PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Marvin. said:
If a private business deal is facilitated by a UAE state official, so what? As long as the private company has a contractual relationship with City and the money comes from the private company, I don't see that it matters.

I have only read the tweets so I don't know what is being alleged but it doesn't seem to me to be surprising or significant.
Click to expand...
A bit of an attempt at timely leaking/mud slinging because the masters of Masters haven’t got the outcome they want (?)
 
IDK if I misremembered but I thought CAS - while noting the Etisalat stuff was time-barred said that the arrangement - though unorthodox - was not technically owner-infused equity since the 30 million was eventually paid back in 2015. This true?

Also, is it possible this Etisalat is time-barred as part of the PL case since the allegation took place in 2012 and 2013?
 
ThreesKompany said:
IDK if I misremembered but I thought CAS - while noting the Etisalat stuff was time-barred said that the arrangement - though unorthodox - was not technically owner-infused equity since the 30 million was eventually paid back in 2015. This true?

Also, is it possible this Etisalat is time-barred as part of the PL case since the allegation took place in 2012 and 2013?
Click to expand...

I'm just gobsmacked how football has come to this looking at the minutiae of footballs finances.

Go to match
Have a beer and a pie
Go home watch MOTD.

Now it's like a board room meeting for anoraks, games gone a bit shit really.
 
mexico1970 said:
I'm just gobsmacked how football has come to this looking at the minutiae of footballs finances.

Go to match
Have a beer and a pie
Go home watch MOTD.

Now it's like a board room meeting for anoraks, games gone a bit shit really.
Click to expand...
You would think, but don't forget the right teams have to win.

Else it's a problem.
 
flb said:
You know something , I’m fucking exhausted with it all , it’s taking my eye off things on the pitch. Talking about MY club in public now is something i sort of dread , it’s the usual “cheats” and “small club”. Success is a fantastic thing , and I’ve embraced every second of it.
I’m no shrinking violet when it’s come to this club and defending it for 40 plus years.
Just fucking win this City , it won’t beat our first PL title , or the treble , or the four in a row - but it’s fucking close believe you me.
Click to expand...
CITY till we die.
And at least we never had any players dodge a drug test.....
 
Grassland Blue said:
CITY till we die.
And at least we never had any players dodge a drug test.....
Click to expand...
window-climb.gif
 
Marvin. said:
If a private business deal is facilitated by a UAE state official, so what? As long as the private company has a contractual relationship with City and the money comes from the private company, I don't see that it matters.

I have only read the tweets so I don't know what is being alleged but it doesn't seem to me to be surprising or significant.
Click to expand...

I think the athletic would state in their defence that they haven’t alleged anything. They’ve simply stated a few characteristics to guide the interpretation & influence the readers opinion of the relationship.
 
I've said this before and I will always believe, that if Sheikh Mansour had invested in one of the usual suspects, there would never have been any FFP, APT or PSR rules.
In fact the money invested would have been eagerly and greedily accepted by whichever of those clubs benefitted (for the good of the game....)
Dirty oil money wouldn't have been a factor at all either.
 
ThreesKompany said:
IDK if I misremembered but I thought CAS - while noting the Etisalat stuff was time-barred said that the arrangement - though unorthodox - was not technically owner-infused equity since the 30 million was eventually paid back in 2015. This true?

Also, is it possible this Etisalat is time-barred as part of the PL case since the allegation took place in 2012 and 2013?
Click to expand...

The CAS arbitrators didn't conclude anything about Etisalat other than it was time-barred. Why would they? There was no point - it was time-barred. They did, though, include some background information which set out what happened and, as far as I am aware, made perfect sense from the way it was accounted for. Who arranged what and where the money came from doesn't seem particularly relevant, to me at least.

As for the 115, there is no time limitation if fraud or concealment was involved (well, actually, there is but the clock starts ticking from when the fraudulent act was disclosed), so if there was anything fraudulent in the Etisalat funding it isn't time limited, but if there isn't it is, if you follow me. Smart money is very very much on the side that there was nothing fraudulent in it. The Athletic's latest doesn't shift that dial at all unless we are all missing something.

I think that is it in a nutshell.
 
cheekybids said:
I think the athletic would state in their defence that they haven’t alleged anything. They’ve simply stated a few characteristics to guide the interpretation & influence the readers opinion of the relationship.
Click to expand...

Sure, but it's a little more sinister than that, imho. They have been given an unredacted copy of (at least part of) the confidential, internal UEFA report, presumably with pointers, as always, on how they should interpret the information in it. The implication being, again, that there was something untoward going on. I just don't see the relevance of it as some sort of exclusive.

The whole point of the UEFA Etisalat allegations was that ADUG funded the Etisalat sponsorship in those two years. It was explained that the money was reimbursed by Etisalat after the contract was signed, so clearly that is nonsense. Who funded the commitment in the interim is irrelevant to the charges, even if it was Mansour himself. Of course, it may just be me who can't see the point of the article. But smarter people than me are struggling with it as well.

So, again, back to the sinister questions: which shadowy figure gave them the information, why and why now?

It's pretty ironic that the Athletic are looking at "shadowy" goings-on at City when their business model is based on confidential information leaked by their own shadowy figures.

The world we live in ......
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Sure, but it's a little more sinister than that, imho. They have been given an unredacted copy of (at least part of) the confidential, internal UEFA report, presumably with pointers, as always, on how they should interpret the information in it. The implication being, again, that there was something untoward going on. I just don't see the relevance of it as some sort of exclusive.

The whole point of the UEFA Etisalat allegations was that ADUG funded the Etisalat sponsorship in those two years. It was proven that the money was reimbursed by Etisalat after the contract was signed, so clearly that is nonsense. Who funded the commitment in the interim is irrelevant to the charges, even if it was Mansour himself. Of course, it may just be me who can't see the point of the article. But smarter people than me are struggling with it as well.

So, again, back to the sinister questions: which shadowy figure gave them the information, why and why now?

It's pretty ironic that the Athletic are looking at "shadowy" goings-on at City when their business model is based on confidential information leaked by their own shadowy figures.

The world we live in ......
Click to expand...

I’m quite aware of what they are doing but the reason it’s filled with shadowy, mysterious rather than an allegation in plain English is they know there’s fuck all.

I was simply saying they’d deny they alleged anything just like when Sam Lee told us all we were mistaken with we mis-interpreted a hit job.
 
Grassland Blue said:
I've said this before and I will always believe, that if Sheikh Mansour had invested in one of the usual suspects, there would never have been any FFP, APT or PSR rules.
In fact the money invested would have been eagerly and greedily accepted by whichever of those clubs benefitted (for the good of the game....)
Dirty oil money wouldn't have been a factor at all either.
Click to expand...
Suppose he had invested in the rags, would not the dippers try to nobble them?
 
Grassland Blue said:
I've said this before and I will always believe, that if Sheikh Mansour had invested in one of the usual suspects, there would never have been any FFP, APT or PSR rules.
In fact the money invested would have been eagerly and greedily accepted by whichever of those clubs benefitted (for the good of the game....)
Dirty oil money wouldn't have been a factor at all either.
Click to expand...
Is the correct statement
 
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