Well said fella!
There is so much of this that is so wildly misreported and most people now have a completely distorted view of this whole affair.
The Premier League case is based on exactly the same source as the UEFA case. So what CAS stated is so relevant to this.
Many have tried to discredit CAS, yet this is a panel of highly respected barristers (and equivalents) across Europe applying the relevant laws and rules to judge the case. Whilst UEFA is wildly regarding as a corrupt organisation of racketeers that routinely treats its customers like dirt (Istanbul x 2, Paris, Heysel etc).
In the 95 page CAS report the word "Blatant" was written once. Dan Roan (Liverpool fan and head journalist of BBC sport) wrote a summary where he described City as showing a "Blatant Disregard" for the process/rules no fewer that 17 times. I complained about this to the BBC and the article has since been edited, and now only includes the phrase about 9 times.
Many journalists trot out the line that City only got off at CAS because it was time barred. This is not true. CAS published a conclusion explaining their decision. The £10m Etisalat deal was time barred (para 343 vi), yet only part of the £40m Etihad deal was. Therefore the bigger of the two, the Etihad deal, was considered and not time barred.
Paragraph 209 of the CAS report states clearly the the only evidence UEFA had against City was the emails published by der Spiegel. CAS considered this as admissible evidence (para 343 vii) and that it considered this was not sufficient to prove City had done what was alleged (para 343 viii).
Remember also, it was Martin Ziegler in The Timea who broke the story and his analysis of the information he was given (115 charges) was wildly different to the statement published two hours later by the Premier League (134 charges). For example Ziegler referenced 30 rule breaches RE non co-operation, yet the Premier League statement included 25 on this issue....
So even the 115 figure is wrong.
Neither The Times nor Ziegler have offered any explanation for these discrepancies or how Ziegler had a screenshot of the Premier League post 2 hours before the Premier League actually published their statement charging City?
The most revealing thing about the CAS hearing was that Email 4 published in der Spiegel, was shown by City to be two separate emails spliced together to give a false impression. So either, City were lying at CAS when making this claim, or someone on the other side (der Spiegel, Pinto or the actual hacker) had fabricated this email. Since no one on the "other side" has tried to disprove what City showed 4-5 years ago, you have to assume that everything City said was true and that this was a stitch up from the start.
So when you take all these things together and compare them to what is trotted out by the British media, at all levels, you know full well they are deliberately or naively misleading the general public.
I don't think you can assume anything published about this to be true, other than what is written in the Premier League handbooks and what is published on their website. For example, Rule W82 sets out what must be published when any club is charged (ie the charges and the result).
What is interesting is that out of everything listed in the allegations/charges, rule E59* is the only rule that City have allegedly breached, that triggers the disciplinary steps/action taken so far. To trigger E59 City have to break PSR and that relies on proving in full the first two allegations. If either fail, City have to be cleared.
*I've not managed to find EPL hand books before 2012 so I might be wrong here, but I doubt it.
I went through the figures and I can't see how even if allegations 1 and 2 are 100% proven that City break PSR ie rule E59. I calculated the losses if the case is proven to be:
£108,113,000: 2013-2016
-£75,263,000: 2014-2017
-£66,157,000: 2015-2018
My analysis:
A proper look at how the numbers add up. In the intricate web of football finance, where numbers and figures can often be as slippery as the pitches the players compete on, the case against Manchester City and the financial practices under scrutiny require a deep dive into the club's financials...
mancitystuff.co.uk
However, when calculating the above, I overlooked the fact that in der Spiegel's evidence they stated Etihad had contributed £8.3m each year out of the £40m. So the above figures should be adjusted by £25m (3x8.3) ie:
-£83,113,000: 2013-2016
-£50,263,000: 2014-2017
-£41,157,000: 2015-2018
City are nowhere near the £105m loss figure.
I'm surprised no one in our media has tried to do the above, even Football Finance expert Kieran MacGuire who should understand it hasn't bothered.
I can't see how City can be found guilty of these charges other than for non-co-operation.
