PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

I think everyone has to accept that if the alleged long term conspiracy has occurred and everyone has lied for years and years, with or without Pinto, the PL probably has all the evidence it needs. Very unlikely that the docs the PL needed were only in the hacked files. I think this is the nub of what Keith Moon doesn’t get.

 

[Mancityphilfo2000]

The trouble is, even some of our own fans are buying into that one. The other conspiracy theory that some dickhead Liverpool and United fans are coming out with is that City are deliberately having a shit season in order to get a lesser punishment!

Which literally makes zero sense.

 

[cheekybids]

They are well aware of any weaknesses in their case. Obviously they realise what the rules said in the relevant years - they aren’t morons.

But they will also believe they have a chance of overcoming weaknesses. Someone loses in every case despite believing they won’t.

I heard the lawyers never lose ;)

 

[Trojan1962]

Stop being such an attention-seeking idiot. You clearly know fuck all about this issue and refuse to listen to those who do know something. But just to try to hammer some facts into your skull, I'll respond.

The evidence presented at CAS from several sources made it clear where the bulk of the Etihad sponsorship came from. It came from central Abu Dhabi marketing funds and there's nothing wrong with that. UEFA could offer no cogent evidence, other than the very selective and out-of-context hacked emails, to the contrary.

Etihad were given the money, but not by Sheikh Mansour. They paid it to us, the accounting was correct and they got full consideration for the money they paid in terms of sponsorship, plus it was considered to be a fair price for what they got.

But if you want further proof, then the Open Skies case against Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways provides it. There's a document on file in the New York Court, which was there well before the Der Spiegel stuff came out, which states that the Etihad sponsorship of City was funded by central Abu Dhabi funds. That was prepared around 2010 I think, certainly no late than 2012 and that document is why I was so confident that we'd succeed in our appeal to CAS.

Do you seriously think that a document was prepared in 2012 that anticipated having to cover up something that we had no idea would become an issue years later?

He should change his user name to Keith Loon

 

[Silva61]

Hope you're right mate,but if that's the case why would it take 12 weeks?

In my opinion as ive said before, the 12 weeks allows for the drip drip feed to our adverseries of our innocence, agreed by both parties to make the blow a little more palatable.
I have no evidence of this but makes sense to me.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think everyone has to accept that if the alleged long term conspiracy has occurred and everyone has lied for years and years, with or without Pinto, the PL probably has all the evidence it needs. Very unlikely that the docs the PL needed were only in the hacked files. I think this is the nub of what Keith Moon doesn’t get.

Depends on how good the lies were :)

 

[Keith Moon]

Stop being such an attention-seeking idiot. You clearly know fuck all about this issue and refuse to listen to those who do know something. But just to try to hammer some facts into your skull, I'll respond.

The evidence presented at CAS from several sources made it clear where the bulk of the Etihad sponsorship came from. It came from central Abu Dhabi marketing funds and there's nothing wrong with that. So Etihad were given the money, but not by Sheikh Mansour, they paid it to us, the accounting was correct and they got full consideration for the money they paid in terms of sponsorship, plus it was considered to be a fair price for what they got.

But if you ant further proof, then the Open Skies case against Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways provides it. There's a document on file in the New York Court, which was there well before the Der Spiegel stuff came out, which states that the Etihad sponsorship of City was funded by central Abu Dhabi funds. That was prepared around 2010 I think, certainly no late than 2012 and that document is why I was so confident that we'd succeed in our appeal to CAS.

Do you seriously think that a document was prepared in 2012 that anticipated having to cover up something that we had no idea would become an issue years later?

Well, if I wanted to be an attention-seeking idiot, I’d go on X and demand that Pep be sacked. Do you know if the Etihad sponsorship is included in the Premier League’s charges?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Well, if I wanted to be an attention-seeking idiot, I’d go on X and demand that Pep be sacked. Do you know if the Etihad sponsorship is included in the Premier League’s charges?

Etihad hadn't been specifically named in the charges, but they talk explicitly about sponsorships, related parties and (for want of a better phrase) false accounting. So it's 99% certain that Etihad and other Abu Dhabi companies are involved, and that the charges involve disguised equity funding.

Another piece of evidence was in our case against the PL, where it became clear that the rationale for the associated party rules was that certain clubs believed we were flouting IAS 24, which requires disclosure of related parties, including Etihad.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Well, if I wanted to be an attention-seeking idiot, I’d go on X and demand that Pep be sacked. Do you know if the Etihad sponsorship is included in the Premier League’s charges?

I'll bite.

Nobody knows the detailed allegations, of course, but I can put forward a coherent explanation for why the PL must be disputing the funding of Etihad as well as it's non-related party nature and the fair value of the sponsorships.

Can you suggest a coherent explanation for why it may not be?

 

[johnny crossan]

Well, if I wanted to be an attention-seeking idiot, I’d go on X and demand that Pep be sacked. Do you know if the Etihad sponsorship is included in the Premier League’s charges?

You're getting far more attention on here than you would on twitter & with respect, more than your observations merit.

 

[I'm Blue]

Exactly-so why did Pep sign for 2 years-did the players know but not Pep. Really.

Also why would Pep be scratching his own face off stressing about how to fix this mess if he knew we were getting done?
He wouldn’t, he’d have walked already, along with a huge payoff to boot.
Unless the players know but Pep doesn’t.
Haha as if.
It’s all bollocks and bullshit.

 

[Keith Moon]

It hasn't been stated explicitly in the charges, but they talk explicitly about sponsorships, related parties and (for want of a better phrase) false accounting. So it's 99% certain that Etihad and other Abu Dhabi companies are involved.

But it’s not certain. These are my points—can you please tell me where I’m wrong?

1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.

 

[trublue55]

He should change his user name to Keith Loon

Who?

 

[halfcenturyup]

But it’s not certain. These are my points—can you please tell me where I’m wrong?

1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.

Wrong in 1, 2 and 3.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Is Moon Prick still in here?

Logs out.

 

[slbsn]

But it’s not certain. These are my points—can you please tell me where I’m wrong?

1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.

1. We do know with near certainty - neither party has guided the media away from explanations in the media. It’s the CAS allegations re run plus Fordham, Mancini etc and a dollop of non coop.
2. The threat to City is if they have actually carried out the alleged wholesale fraud and concealment. Btw evidence isn’t “uncovered” - they just got given it in disclosure
3. Nobody needs the Pinto docs any more. The damage was done years ago. Now the authorities have due cause to ask questions directly and require disclosure

Last reply

 

[wattle]

But I don’t agree that you do know why people respond to these posts. Is that ok?

Happy New Year

Having just read back on all his posts in the last 24 hours, I'm retracting my initial good Scrooge comments and am now going back to bad Scrooge. He's determined to fight the world with his expertise that one

 

[wattle]

What is that opinion based on, just out of interest?

My opinion is based on utter bollox as usual - like most on here ;)

 

[I'm Blue]

Today’s word of the day…


*Not sponsored or paid for by Sheikh Mansour*

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

But it’s not certain. These are my points—can you please tell me where I’m wrong?

1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.

1) We know what we're accused of but not necessarily the detail behind the allegations. But it's not hard to work those out. They all must relate to information published by Der Spiegel, so that's Etihad/Etisalat, Fordham and Mancini's Al Jazira contract. Neither UEFA nor the PL can legally go on a 'fishing expedition'; they have to have specific grounds where they believe breaches may have occurred and can only request documents relating to those areas.

2) Of course it's possible the PL has evidence that UEFA/CAS didn't have but given the weight of evidence presented by us at CAS, and the lack of any cogent evidence uncovered by UEFA, I'd suggest it's highly unlikely.

If the PL had convincing new evidence proving everyone knowingly lied at CAS, we'd almost certainly have settled before the hearing.

3) If Pinto had better evidence than the seven emails then UEFA would have had it years ago. The emails were basically innuendo and completely shorn of context. And I'm not sure this case is about strength of evidence anyway, but more an attempt to blacken our reputation.

Pinto can claim what he likes but his best shot was those seven emails, two of which had to be spliced together to make them look worse than they were. And there's plenty of people claiming to be in the know telling us they know the outcome of the Independent Commission hearing even before it finished. So I'd treat peoples'' claims with great suspicion.