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

[WRicko]

Mail article is interesting.For the following reasons.

Nothing new but it could be all over soon.

The article claims that we got off due to the evidence being time barred. That’s not my understanding the evidence was not time barred ( the emails ) they where illegally stolen not proof of what actually happened out of context and edited.

What was time barred I thought was UEFAs ability to re examine our relationship and there treatment of the minor UAE Sponsors though I don’t think they would have been able to get round international definitions of related parties had they been able to reopen this part due to it not being time barred.

Can someone confirm I am on the right lines with this ?

 

[moomba]

It's time for the league to wrap this up one way or the other.

If they don't have enough evidence after 4 years to charge us they need to move on.

As it is, having an ongoing investigation just leaves us open for accusations and slander.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Mail article is interesting.For the following reasons.

Nothing new but it could be all over soon.

The article claims that we got off due to the evidence being time barred. That’s not my understanding the evidence was not time barred ( the emails ) they where illegally stolen not proof of what actually happened out of context and edited.

What was time barred I thought was UEFAs ability to re examine our relationship and there treatment of the minor UAE Sponsors though I don’t think they would have been able to get round international definitions of related parties had they been able to reopen this part due to it not being time barred.

Can someone confirm I am on the right lines with this ?

What was time barred was anything prior to the CAS-imposed cut-off date, which was 5 years prior to the filing of charges (which effectively was anything up to and including our 2013 year end accounts. Anything in the 2014 accounts and beyond was in scope.

On the basis that the PL haven't (as far as we know) charged us with anything as yet, and the assumption that a 6-year UK Statute of Limitations will apply, then if they charged us tomorrow, they couldn't legally look at anything that happened prior to 9th May 2016 in theory. So that might be the 2015 accounts and prior years (as May 2016 would fall within the 2015/16 financial year).

We also know from the CAS ruling that the CFCB case concerned the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships, which started prior to the cut-off date but continued beyond it and are still in place today. So if ADUG had been providing the money for these sponsorships during or after the 2013/14 financial year then they would have been able to look at that. However it was quite clear that it was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, not ADUG, who were supplying the funds to Etihad (not us, which was the point of some of the emails). The sponsorships were never owner funded so the time-barring claim is a complete red herring.

What also just occurred to me is what exactly the PL are looking at? Their financial rules are very different to UEFA's FFP rules and merely concern looking at losses, which are allowed to total £105m over 3 years. I think these rules only came into force in the 2015/16 season. The only thing I can think of that they're looking at is whether we would have broken their rules (not UEFA's) if sponsorship was artificially inflated. We know it wasn't so I struggle to see how they'll come up with any charges unless they have a smoking gun that UEFA/CAS didn't have.

 

[Newman Noggs]

It's time for the league to wrap this up one way or the other.

If they don't have enough evidence after 4 years to charge us they need to move on.

As it is, having an ongoing investigation just leaves us open for accusations and slander.

In my opinion they will wrap it up their enquiry in the close season and leak to the press shortly after it is known if we have won the league. Even though the clubs pushing it will be enjoying dragging out commercially damaging rumour and innuendo for as long as possible, there comes a time when its impact diminishes.

Since, again in my opinion, they can't give us the all clear without incurring the wrath of the super-league movers, I reckon they will charge us with something, find us "guilty" based on their "experts" and impose a punishment putting the burden us to prove our innocence and thus breathing new life into the whole thing.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Mail article is interesting.For the following reasons.

Nothing new but it could be all over soon.

The article claims that we got off due to the evidence being time barred. That’s not my understanding the evidence was not time barred ( the emails ) they where illegally stolen not proof of what actually happened out of context and edited.

What was time barred I thought was UEFAs ability to re examine our relationship and there treatment of the minor UAE Sponsors though I don’t think they would have been able to get round international definitions of related parties had they been able to reopen this part due to it not being time barred.

Can someone confirm I am on the right lines with this ?

Prestwich blue explained the time barrings to me a year or so ago, I should have print screened it as I’ve forgot what he said about it now. He might be kind enough to explain it again, although I do think he said he wasn’t sure if they would have had any impact if they were within the time limit.

Does make me laugh that these reports always miss out out the fact that CAS found no evidence ADUG funded the etihad deal. That was the reasoning for the champions league ban, yet it’s missed out every time.

 

[wahablue]

When all this crap is finally thrown out,I would love the Club to state that anymore slanderous innuendo will result in court proceedings,and finish this once and for all.

 

[CC1]

What was time barred was anything prior to the CAS-imposed cut-off date, which was 5 years prior to the filing of charges (which effectively was anything up to and including our 2013 year end accounts. Anything in the 2014 accounts and beyond was in scope.

On the basis that the PL haven't (as far as we know) charged us with anything as yet, and the assumption that a 6-year UK Statute of Limitations will apply, then if they charged us tomorrow, they couldn't legally look at anything that happened prior to 9th May 2016 in theory. So that might be the 2015 accounts and prior years (as May 2016 would fall within the 2015/16 financial year).

We also know from the CAS ruling that the CFCB case concerned the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships, which started prior to the cut-off date but continued beyond it and are still in place today. So if ADUG had been providing the money for these sponsorships during or after the 2013/14 financial year then they would have been able to look at that. However it was quite clear that it was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, not ADUG, who were supplying the funds to Etihad (not us, which was the point of some of the emails). The sponsorships were never owner funded so the time-barring claim is a complete red herring.

What also just occurred to me is what exactly the PL are looking at? Their financial rules are very different to UEFA's FFP rules and merely concern looking at losses, which are allowed to total £105m over 3 years. I think these rules only came into force in the 2015/16 season. The only thing I can think of that they're looking at is whether we would have broken their rules (not UEFA's) if sponsorship was artificially inflated. We know it wasn't so I struggle to see how they'll come up with any charges unless they have a smoking gun that UEFA/CAS didn't have.

It appears both sides are keeping this issue as private as possible. Question for PB - is it possible that it’s City that are the accusers - ie pursuing the PL & 9 clubs who wrote “the letters”, for damages as a result of their constant “accusations”

It just seems strange that there are no leaks from anyone associated with the PL - & it could be that it’s us that has some damaging accusations against the PL & some of its members - which they are defending.

Or is this wishful thinking?

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

What was time barred was anything prior to the CAS-imposed cut-off date, which was 5 years prior to the filing of charges (which effectively was anything up to and including our 2013 year end accounts. Anything in the 2014 accounts and beyond was in scope.

On the basis that the PL haven't (as far as we know) charged us with anything as yet, and the assumption that a 6-year UK Statute of Limitations will apply, then if they charged us tomorrow, they couldn't legally look at anything that happened prior to 9th May 2016 in theory. So that might be the 2015 accounts and prior years (as May 2016 would fall within the 2015/16 financial year).

We also know from the CAS ruling that the CFCB case concerned the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships, which started prior to the cut-off date but continued beyond it and are still in place today. So if ADUG had been providing the money for these sponsorships during or after the 2013/14 financial year then they would have been able to look at that. However it was quite clear that it was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, not ADUG, who were supplying the funds to Etihad (not us, which was the point of some of the emails). The sponsorships were never owner funded so the time-barring claim is a complete red herring.

What also just occurred to me is what exactly the PL are looking at? Their financial rules are very different to UEFA's FFP rules and merely concern looking at losses, which are allowed to total £105m over 3 years. I think these rules only came into force in the 2015/16 season. The only thing I can think of that they're looking at is whether we would have broken their rules (not UEFA's) if sponsorship was artificially inflated. We know it wasn't so I struggle to see how they'll come up with any charges unless they have a smoking gun that UEFA/CAS didn't have.

PB. Thanks, as usual a good read. Have you a view on the third party / illegal payments angle which also seemed to be a to be an element of the matters flying around on the internet last year?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It appears both sides are keeping this issue as private as possible. Question for PB - is it possible that it’s City that are the accusers - ie pursuing the PL & 9 clubs who wrote “the letters”, for damages as a result of their constant “accusations”

It just seems strange that there are no leaks from anyone associated with the PL - & it could be that it’s us that has some damaging accusations against the PL & some of its members - which they are defending.

Or is this wishful thinking?

I think that's wishful thinking to be honest.

 

[wahablue]

Good one. CCI