jaiguruKun
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 5,204
I've said this all along. It's perfectly proper for a business to seek to operate within a regulatory environment in such a way as to comply with the letter of the regulations in question while pursuing its own interests. If the relevant regulations have been deficiently drafted so as not to catch everything that the regulator wanted, that's the regulator's fault. It can't then go and impose sanctions based on what it wishes it had drafted.
Of course we'll see in due course when more information finds its way into the public domain, but I think there's at least some genuine chance that it will emerge that UEFA has done precisely this. Certainly, based on the evidence that's been made public so far, that possibility very definitely can't be excluded.
Isn't it too late for us to argue that point at CAS as it relates to the 2014 settlement which we accepted?
My understanding is that the appeal will relate to whether UEFA's process was so flawed so as to invalidate the finding and punishment (an abuse of process) and if not, whether the finding that the sponsorship deal was not paid by Etihad was a reasonable one based on the evidence UEFA had. They were clearly not satisfied with the material the club gave them hence the reason why they've accused us of not co-operating with the investigation although noone really knows what the exact basis of that suggestion is.
The media keeps referring to us having allegedly inflated the value of sponsorship deals which is a red herring. The question is where the funds were coming from which has been covered in detail by posters on here.
Last edited: