Seems to me “non-cooperation” is going to be the fallback charge that is used to find us “guilty” of something.I read a brief article from Sky last week that stated that of the charges, some 56 (or thereabouts) are for non cooperation. This seems to me that the non cooperation charges are in relation to the number of alleged financial irregularities charges so that the PL are saying because City are not providing the information, the PL cannot prove the irregularities, even if there is nothing to provide, hence the non cooperation charges. Does this make sense?
Is this anyone else's take on the non cooperation?
Would you mind re posting this in the main thread? Happy to answer, but just want to keep as much of the discussion as possible in the one threadChris,
A wonderful succint post.Just a few questions.
1. Is this a summary on publically available information or from another source ? If from another source I appreciate the fact you will not disclose that !! A few other well respected posters like PB have made similar comments, so it perhaps would be important in such a clarification to explain how (if you can) you came to this conclusion.
2.The potential allegation of fraud.Not a lawyer, but a friend of mine was accused of fraud.Later exonerated.This involved an unexpected attendance by the police who confiscated his PCs laptops and all mobile phones in the house.I would imagine if the SFO had any inkling of fraud they would surely by now have acted in a similar fashion ?
3. The Roberto payments.Would Roberto have to be involved in any discussion in this matter, and if he or others decline,especially as they live abroad, does that not make the matter that much more complicated in terms of proof ? Just wondering if the PL have approached RM and he has said nothing to do with me.I would imagine his input would be critical in any charges against City.
Once again thank you.I am absolutely not questioning your veracity, but point one in particular would be useful to have an answer to !!
Bert
Only one was released post-CAS from what I recall. It was a couple of weeks or so after the verdict and smacked of one last desperate throw of the dice by that bellend Christoph Winterbach at Der Spiegel. IIRC, @petrusha re-tweeted him, calling out his pathetic straw-clutching. It begs the question as to why they waited until then to release it. If it was a genuine "smoking gun" then there's no chance they would've hung onto it for so long. IMO it's rather simple - they only did it because they couldn't accept the CAS result like a grown-up would so instead tried to undermine CAS.Great OP. On the emails, whilst it’s the same source as in the Pinto/Der Spiegel leaked emails, there were quite a few that were released post the CAS verdict.
I'm not sure whether that's correct but it could be. What I would say is that there was no need for disguised owner investment even back then because the sponsors in question could source the money from central funds (which is definitely what happened with Etihad) rather than asking Mansour to cough it up out of his own pocket. In other words, we'd have to be more stupid and amateurish than Peter Swales to have used disguised owner investment when the option was there to use a perfectly legitimate avenue.Am I right in thinking that there would have been no need for any “disguised owner investment” under the current rules which allow a certain level of owner investment?
So In other words, the rules that we are supposed to have been cheating to get around no longer apply.
United are taking in investment from Scruffy Jim to allow them to spend more than would have been allowed, so are they not doing exactly what we were not allowed to and are accused of committing fraud to achieve?
Funny how these rules were so important but aren’t now!
Only one was released post-CAS from what I recall. It was a couple of weeks or so after the verdict and smacked of one last desperate throw of the dice by that bellend Christoph Winterbach at Der Spiegel. IIRC, @petrusha re-tweeted him, calling out his pathetic straw-clutching.
I always thought the Mancini one has been in the public domain since the original Der Spiegel articles in 2018? Is that not correct?No, there were a few a couple of years after. It’s when the Mancini contract was fully leaked too.
I always thought the Mancini one has been in the public domain since the original Der Spiegel articles in 2018? Is that not correct?
Have you got a link to an article when the news of that first broke?The allegation was, not the (alleged) full contract.
I think the bigger issue that came out was the invoices though, as in who was actually paying him for the Al Jazira contract and negotiating about it.