PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

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?

Presumably the document you refer to as being on file in the New York court is the Booz Allen presentation from 2010 which hit the public domain in May 2014 when leaked in the Australian Financial Review paper.

Are you aware that during the Open Skies exchanges in 2015, Eitihad responded to the claims by the 3 American airlines in a detailed 64 page document before the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State - Washington , DC?

I quote from the document:

"The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English
Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester
City entered into a 10 year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester
City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity."

Unless you have something else up your sleeve to correct me (i hope you have) it seems you have put far too much emphasis on a leaked document without the full context. Ironic :)

 

[ChicagoBlue]

He can’t Handel the truth.

That’s because your story keeps Chopin and changin’

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Presumably the document you refer to as being on file in the New York court is the Booz Allen presentation from 2010 which hit the public domain in May 2014 when leaked in the Australian Financial Review paper.

Are you aware that during the Open Skies exchanges in 2015, Eitihad responded to the claims by the 3 American airlines in a detailed 64 page document before the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State - Washington , DC?

I quote from the document:

"The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English
Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester
City entered into a 10 year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester
City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity."

Unless you have something else up your sleeve to correct me (i hope you have) it seems you have put far too much emphasis on a leaked document without the full context. Ironic :)

I'd say that statement is technically correct. The UEFA case centred on the fact that there were two separate payments; one of c£8m and another of c£52m. UEFA's assertion was that the £52m came from ADUG. The evidence presented at CAS was that it originated from "central marketing funds". The funds weee given to Etihad, who paid them to City.

So yes, technically speaking they came from Etihad.

 

[cheekybids]

I am sure this is correct but don't think Pinto targeted us because our emails were a miniscule portion of tens of millions of documents hacked by Pinto. His MO was to trawl for data and either sell it to the media or try to blackmail organisations. He was caught bang to rights, complete with his secret Swiss bank accounts. We were just collateral damage. None of the charges against Pinto (up to now) relate to City. It is not clear how or why Der Spiegl got the information. Perhaps they just paid Pinto for it because it was a good story.

I’d hazard a guess Der Spiegel were provided the assignment as the original plan was to destroy us on the European stage.

The world is awash with filth but the media decides what the great unwashed should be angry about, behind that is someone deciding what the media should focus on. If anyone thinks the City emails were the biggest story on his hard drive, they weren’t even the biggest football story on his hard drive. The worlds best footballer raped a woman & paid hush money, could no longer visit the USA & risk arrest meaning Madrid, Juve & the Rags couldn’t go there pre-season.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I’d hazard a guess Der Spiegel were provided the assignment as the original plan was to destroy us on the European stage.

Sadly, not out of the realm of possibilities.

The world is awash with filth but the media decides what the great unwashed should be angry about, behind that is someone deciding what the media should focus on.

Indeed! America is learning this more and more every day, but is asleep at the switch watching “Reality TV,” the latest “viral video” on Tik Tok, buying shit on Temu they don’t need because it’s cheaper today than it was yesterday, yet wondering why they’re not getting ahead in life and why China is such a threat?!

If anyone thinks the City emails were the biggest story on his hard drive, they weren’t even the biggest football story on his hard drive.

The worlds best footballer raped a woman & paid hush money, could no longer visit the USA & risk arrest meaning Madrid, Juve & the Rags couldn’t go there pre-season.

Messi? Rape? And, he never played for any of those teams?!

 

[bluestreak]

He can’t Handel the truth.

There should be some head Chopin happening in the near future.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

I'd say that statement is technically correct. The UEFA case centred on the fact that there were two separate payments; one of c£8m and another of c£52m. UEFA's assertion was that the £52m came from ADUG. The evidence presented at CAS was that it originated from "central marketing funds". The funds weee given to Etihad, who paid them to City.

So yes, technically speaking they came from Etihad.

I know what was said at CAS but that's not the point.


In August, based on the leaked Booz Allen document you said:

Anyone who's followed my postings on here will hopefully confirm that I already knew that, via a document that was in the public domain via a court in New York that was hearing a case under the 'Open Skies Agreement'. This was a presentation which was prepared for Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed and explicitly stated that the Etihad sponsorship was being paid by the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. That's why I was quite confident we would beat UEFA at CAS, and that we'll beat the main substantive PL charge.

So, how do you square that with the statement from the Etihad rebutal in the Open Skies exchanges? To repeat the statement, Eitihad responded to the claims by the 3 American airlines in a detailed 64 page document before the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State - Washington , DC with this included:

"The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English
Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester
City entered into a 10 year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester
City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity."

It is pretty clear to me that the 2nd statement trumps the first statement ie a legal document from Etihad over the leaked document from Booz Allen. Hence why I asked if you had seen the Etihad rebutal but you've not answered.


It is my opinion you contine to put too much weight on the Booz Allen document and you should just forget it!

 

[WRicko]

I know what was said at CAS but that's not the point.


In August, based on the leaked Booz Allen document you said:

Anyone who's followed my postings on here will hopefully confirm that I already knew that, via a document that was in the public domain via a court in New York that was hearing a case under the 'Open Skies Agreement'. This was a presentation which was prepared for Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed and explicitly stated that the Etihad sponsorship was being paid by the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. That's why I was quite confident we would beat UEFA at CAS, and that we'll beat the main substantive PL charge.

So, how do you square that with the statement from the Etihad rebutal in the Open Skies exchanges? To repeat the statement, Eitihad responded to the claims by the 3 American airlines in a detailed 64 page document before the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State - Washington , DC with this included:

"The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English
Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester
City entered into a 10 year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester
City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity."

It is pretty clear to me that the 2nd statement trumps the first statement ie a legal document from Etihad over the leaked document from Booz Allen. Hence why I asked if you had seen the Etihad rebutal but you've not answered.


It is my opinion you contine to put too much weight on the Booz Allen document and you should just forget it!

So City are guilty ?

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

So City are guilty ?

Not at all.

Just irritated that PB was was forcibly arguing Open Skies stuff again as a matter of fact when it's not imo for the reasons stated.

 

[lancs blue]

So City are guilty ?

Guilty of what, if Etihad provided the sponsorship monies from its own liquidity as stated above?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I know what was said at CAS but that's not the point.


In August, based on the leaked Booz Allen document you said:

Anyone who's followed my postings on here will hopefully confirm that I already knew that, via a document that was in the public domain via a court in New York that was hearing a case under the 'Open Skies Agreement'. This was a presentation which was prepared for Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed and explicitly stated that the Etihad sponsorship was being paid by the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. That's why I was quite confident we would beat UEFA at CAS, and that we'll beat the main substantive PL charge.

So, how do you square that with the statement from the Etihad rebutal in the Open Skies exchanges? To repeat the statement, Eitihad responded to the claims by the 3 American airlines in a detailed 64 page document before the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State - Washington , DC with this included:

"The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English
Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester
City entered into a 10 year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester
City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity."

It is pretty clear to me that the 2nd statement trumps the first statement ie a legal document from Etihad over the leaked document from Booz Allen. Hence why I asked if you had seen the Etihad rebutal but you've not answered.


It is my opinion you contine to put too much weight on the Booz Allen document and you should just forget it!

Isn't the relevant point that both of those statements and the evidence given at CAS can all be consistent? ADEC > Etihad (marketing budget / central funds) > City?

 

[KS55]

Isn't the relevant point that both of those statements and the evidence given at CAS can all be consistent? ADEC > Etihad (marketing budget / central funds) > City?

Yes and the emails from City made it clear that the funds had to come via Etihad, iirc. Every Russian club is funded in the same way, ie funds from the gov to a state owned company and on to the club. Emirates lost money for years but still managed to sponsor Arsenal with Dubai support.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Isn't the relevant point that both of those statements and the evidence given at CAS can all be consistent? ADEC > Etihad (marketing budget / central funds) > City?

Yes probably.

The open skies stuff triggers me now because it’s such old news and too much weight placed on it pre CAS imo.

Ignore and move on ;)

 

[give it to gordon]

Yes and the emails from City made it clear that the funds had to come via Etihad, iirc. Every Russian club is funded in the same way, ie funds from the gov to a state owned company and on to the club. Emirates lost money for years but still managed to sponsor Arsenal with Dubai support.

Hang on ! So Emirates Airways are state owned ?
But they sponsor gooners and the fa Cup

 

[mancboy]

Yes probably.

The open skies stuff triggers me now because it’s such old news and too much weight placed on it pre CAS imo.

Ignore and move on ;)

tbf everything relating to this case is old news

 

[mancboy]

Hang on ! So Emirates Airways are state owned ?
But they sponsor gooners and the fa Cup

its almost like united having an ongoing relationship with saudi since 2008 but thats okay nothing to see there

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

I’d hazard a guess Der Spiegel were provided the assignment as the original plan was to destroy us on the European stage.

The world is awash with filth but the media decides what the great unwashed should be angry about, behind that is someone deciding what the media should focus on. If anyone thinks the City emails were the biggest story on his hard drive, they weren’t even the biggest football story on his hard drive. The worlds best footballer raped a woman & paid hush money, could no longer visit the USA & risk arrest meaning Madrid, Juve & the Rags couldn’t go there pre-season.

The media and large corporations controlling what we think is an age old problem. Hell, Rage Against the Machine wrote a whole song about it in 1992, it's called Bullet in the Head (for those too young to remember it)

 

[mancboy]

The media and large corporations controlling what we think is an age old problem. Hell, Rage Against the Machine wrote a whole song about it in 1992, it's called Bullet in the Head (for those too young to remember it)

The mad thing about that is that we are still all falling for it, albeit in a different way, we as a society have access to more information that at any point in our history and for the most part its right at the end of our fingertips yet still an alarmingly large number of people choose to believe what some moron at the daily fail writes or what some dickhead on social media posts rather than verifying any kind of information.

 

[slbsn]

Why? Do you think the PL have a strong case to support Etihad being any or all of:

• a related party,
• not FMV,
• disguised equity investment?

I'm pretty certain you've discounted all these possibilities in your previous posts and have said that the PL are unlikely to be able to prove these particular charges.

You've made the point that, via disclosure, the PL will have access to far more documents than CAS were presented with. But that doesn't necessarily mean their evidence is any stronger than UEFA's. There's just more of it and it's virtually inconceivable that everyone lied through their teeth at CAS when presenting evidence on our behalf about the Etihad sponsorship. It could be that the PL are simply going to go down the same route as UEFA over Etihad, hopefully with the same outcome.

Of course we are assuming Etihad is at the core of the first group of charges but we may be wrong, and they may be going after Etisalat or other AD-based sponsorships, which weren't tested at CAS.

The fundamental difference we have over this whole case is the PL's motivation. I'm a cynic about that, along with others, believing that this is part of a coordinated attack on us by other clubs, and that proving the charges isn't necessarily the overall objective. You believe the PL is acting independently of some of its members and has brought this case purely on the strength of the evidence they have. I don't think our chairman shares your view, and club officials I've spoken to certainly don't.

We'll hopefully know one way or the other in the next 2-3 months.

The case (and the most serious allegation) is predominantly about Etihad and disguised equity. I am surprised this is still debated - both the club and PL would have guided the media away from that suggestion. Can the PL prove it? Did it happen as alleged? I doubt it. We will see.

I just don't get the idea this is about whether these parties are actually related parties or not and as I have said if that is some kind of argument in the alternative, it will fail.

PS I’m not saying the “was Etihad a related party” won’t be an issue on the issues list (I would expect the lawyers on the PL side to consider it a distraction) but I’m saying in the context of the main allegations, the point goes nowhere.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The case (and the most serious allegation) is predominantly about Etihad and disguised equity. I am surprised this is still debated - both the club and PL would have guided the media away from that suggestion. Can the PL prove it? Did it happen as alleged? I doubt it. We will see.

I just don't get the idea this is about whether these parties are actually related parties or not and as I have said if that is some kind of argument in the alternative, it will fail.

PS I’m not saying the “was Etihad a related party” won’t be an issue on the issues list (I would expect the lawyers on the PL side to consider it a distraction) but I’m saying in the context of the main allegations, the point goes nowhere.

I don't think anyone has disputed that the most serious allegations are those around the funding of the AD sponsorships, especially Etihad, of course.

But I am surprised you think the question of RPT and FMV is so inconsequential. Is it any more so than the allegations in respect of Mancini and Touré? Yet here we are.