We've got a Molotov cocktail with a match to go!
What does this mean in terms of City?
Or is it just a Guns and Roses song you like?
We've got a Molotov cocktail with a match to go!
Are you suggesting that Colin is actually the true hacker ?Great detective work. Can you forward that to Khaldoon - he’s still going through his emails looking for that !
Great detective work. Can you forward that to Khaldoon - he’s still going through his emails looking for that !
Bollocks or you’d understand what ‘money laundering’ is and you’d certainly not be accusing the City hierarchy of it.
Don't patronize me son. I didn’t accuse anyone of anything. I just used money laundering in the wrong context.
I stand by my statement that disclosing the source of funds for a sponsorship deal is vitally important. That’s pretty obvious.
However, I’ll bow to your superior knowledge as you’re clearly a forensic accountant and expert on all things financial.
Can something like that be reviewed by CAS?I've found a document that confirms the Etihad sponsorship was covered by the Executive Council, not ADUG. It was part of the Open Skies case brought by the US airlines against the Gulf ones (Etihad, Qatar & Emirates) and claimed that they were in receipt of huge government subsidies. As part of their defence Etihad had a presentation done for the Crown Prince, MBZ, by consultants Booz Allen.
Link here: http://www.openandfairskies.com/press-releases/newly-unearthed-etihad-documents/
Go to the link saying "major legal submission" and it'll open a PDF. On page 14 it says:
So there you have it. The Etihad sponsorship money, at least that money that wasn't paid from their own funds, came from the Executive Council, not ADUG.
Just a check...I'm sure that will all be revealed if this goes to a proper court of law (which isn't a slight on CAS but they're an arbitration service not a court).
It’s not key evidence but I do wish we’d start saying more about this sort of stuff as part of a PR campaign. “Sources close to the club” should be drip-feeding shit on UEFA on a concerted basis. And it should be good, hard factual stuff that hacks can verify themselves. We are the ones currently being discredited, not UEFA, and everyone is lapping it up.
You can actually appeal to a Swiss Court. It is not 100% binding arbitration.Just a check...
The case will be a binding arbitration not mediation. But "The President of the Division, before the transfer of the file to the Panel, and thereafter the Panel may at any time seek to resolve the dispute by conciliation".
"Dear UEFA, I've read Prestwich Blue's stuff about the Open Skies case which seems to undermine your main allegation. Do you think it's wise to proceed? Yours in sport, President of the Division." Wishful thinking, I guess.
As a Swiss arbitration organization, decisions of the CAS can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.[9] Appeals of arbitration decisions are generally not successful,[10] and no evaluation of the merits is taking place and the evaluation is mainly based on whether procedural requirements have been met, and whether the award is incompatible with public policy. As of March 2012 there have been seven successful appeals. Six of the upheld appeals were procedural in nature, and only once has the Federal Supreme Court overruled a CAS decision on the merits of the case. This was in the case of Matuzalém, a Brazilian football player.[11]
What if we get a ban in the summer snd we have let 2 briliant wingers go and nobody will sign for us unless we pay like rags? Bang goes 10yrs of wsge structure and it pised the others players off