person i want to see us sue is tebas, that racist old fuckwit is slanderous at best and corrupt at worst and should be absolutely nowhere near football.

Think I remember reading it was something to do with Spanish law as to why we couldn’t do anything about the toad faced ****.

 

[supercity88]

Trial of the century?

Ruination of a great club?

Irrefutable evidence?

Costs running into hundred of millions?

Titles stripped?

Mansour and Abu Dhabi name ruined?

Police banging at the door?

£5k per hour is not enough.

Fall out will have to hit him in some way?

In fairness? He didn’t look to bothered -:)

I doubt that very much. And similarly for the PL's lawyers who are big hitters as well. The evidence determines the success, the ability of the lawyer to argue and make a case if obviously a substantial part of things but I don't think anyone who has the money to spend £5k an hour is going to believe a media frenzy when selecting their lawyer. We weren't caught red handed with a smoking gun next to a dead body. On one side you have City fans quietly confident about our chances and thinking the PL's lawyers are inept and querying why they'd take the case on and on the other you have those thinking we're guilty without knowing anything about the case, and if we're not punished then the PL didn't have the bottle.

You don't tend to go to caught unless you think you have a chance of winning, but you don't always win.

 

[Oldham Exile]

There is a lot of optimism on here and as a FOC and having a ticket stub for York away I'm very nervous about the whole thing.

I wish I had bothered to keep mine

 

[W11Nchenko]

So its Pannick on the streets of London?

10 weeks’ time it’ll be pannick at the disco

 

[I'm Blue]

Kieran Maguire Spouting shite again claimed City were owned by a sovereign wealth fund on BBC FiveLive earlier Not repeated it since I text them asking them to check the facts

The guys a clown.
Expert my arse!

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

As it happens a) I don't think that will work b) won't be our defence. I suspect they will say they did disclose and cooperate fully and hope that they if they have won on the substantive charges, the Panel will be onside. If they have lost on the substantive, it will be largely irrelevant (albeit an aggravating factor potentially)

Stand corrected. I don’t think the PL have done themselves any favours though by being so biased and unfair with their Comms messages on and off the record.

 

[waspish]

It's to do with the Etisalat transaction looked at by UEFA. He arranged payment of 30 million to MCFC on behalf of ADUG in respect of the sponsorship in advance of the receipt of the cash by ADUG from Etisalat. Etisalat later reimbursed ADUG.

Why did ADUG pay instead of Etisalat? Because the new contract with Etisalat stated Etisalat> ADUG> MCFC as the payment method.

Why did they pay in advance? Because the contract hadn't been signed and the parties were operating under a binding HoA. Etisalat, with their regulatory and statutory requirements, couldn't pay until the contract was signed.

It's all in the CAS award.

You telling me Delooney hasn't read the Cas documentation? I'm in shock that a main Journalist at a major newspaper not researched our 115

 

[supercity88]

As it happens a) I don't think that will work b) won't be our defence. I suspect they will say they did disclose and cooperate fully and hope that they if they have won on the substantive charges, the Panel will be onside. If they have lost on the substantive, it will be largely irrelevant (albeit an aggravating factor potentially)

Apologies @slbsn but is the failure to cooperate in this case the same as with UEFA? In that instance we withheld information and argued that the leak in the NY Times was evidence of corruption within UEFA and we were concerned that the provision of further evidence would end up in a similar way. CAS, whilst concerned, still fined us. I'm wondering if that's the same in this instance and we have withheld information (in which case I can't see us escaping a punishment), or if instead it's more a case of the fact that in light of the hacked emails we clearly haven't cooperated with the PL by submitting all financial information. In that case, as you say, if we win on the substantive charges then it should fall away as we'll have proved we didn't need to provide that information as everything was in the accounts already.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Just in from work.
Have they conceded yet?

End od the club.Yeah for all the jcl's.

Not for me..ever

 

[mancboy]

Think I remember reading it was something to do with Spanish law as to why we couldn’t do anything about the toad faced ****.

if it is printed in a british paper we should sue them instead

 

[slbsn]

Apologies @slbsn but is the failure to cooperate in this case the same as with UEFA? In that instance we withheld information and argued that the leak in the NY Times was evidence of corruption within UEFA and we were concerned that the provision of further evidence would end up in a similar way. CAS, whilst concerned, still fined us. I'm wondering if that's the same in this instance and we have withheld information (in which case I can't see us escaping a punishment), or if instead it's more a case of the fact that in light of the hacked emails we clearly haven't cooperated with the PL by submitting all financial information. In that case, as you say, if we win on the substantive charges then it should fall away as we'll have proved we didn't need to provide that information as everything was in the accounts already.

Not as I understand it. City did not play ball with UEFA. But it seems they did with the PL but the extent of cooperation is disputed.