PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
You mean unless the PL can prove a different ownership structure and that different owner being The Abu Dhabi Government - just moving MCFC to, say, CPC takes them no further in proving their case.

And in any event, in such a scenario why is the club the offending party in that scenario - their shareholders will have been found to have lied to the corporate entity about the beneficial ownership.

That really is very very unlikely to happen and I can't see that they were trying that.

None of this is going to happen but the argument doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Fair points and you aren't wrong, of course. I wasn't suggesting the PL's argument would work, only that lying about the ownership of the company isn't any more fanciful than about lying about the nature of the Etihad funding, for example.

The argument about the club not being the offending party doesn't really stand up either, imho, as the club isn't the offending party if the owner has colluded with Etihad to fund their sponsorship. Yet that is the allegation.

I am just trying to tie together the related party allegation, the documented and accepted reasoning that APT was needed (partly) because City hadn't declared all its RPTs, the change in ownership from one form of company to another, and why Mohammed seems to have become an issue.

I could be completely wrong, of course. It has been known ....

But I wouldn't be surprised if I am not.

Oh, and by cleared up, I should have explained I meant that the club could point to the reasoning every time someone in the press says state-owned/ funded/ controlled or anything else, if the club was cleared by the panel.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It was in play at CAS. It was explicitly mentioned in the verdict that City may be guilty of misreporting if they hadn't declared sponsors as related parties (but the panel obviously didn't rule on whether that was in fact the case or not).

My view is that this encouraged our detractors to pursue this specific avenue.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point but seems pretty clear that neither fair market nor RP was in issue by the time they got to CAS. Certainly there was no debate about whether they were or weren’t RPs in evidence
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0636.jpeg
    IMG_0636.jpeg
    137.8 KB · Views: 151
kippaxwarrior said:
Getting the feeling the media attention over this has ramped up significantly over the last few days which suggests they have been briefed the outcome of the hearing is imminent however like 99% of us they don't know the outcome either
Click to expand...
FSG would have leaked a guilty verdict to The Athletic and New York Times by now.
 
slbsn said:
You mean unless the PL can prove a different ownership structure and that different owner being The Abu Dhabi Government - just moving MCFC to, say, CPC takes them no further in proving their case.

And in any event, in such a scenario why is the club the offending party in that scenario - their shareholders will have been found to have lied to the corporate entity about the beneficial ownership.

That really is very very unlikely to happen and I can't see that they were trying that.

None of this is going to happen but the argument doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Forgive me : CPC are what exactly?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fair points and you aren't wrong, of course. I wasn't suggesting the PL's argument would work, only that lying about the ownership of the company isn't any more fanciful than about lying about the nature of the Etihad funding, for example.

The argument about the club not being the offending party doesn't really stand up either, imho, as the club isn't the offending party if the owner has colluded with Etihad to fund their sponsorship. Yet that is the allegation.

I am just trying to tie together the related party allegation, the documented and accepted reasoning that APT was needed (partly) because City hadn't declared all its RPTs, the change in ownership from one form of company to another, and why Mohammed seems to have become an issue.

I could be completely wrong, of course. It has been known ....

But I wouldn't be surprised if I am not.

Oh, and by cleared up, I should have explained I meant that the club could point to the reasoning every time someone in the press says state-owned/ funded/ controlled or anything else, if the club was cleared by the panel.
Click to expand...
I think you should assume the allegation is that the club were absolutely part of the alleged conspiracy (Widdowson and Jorge emails). That’s very clearly the allegation.

I think that it is much harder to prove club involvement in some specific debate about which body in AD beneficially owns the club. A secret arrangement in AD would not necessarily been known to the club.

To be clear, I do not think this is a case about beneficial ownership.
 
slbsn said:
I think you should assume the allegation is that the club were absolutely part of the alleged conspiracy (Widdowson and Jorge emails). That’s very clearly the allegation.

I think that it is much harder to prove club involvement in some specific debate about which body in AD beneficially owns the club. A secret arrangement in AD would not necessarily been known to the club.

To be clear, I do not think this is a case about beneficial ownership.
Click to expand...

Even if there are emails and documents circulating around from the club's finance department and executive management describing AD sponsorships as "Shareholder Funding"?

Never mind. Maybe I am getting too involved in various rumours / details in an attempt to tie it all together.

Happy to accept your judgement that this isn't an issue :)

I would like it noted in AOB, though, just in case ;)
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Even if there are emails and documents circulating around from the club's finance department and executive management describing AD sponsorships as "Shareholder Funding"?

Never mind. Maybe I am getting too involved in various rumours / details in an attempt to tie it all together.

Happy to accept your judgment that this isn't an issue :)

I would like it noted in AOB, though, just in case ;)
Click to expand...

I’m astonished !
 
halfcenturyup said:
Even if there are emails and documents circulating around from the club's finance department and executive management describing AD sponsorships as "Shareholder Funding"?

Never mind. Maybe I am getting too involved in various rumours / details in an attempt to tie it all together.

Happy to accept your judgment that this isn't an issue :)

I would like it noted in AOB, though, just in case ;)
Click to expand...
Just because somebody describes it as such, doesn’t make it so.
By nature of us being human and taking shortcuts, there are a great many things expressed which upon examination are rendered incorrect.
It would be great folly to base a case solely on that without testing the assumption yourself.
Unless…
 
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