CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

SilverFox2 said:
Exactly. Marvin.
The madia generally argued and concluded our obvious guilt at the CAS judgment yet City won.
Since then the media still refuses to actually use and understand why we won.

Many thanks to all our great legal researchers and lawyers who give credibility not just gut feelings to their opinions.
Click to expand...
WHich is why in my opinion its pointless to discuss with them. THey have no interest at all in the governance of the game because City seem to be their sole target.
 
Marvin said:
WHich is why in my opinion its pointless to discuss with them. THey have no interest at all in the governance of the game because City seem to be their sole target.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is not a matter of discussing with these clowns, but rather to call them out and make them look as stupid as the shit they spoute. I think it is great what "our" boys are doing.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That it doesn't matter if ADUG provided the money to Etihad, as long as Etihad met the sponsorship contract terms and they were reasonable. So if the money goe ADUG --> Etihad --> City, he's claiming that's fine.

My view is that this would be seen as disguised equity investment and clearly contrary to FFP. Fortunately we never had to test that disagreement though.
Click to expand...
This is really dull and I can't really be bothered to get back into it but...

Firstly, my statement was a specific point not in the context you describe in your longer summary and pre-dated the actual CAS judgment.

But simply because ADUG funded Etihad to settle one of its contractual obligations does not mean it is automatically disguised equity investment any more than the same transaction of EAA --> Etihad --> City would (or wouldn't). It depends on the FACTS and EVIDENCE. This was not tested at CAS.

If ADUG put Etihad in funds with the requisite legal docs and creation of a debt or issue of shares to ADUG and Etihad go off and use those funds as it sees fit, it does not automatically make what they do with the cash "disguised." If however there is evidence it is a sham to disguise equity investment in City, then yes they risk being in breach. But the same applies to a flow from EAA --> Etihad --> City. It is case and fact specific. This is how the law works, you have to evidence the breach. I can't see (but you may be able to) where CAS accepted EAA funded the "Etihad central funds." It is not the case that ADUG = bad and EAA = everything is fine.

CAS was never asked to consider EAA or whether EAA had put the "Etihad central funds" in funds and it made no finding on this. CAS did definitively say none of ADUG or Etihad were related so presumably neither would EAA have been.

1627489591171.png
So we don't know, as you assert, that if CAS found ADUG --> Etihad --> City, they would have 99% found in favour of UEFA. It is possible but likewise possible they would have concluded there was insufficient support factually of that intent. The idea they were saved because CAS were sure the funds came from EAA is just not right.

1627491104444.png
 
projectriver said:
This is really dull and I can't really be bothered to get back into it but...

Firstly, my statement was a specific point not in the context you describe in your longer summary and pre-dated the actual CAS judgment.

But simply because ADUG funded Etihad to settle one of its contractual obligations does not mean it is automatically disguised equity investment any more than the same transaction of EAA --> Etihad --> City would (or wouldn't). It depends on the FACTS and EVIDENCE. This was not tested at CAS.

If ADUG put Etihad in funds with the requisite legal docs and creation of a debt or issue of shares to ADUG and Etihad go off and use those funds as it sees fit, it does not automatically make what they do with the cash "disguised." If however there is evidence it is a sham to disguise equity investment in City, then yes they risk being in breach. But the same applies to a flow from EAA --> Etihad --> City. It is case and fact specific. This is how the law works, you have to evidence the breach. I can't see (but you may be able to) where CAS accepted EAA funded the "Etihad central funds." It is not the case that ADUG = bad and EAA = everything is fine.

CAS was never asked to consider EAA or whether EAA had put the "Etihad central funds" in funds and it made no finding on this. CAS did definitively say none of ADUG or Etihad were related so presumably neither would EAA have been.

View attachment 22126
So we don't know, as you assert, that if CAS found ADUG --> Etihad --> City, they would have 99% found in favour of UEFA. It is possible but likewise possible they would have concluded there was insufficient support factually of that intent. The idea they were saved because CAS were sure the funds came from EAA is just not right.

View attachment 22131
Click to expand...
It maybe really dull as you suggest Peter but reading and understanding its legality then helping us laymen with your interpretation has always been part of the threads.

Thank you so much.
 
projectriver said:
This is really dull and I can't really be bothered to get back into it but...

Firstly, my statement was a specific point not in the context you describe in your longer summary and pre-dated the actual CAS judgment.

But simply because ADUG funded Etihad to settle one of its contractual obligations does not mean it is automatically disguised equity investment any more than the same transaction of EAA --> Etihad --> City would (or wouldn't). It depends on the FACTS and EVIDENCE. This was not tested at CAS.

If ADUG put Etihad in funds with the requisite legal docs and creation of a debt or issue of shares to ADUG and Etihad go off and use those funds as it sees fit, it does not automatically make what they do with the cash "disguised." If however there is evidence it is a sham to disguise equity investment in City, then yes they risk being in breach. But the same applies to a flow from EAA --> Etihad --> City. It is case and fact specific. This is how the law works, you have to evidence the breach. I can't see (but you may be able to) where CAS accepted EAA funded the "Etihad central funds." It is not the case that ADUG = bad and EAA = everything is fine.

CAS was never asked to consider EAA or whether EAA had put the "Etihad central funds" in funds and it made no finding on this. CAS did definitively say none of ADUG or Etihad were related so presumably neither would EAA have been.

View attachment 22126
So we don't know, as you assert, that if CAS found ADUG --> Etihad --> City, they would have 99% found in favour of UEFA. It is possible but likewise possible they would have concluded there was insufficient support factually of that intent. The idea they were saved because CAS were sure the funds came from EAA is just not right.

View attachment 22131
Click to expand...
On here we are becoming hung up on semantics depending on the legal or financial take on things.

The issue is there has been no proof of guilt of wrong doing by MCFC or CFG or ADUG.

The case by UEFA was thrown out by CAS. No charges have been made by the PL. "Clear and obvious" the instigators, their mischief and vehicles including timescales, all going down. It has become a facesaving, rearguard, damage limitation excercise, doomed to fail. It is no Dunkirk.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.