Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

[dickie davies]

I'm out of the loop but did the Cristiano Ronaldo rape stuff prove to be accurate?

Dunno, but the girl gave an actual interview and described everything that allegedly happened and it was reported last week that US legal people had tracked Ronaldo's home address in Italy down to serve him papers

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Dunno, but the girl gave an actual interview and described everything that allegedly happened and it was reported last week that US legal people had tracked Ronaldo's home address in Italy down to serve him papers

Allegedly. Lets not forget that Ronaldo with all his money, bling and glamorous lifestyle is always going to be an attraction to hundreds of young women and there will always be a few who seek a payoff that Ronaldo might be reluctant to pay.

 

[DTeacher]

Allegedly. Lets not forget that Ronaldo with all his money, bling and glamorous lifestyle is always going to be an attraction to hundreds of young women and there will always be a few who seek a payoff that Ronaldo might be reluctant to pay.

Fair point, but having read her account recently, she appears to have an extremely strong case.

Time will tell.

 

[dickie davies]

Allegedly. Lets not forget that Ronaldo with all his money, bling and glamorous lifestyle is always going to be an attraction to hundreds of young women and there will always be a few who seek a payoff that Ronaldo might be reluctant to pay.

He's already paid her for a non disclosure agreement.
She found out a few years later that she could still report it to the police and they could still prosecute
You may ask why did she settle in the first place?
In the US, this is nothing unusual for the victim to settle out of court so they don't have to re live the alleged crime in court
Harvey Weinstein is on the verge of agreeing close to $30m in settlements with all the women who alleged they were attacked by him

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

Well so what if UEFA ban us. With our army of lawyers ready and waiting to take them to court which would cost UEFA piles of money which they clearly can't afford for that to happen. My guess is that they will come out with their is nothing there to have us banned from the Champions League, so carry on.

If this went to a court of law, then the UEFA officials could rightly be charged with theft, even though they didn't steal the said documents themselves. It is as they say in most courts that it is the fruit of the poisonous tree. Afterall they have come out and said they have documents that prove we have been cheating the FFP rules. So if this comes to a court law, they cannot come to court and used that evidence to prove it was right to bans us.

 

[Rolee]

. Afterall they have come out and said they have documents that prove we have been cheating the FFP rules

Have they?

 

[ganganvince]

Well so what if UEFA ban us. With our army of lawyers ready and waiting to take them to court which would cost UEFA piles of money which they clearly can't afford for that to happen. My guess is that they will come out with their is nothing there to have us banned from the Champions League, so carry on.

If this went to a court of law, then the UEFA officials could rightly be charged with theft, even though they didn't steal the said documents themselves. It is as they say in most courts that it is the fruit of the poisonous tree. Afterall they have come out and said they have documents that prove we have been cheating the FFP rules. So if this comes to a court law, they cannot come to court and used that evidence to prove it was right to bans us.

But if it went to a law court we would be automatically suspended from all Uefa competitions whilst the case was heard.

 

[nmc]

But if it went to a law court we would be automatically suspended from all Uefa competitions whilst the case was heard.

No we wouldn’t. UEFA can’t ban a club for pursuing a case in the courts - it might be in UEFAs rules but that’s simply not enforceable in practice. A court would suspend a ban pending the hearing. UEFA are so far up their own arse they think they can defy international convention when in fact like the rest of us - they can’t.

 

[KS55]

Allegedly. Lets not forget that Ronaldo with all his money, bling and glamorous lifestyle is always going to be an attraction to hundreds of young women and there will always be a few who seek a payoff that Ronaldo might be reluctant to pay.

I have much the same problem.

 

[Metalartin]

Afterall they have come out and said they have documents that prove we have been cheating the FFP rules. So if this comes to a court law, they cannot come to court and used that evidence to prove it was right to bans us.

They haven't said that, they seem to be leaning towards some kind of deception and City acting "against the spirit of the rules" more and more.
I doubt City would have made any of those strong statements if they were simply going to take it to court and hide behind the fact that the information was obtained illegally, none of the clubs statements suggest that. What they have said from the beginning is what has been made of the information they have obtained is incorrect and they wont be happy if it does go all the way to court if people still come away with the impression they have cheated.

City have come out and said they can prove they have operated within the rules "if we are judged by facts", as in, they have taken things out of context and got the wrong end of the stick and City can prove it with evidence.

 

[KS55]

No we wouldn’t. UEFA can’t ban a club for pursuing a case in the courts - it might be in UEFAs rules but that’s simply not enforceable in practice. A court would suspend a ban pending the hearing. UEFA are so far up their own arse they think they can defy international convention when in fact like the rest of us - they can’t.

Maybe, but I hope we never have to test it.

 

[HarrytheBlue]

They haven't said that, they seem to be leaning towards some kind of deception and City acting "against the spirit of the rules" more and more.
I doubt City would have made any of those strong statements if they were simply going to take it to court and hide behind the fact that the information was obtained illegally, none of the clubs statements suggest that. What they have said from the beginning is what has been made of the information they have obtained is incorrect and they wont be happy if it does go all the way to court if people still come away with the impression they have cheated.

City have come out and said they can prove they have operated within the rules "if we are judged by facts", as in, they have taken things out of context and got the wrong end of the stick and City can prove it with evidence.

I really do hope UEFA try and ban us and we escalate this as far as it can go. Can it go beyond CAS ? We need to have this out with UEFA once and for all before a properly independent Judge.

 

[KS55]

They haven't said that, they seem to be leaning towards some kind of deception and City acting "against the spirit of the rules" more and more.
I doubt City would have made any of those strong statements if they were simply going to take it to court and hide behind the fact that the information was obtained illegally, they are not saying that. What they have said from the beginning is what has been made of the information they have obtained is incorrect and they wont be happy if it does go to court if people come away with the impression you have.

City have come out and said they can prove they have operated within the rules "if we are judged by facts", as in they have taken things out of context and got the wrong end of the stick and City can prove it.

Here's what I think happened. No direct evidence, just my guess reading between the lines.
1. Etihad was making big losses and got worried that they could not fulfil the terms of the sponsorship.
2 They discussed it with City, setting off City execs brainstorming what could be done. Stupidly those execs committed some of the discussions to email. We were foolish to consider gaming the rules and bonkers to write it down.
3 Khaldoon stepped in, had a word with his mates on AD Executive Council.
ADEC then bunged Etihad to cover the losses and give them enough to fulfil their obligations.
4 Etihad then
paid us "wholly from their own resources "
5 The timing of 3 above vis a vis Uefa asking us questions may be an issue. We may have winged it a bit in anticipation of Etihad getting the bung.
6 We, therefore did not break the rules.
7 Will 5 above sustain a charge of misleading UEFA .?
Probably.......

 

[HarrytheBlue]

You're absolutely right. I was just trying to represent the way our detractors will view it, not endorsing the view - which I see as having no merit whatsoever.

One example is that people will think it somehow underhand or manipulative that we've managed to take ourselves outside the scope of the related parties rule despite us obtaining sponsorship income from state-owned Emirati companies, which is then not subject to the fair value test, when our legal owner is an Abu Dhabi royal and a minister in the UAE government. But under UEFA's rules as drafted, and despite UEFA's assessors seemingly trying to argue to the contrary back in 2014, the better view is that we and our sponsors aren't related parties.

We're perfectly entitled to exploit that, and we did, by valuing two UAE sponsorships at values that UEFA's assessors wanted to reduce. But why shouldn't we? As you say, the rules have been drafted in a particular form and we work within that.

In a previous lifetime, I worked in the UK central government, including on some legislative drafting projects, and I had that attitude then, too. If you produce regulations that don't achieve what you set out to accomplish, then you don't bleat - you recognise that you fucking well should have drafted them properly. If UEFA wanted different rules over related parties, they shouldn't have cut and pasted IAS 24. If they wanted a different definition, they should have devised one.

Unfortunately, fuckwit sports journalists either can't or wilfully refuse to understand this. They're reacted hysterically, doing their bit to create a febrile atmosphere around the issue that, according to the NYT, leaves UEFA investigators/adjudicators afraid not to punish us for fear of their own reputations. That's really disgraceful reporting.

I agree with all you say. In a previous life (1997 - 2000) I also worked in a central govt dept in Whitehall. I'm no lawyer, but I worked in a team implementing an EU Directive - incorporating its provisions into UK law. And as you allude to, introduce defectively worded Rules, Regs and Laws and any decent lawyer will rip anyone relying on 'em to bits. In court, a lawyer will say 'The legislation says X, Y and Z in black and white. My client complied with the legislation as currently worded.'

 

[SWP's back]

If this went to a court of law, then the UEFA officials could rightly be charged with theft, even though they didn't steal the said documents themselves.

No they fucking couldn’t. How many times do you need to be told for Christ’s sake and by how many people?

 

[citizen_maine]

Here's what I think happened. No direct evidence, just my guess reading between the lines.
1. Etihad was making big losses and got worried that they could not fulfil the terms of the sponsorship.
2 They discussed it with City, setting off City execs brainstorming what could be done. Stupidly those execs committed some of the discussions to email. We were foolish to consider gaming the rules and bonkers to write it down.
3 Khaldoon stepped in, had a word with his mates on AD Executive Council.
ADEC then bunged Etihad to cover the losses and give them enough to fulfil their obligations.
4 Etihad then
paid us "wholly from their own resources "
5 The timing of 3 above vis a vis Uefa asking us questions may be an issue. We may have winged it a bit in anticipation of Etihad getting the bung.
6 We, therefore did not break the rules.
7 Will 5 above sustain a charge of misleading UEFA .?
Probably.......

I must admit I'm still confused by the charge of misleading. How is misleading even an offence, if we haven't broken any of their rules?

 

[KS55]

I must admit I'm still confused by the charge of misleading. How is misleading even an offence, if we haven't broken any of their rules?

I agree. If my guess is right, UEFA will find us guilty of misleading, but, logically, if what was actually done was ok, this is UEFA stretching a point.. But they are under pressure from the cartel..

 

[SWP's back]

It is as they say in most courts that it is the fruit of the poisonous tree. Afterall they have come out and said they have documents that prove we have been cheating the FFP rules. So if this comes to a court law, they cannot come to court and used that evidence to prove it was right to bans us.

And stop with this shite as well. UEFA are governed by Swiss law which allows evidence that has been obtained illegally if in the public interest.

Your much repeated “fruit of the poisoned tree” bollocks is American and not remotely relevant in this instance. How many people have to repeat this to you before you start to understand it?

 

[Metalartin]

Here's what I think happened. No direct evidence, just my guess reading between the lines.
1. Etihad was making big losses and got worried that they could not fulfil the terms of the sponsorship.
2 They discussed it with City, setting off City execs brainstorming what could be done. Stupidly those execs committed some of the discussions to email. We were foolish to consider gaming the rules and bonkers to write it down.
3 Khaldoon stepped in, had a word with his mates on AD Executive Council.
ADEC then bunged Etihad to cover the losses and give them enough to fulfil their obligations.
4 Etihad then
paid us "wholly from their own resources "
5 The timing of 3 above vis a vis Uefa asking us questions may be an issue. We may have winged it a bit in anticipation of Etihad getting the bung.
6 We, therefore did not break the rules.
7 Will 5 above sustain a charge of misleading UEFA .?
Probably.......

A charge that isn't in the rules? How Etihad secure funds is none of their business as long as it doesn't come from a related party.

Also I'm not sure what shape Etihad are in(they may be the ones taking losses but not City who are well in profit) but those claiming a sponsorship is illegitimate for any company that wants to grow and compete, especially with a big rival close by(Emirates) are bullshitting in my book. It's the one tool companies look to to grow the most I'd have thought, advertising/sponsorship.

Maybe long term we should look to split the sponsorship(if only to shut them up and for our image), keep the stadium name but a large Chinese shirt sponsor deal that none of them can argue with would really finish them off.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

....ahhh but was the misleading that occurred accidental, by negligence, by omission, by deception or by deliberate act and with mens rea and if indeed such was it to a material degree.
I look forward to our legal challenge to any sanction these crooks try to impose upon us.