Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

[Newman Noggs]

What I find a bit odd is that there are 4 separate and ostensibly "independent" investigations going on. And yet, not one of them has yet been concluded.

You'd think that, unless there was some sort of collusion going on (perish the thought), at least one of them would have published its findings.

 

[asahartford1]

What I find a bit odd is that there are 4 separate and ostensibly "independent" investigations going on. And yet, not one of them has yet been concluded.

You'd think that, unless there was some sort of collusion going on (perish the thought), at least one of them would have published its findings.

Gill can't be in 4 places at once. Give him time.

 

[keith's curle]

City are not owned by a state. They are owned by ADUG which is a private equity company owned by Sheikh Mansour. Arsenal, on the other hand, are happy to continue their long standing sponsorship, from which they've taken the thick end of a billion dollars, with the state owned airline owned (as you would have it) by a non democratic Middle East state. Somebody open a window. The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

#

I think you need to go back and reread his post, I don't think he's saying that at all. He's saying that's how the press would portray it. He should have made it clearer though, that kind of subtlety doesn't come across easily by text.

 

[citytilllidie]

City are not owned by a state. They are owned by ADUG which is a private equity company owned by Sheikh Mansour. Arsenal, on the other hand, are happy to continue their long standing sponsorship, from which they've taken the thick end of a billion dollars, with the state owned airline owned (as you would have it) by a non democratic Middle East state. Somebody open a window. The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

I saw an interview once where David Gill was being asked about the acquisition of City by Sheikh Mansour.
He was commenting that it couldn't be right for a football club to be owned and funded by 'state' wealth.
Although that was a long time ago, that title 'state owned' has stuck.
It was also during that interview, where he was saying that they should bring in financial rules to prevent a 'Leeds United' from happening again.
Once he'd said that, as we know he isn't interested in Leeds' welfare, we knew that they had City in their crosshairs and were worried to death.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

What I find a bit odd is that there are 4 separate and ostensibly "independent" investigations going on. And yet, not one of them has yet been concluded.

You'd think that, unless there was some sort of collusion going on (perish the thought), at least one of them would have published its findings.

Got to make sure you’ve got all the angles covered if you’re going for a fit up!

 

[KS55]

But didn't we already accept that we had mislead them and were found guilty?
Infantino was in charge of settling with City, and between us and them agreed the £50m fine and squad reduction for the Champions League.
This isn't a new case, what they are trying to say is that with these emails, we mislead them more than we were letting on.
To me, you mislead, you mislead, doesn't matter how much.
We accepted guilt and served the penalty.

They are just after us. You just have to look at this VAR situation with how we went out this year, never mind previous years

No, I don't think that is right. The current case, as I understand it, concerns the Etihad sponsorship. At the time, Uefa ruled that it was non- related, because Etihad paid the whole amount from their own resources and there was no commonality between the board of directors of Etihad and the ownership of City. Uefa now may make a case, based on the emails, that Etihad did not pay the whole amount from their own resources but part came from "HH" who, they maintain is our owner. The sponsorship was, therefore, 'related' and should have been subject to the test of fair market value. The question, therefore, is
1. Who paid?
2. Did City misrepresent the facts of who paid.?

(The previous fine was about the adjusted total allowed in the FFP calculation.
We maintain
1. UEFA wrongly classified as 'related' sonsorships from aabar etc.....the chairman said there was "a fundamental disagreement" about the interpretation of IAS 25.
2. UEFA retrospectively altered the rules concerning players whose contracts were running prior to FFP.)

 

[citytilllidie]

No, I don't think that is right. The current case, as I understand it, concerns the Etihad sponsorship. At the time, Uefa ruled that it was non- related, because Etihad paid the whole amount from their own resources and there was no commonality between the board of directors of Etihad and the ownership of City. Uefa now may make a case, based on the emails, that Etihad did not pay the whole amount from their own resources but part came from "HH" who, they maintain is our owner. The sponsorship was, therefore, 'related' and should have been subject to the test of fair market value. The question, therefore, is
1. Who paid?
2. Did City misrepresent the facts of who paid.?

(The previous fine was about the adjusted total allowed in the FFP calculation.
We maintain
1. UEFA wrongly classified as 'related' sonsorships from aabar etc.....the chairman said there was "a fundamental disagreement" about the interpretation of IAS 25.
2. UEFA retrospectively altered the rules concerning players whose contracts were running prior to FFP.)

Okay, I think I get it.

What the emails are hinting at is that HH (mystery person, we think the Emir and not Sheikh Mansour, they think the opposite) paid monies directly to Etihad, who then paid City?

City claim the monies as far as they are concerned came from Etihad and can prove it.

 

[blueparrot]

Okay, I think I get it.

What the emails are hinting at is that HH (mystery person, we think the Emir and not Sheikh Mansour, they think the opposite) paid monies directly to Etihad, who then paid City?

City claim the monies as far as they are concerned came from Etihad and can prove it.

Yes, and while UEFA may suspect or believe otherwise, they cant prove it without seeing where Etihad's income came from.

 

[KS55]

Okay, I think I get it.

What the emails are hinting at is that HH (mystery person, we think the Emir and not Sheikh Mansour, they think the opposite) paid monies directly to Etihad, who then paid City?

City claim the monies as far as they are concerned came from Etihad and can prove it.

Yes. UEFA cannot go 'behind the curtain'. If Etihad's accounts show they paid the whole amount to City, the source of Etihad's income is their own business. Incidently, Etihad has been making massive losses. It would be amazing, if the gov of AD did not support a nationalized flag carrier. @ Prestwichblue, who knows a thing or two, says Etihad received enough to enable them to meet their obligations from AD gov.

 

[citytilllidie]

Yes, and while UEFA may suspect or believe otherwise, they cant prove it without seeing where Etihad's income came from.

No case to answer.
No wonder the big delay from UEFA.
NYT were leaked that City guilty and case gone to see what the punishment would be, then silence and nothing?
Appears that someone must have looked at that file and thought, feck this, I'm not putting my name on it.

 

[KS55]

No case to answer.
No wonder the big delay from UEFA.
NYT were leaked that City guilty and case gone to see what the punishment would be, then silence and nothing?
Appears that someone must have looked at that file and thought, feck this, I'm not putting my name on it.

Let us hope so. Incidently, it was rumoured at the time that UEFA was very reluctant to pursue this case, but powerful voices from you know who forced them into it.

 

[blueparrot]

No case to answer.
No wonder the big delay from UEFA.
NYT were leaked that City guilty and case gone to see what the punishment would be, then silence and nothing?
Appears that someone must have looked at that file and thought, feck this, I'm not putting my name on it.

Pretty much, except I don't think there is a big delay, it was always going to take weeks or months for the adjudication chamber to review the evidence, especially the stuff the investigation chamber didn't investigate because they ran out of time and had to pass it on or lose the case. Which was why the club statement mentioned a curtailed investigation.
I still wouldn't be surprised though if they find us guilty down the line knowing CAS will throw it out,if it helps them save face. The best time for them would be after next seasons completion starts so ban us for 20/21 knowing it will be overturned well before then

 

[SWP's back]

But didn't we already accept that we had mislead them and were found guilty?

No.

 

[nmc]

Let us hope so. Incidently, it was rumoured at the time that UEFA was very reluctant to pursue this case, but powerful voices from you know who forced them into it.

Maybe Liverpool leaked it to the NYT to push UEFA into it - be in no doubt John W Henry is an utter ****.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

No case to answer.
No wonder the big delay from UEFA.
NYT were leaked that City guilty and case gone to see what the punishment would be, then silence and nothing?
Appears that someone must have looked at that file and thought, feck this, I'm not putting my name on it.

That may or may not be the case, but rest assured they will be exploring every possible avenue of pinning something on us, and if they can’t find anything they can substantiate I suspect they’ll settle for something they can merely infer. For UEFA this is all about showing the cartel they’re trying to do their bidding. This is going to CAS, minimum IMO

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Maybe Liverpool leaked it to the NYT to push UEFA into it - be in no doubt John W Henry is an utter ****.

I think the NYT thing was at least as much the journalist knowing about the 5 year rule and asking the right questions ("so if the recommendation is more than a 100k fine, then it must include a ban, right?").

 

[Bodicoteblue]

I am of the view, and I think there are a lot who agree, that there never was a substantive case to answer, and that this whole episode has been about the smearing and mud-slinging that has become the norm for bullies and con-men like uefa and their panicking paymasters, when they have nothing else.
Sadly, it has been fairly effective. Whatever the result of this investigation, the narrative will always be that we got away with it, even if there’s no ‘it’ to get away with.

 

[kiam06]

For every season we are competitive and more so winning trophies they'll be a new smear campaign. We just have to get used to it as this is how our rivals operate.

 

[citytilllidie]

No.

Sorry about this but what were we found guilty of to accept the fine and reduced squad for that season?

 

[SWP's back]

Sorry about this but what were we found guilty of to accept the fine and reduced squad for that season?

Overspending mate. We failed the test as we weren’t allowed to deduct the pre-2011 contracts that we thought we’d be able to as they changed the toolkit.