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

[Manchester_lalala]

Is that a summer cold you've got there?! ('blanks' for 'planks'!) As the old advert suggested, 'You could do with some 'Dight Durse', Balcolm..!'

Hahaha just noticed that.

 

[WRicko]

The Der Spiegl emails were nothing to do with anything being artificially inflated. The figures for the Etihad sponsorship were accepted as "fair value" by all parties. Spiegl claimed that the emails implied City had received money directly from the Abu Dhabi Executive instead of directly from Etihad itself. Of course Etihad is a state-funded organisation (like Emirates, Saudi Telecom etc). If the Exec sent money to Etihad (to bail out its debts) and then later Etihad sent the money to City then are no problems with any FFP rules. But the emails were vague and out of context and did not prove anything at all. Some of them pre-dated FFP and at least one was fabricated by two mails being merged into one. In a sense the whole thing is just semantics.

Perhaps I didn’t explain myself correctly when I say inflated I only mean in that the emails where which reported to show money coming from our owner and in the eyes of the Media rival clubs and UEFA and our enemies inflated because of the extra money. I think later on in my post I explained it is not inflated as such I will explain again below

Yet legally it’s not inflated or related the two are very closely legally and logically linked. If it’s not related it cannot be inflated even if the money comes from the owner

So my question is let’s say they find proof the money came from our owner and was in there eyes inflated so what they cannot get us for it. Though maybe they would get us for not reporting it properly

 

[117 M34]

Golf clubs ban you for putting your score card in the wrong box, after watching you do it and saying nothing.

If it is over the Mancini stuff the taxman would have had a look, as in the Harry Redknapp case, and the PL wouldn't pursue until any criminal case had ended. So it must pass the tax man's strict liability test. Therefore I doubt it is the Mancini wages allegations.

I think the mancini allegations pre-date ffp anyway

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Perhaps I didn’t explain myself correctly when I say inflated I only mean in that the emails where which reported to show money coming from our owner and in the eyes of the Media rival clubs and UEFA and our enemies inflated because of the extra money. I think later on in my post I explained it is not inflated as such I will explain again below

Yet legally it’s not inflated or related the two are very closely legally and logically linked. If it’s not related it cannot be inflated even if the money comes from the owner

So my question is let’s say they find proof the money came from our owner and was in there eyes inflated so what they cannot get us for it. Though maybe they would get us for not reporting it properly

It was not extra money. It was money due for the Etihad deal. The issue is who made the payments but the emails do not make it clear.

 

[Bluechipblue]

How can you be exonerated before you are convicted?

Perhaps I should have said., ' no case to answer'. Although, we are always guilty in the eyes of the general football community, aided and abetted by the media.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It was not extra money. It was money due for the Etihad deal. The issue is who made the payments but the emails do not make it clear.

Der Spiegel presented a very one-sided view of things, picking out an email that suggested the funds were coming from the owner. That was a mistaken view by whoever wrote that email. The evidence presented at CAS made it clear the money came from Etihad, but some of that money was from central Add Dhabi marketing funds. It was not from ADUG though, which was comprehensively proven at CAS.

Graham Wallace's emails were clear that funds had to come from Etihad & Etisalat, be seen to be from those sources and be fully accounted for as coming from those sources.

 

[<.*.>]

It is Islamophia and we will not forget!

 

[Asa's left peg]

It is Islamophia and we will not forget!

Welcome to the forum <.*.>: hope I got your name right.


Which galaxy are you from?

 

[KS55]

It is weird that apparently all the traditional "big" clubs are in staggeringly huge amounts of debts and that's why they wanted the Super League. But no one seems to ask the question of how they got in staggeringly huge amounts of debts if they were not losing money each year and therefore complying with FFP. A real headscratcher that I'm sure the journalists are vigorously looking in to

The short answer is that they borrowed the money which would be part of the balance sheet, rather than the P&L and would, therefore, not be subject to ffp. Any interest paid would be on the P&L, but not the capital sum.

 

[Chris in London]

Welcome to the forum <.*.>: hope I got your name right.


Which galaxy are you from?

he’s a mate of <(()):><