We will gain weight after eating loads of jelly and ice cream if uefa dies.If we get this overturned at CAS, and destroy UEFA and their shitty cartel in the process, it could gain us an army of new fans!
We will gain weight after eating loads of jelly and ice cream if uefa dies.If we get this overturned at CAS, and destroy UEFA and their shitty cartel in the process, it could gain us an army of new fans!
He is a strange,not that great recently,he is firmly on the dipper bandwagonAdd in Henry Winter.
But that would be unprovable, surely? Regardless of any amount of crass and unprofessional emails?
City’s bank statement would say £X received from Etihad not split down into different payers - I can’t imagine it’s in UEFA’s gift to open the Etihad books and check?
Right.It isn’t though, that’s what I mean. All that doc says is that the executive council were going to cover our 2011 sponsorship costs (6.1m at the time).
As far as I'm aware they've reopened the 2014 settlement agreement. There's two potential issues with that. One is do they have the legal right to do that. The other is, did they do it in time. In other words they're not allowed to revisit a settled case more than 5 years after the original breach. Now they've taken the start of that period to be from when they published the sanctions, which was 16 May 2014. But that may be wrong as the date of the breach could have been as early as our 2013 year end, the day we submitted our return showing we were in breach or when they formally informed us of the breach. All of those would have pre-dated 16 May.@Prestwich_Blue I’ve just had a look at the initial Settlement Agreement(SA) and as I’m sure you know it covers the seasons from 2013/2014 up to and including 2015/2016
I’m UEFA’s statement on Friday they specify the penalty is for breaches from 2012-2016. Now given the Settlement Agreement and UEFA’s own 5 year limitation UEFA seem only able to investigate about 6 months worth of accounts(at best). Do I understand this correctly?
If so, how would UEFA go about reopening the 2014 SA? It would surely require a gross breach to even entertain the idea of reopening and overinflating sponsorship which allegedly happened during a period they already looked at seems pretty weak. But even if that is true, the punishment doesn’t really fit the ‘crime’. Unless they are accusing City of cooking the books for the best part of 5 years which, if true, then we would have bigger things to worry about than Sterling or Sane leaving - that would be an issue for the U.K. courts not UEFA’s imaginary one, surely?
Thanks in advance. But don’t be shy in calling me an idiot who’s got it all wrong....
Right.
And the hacked emails say that ADUG were going to cover them.
So if we can prove the Executive Council paid them, that destroy's the main allegation we face?
Send me the linkYou're a real chipolata off the old block.
It was more than that but if Etihad weren't fully funding it themselves, why weren't ADUG funding the rest from the start? If the EC were funding it from Day 1, why would they suddenly change to ADUG funding it?It isn’t though, that’s what I mean. All that doc says is that the executive council were going to cover our 2011 sponsorship costs (6.1m at the time).