PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Looking at the CAS Judgement, it states there was NOT sufficient documentary evidence that MCFC had received and disguised owner equity as Sponsorship. This is the core accusation and the WHOLE saga rests on this issue. The image rights and Mancini issues are relatively minor. From my point of view, as a lay person, I keep thinking why cant the related Banks produce the evidence of the financial transactions. How hard would it be for Etihad's bank to prove the transactions from Etihad to MCFC. Assuming MCFC have a different bank, it would be even stronger evidence, i.e. if the club produced the corresponding evidence of receipt. So that would prove absolutely the amounts, dates, the sender and recipient account holders ?.

This is crucial because the CAS judgement for MCFC was based on the witness evidence of the Chairman and CEO of Etihad Airways and CEO of MCFC.

It actually says this in the judgement, because otherwise both would have committed perjury in a Swiss court!. Here is the clause...

 

[chickaroon]

The sponsors will still want hype!

It's their product, they still want to sell it. Ironic, that we are part of that sell!

 

[flb]

It’s absolutely mental that people fail to grasp this fundamental fact, or rather choose to ignore it.

GN can see it all right, but knows the vast number of people out there who follow him around in the media have no idea about the basics, most of his "customers" out there also actually think when City spend £150m in a transfer window that we are making bank transfers for the full amount, or that the transfer fee isnt on the books over the player contract period. The prick knows exactly what he's doing ,tarnish the name of City with lies and misinformation.

 

[flb]

Looking at the CAS Judgement, it states there was NOT sufficient documentary evidence that MCFC had received and disguised owner equity as Sponsorship. This is the core accusation and the WHOLE saga rests on this issue. The image rights and Mancini issues are relatively minor. From my point of view, as a lay person, I keep thinking why cant the related Banks produce the evidence of the financial transactions. How hard would it be for Etihad's bank to prove the transactions from Etihad to MCFC. Assuming MCFC have a different bank, it would be even stronger evidence, i.e. if the club produced the corresponding evidence of receipt. So that would prove absolutely the amounts, dates, the sender and recipient account holders ?.

This is crucial because the CAS judgement for MCFC was based on the witness evidence of the Chairman and CEO of Etihad Airways and CEO of MCFC.

It actually says this in the judgement, because otherwise both would have committed perjury in a Swiss court!. Here is the clause...
View attachment 69043

Only thing I can think of is Rui Pinto gave the PL more info, or different information than EUFA got there hands on.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Looking at the CAS Judgement, it states there was NOT sufficient documentary evidence that MCFC had received and disguised owner equity as Sponsorship. This is the core accusation and the WHOLE saga rests on this issue. The image rights and Mancini issues are relatively minor. From my point of view, as a lay person, I keep thinking why cant the related Banks produce the evidence of the financial transactions. How hard would it be for Etihad's bank to prove the transactions from Etihad to MCFC. Assuming MCFC have a different bank, it would be even stronger evidence, i.e. if the club produced the corresponding evidence of receipt. So that would prove absolutely the amounts, dates, the sender and recipient account holders ?.

This is crucial because the CAS judgement for MCFC was based on the witness evidence of the Chairman and CEO of Etihad Airways and CEO of MCFC.

It actually says this in the judgement, because otherwise both would have committed perjury in a Swiss court!. Here is the clause...
View attachment 69043

The transactions will show money being transferred from Etihad to City. Sheikh Mansour’s money going in the other end, how does someone make a judgement that that very same money ended up going into City’s accounts? It’s opinion they have and not matter of fact.

 

[South Stand Balti]

I'd just like to ask one quick question of #Prestwich_Blue please. I watched your interview with Cheesy and have read your informative message a couple of pages back. You address the materiality of both the Mancini scenario and that of the player payments. I agree that neither of these are likely to be significant enough to result in extreme sanctions but you don't make comment on the "sponsorship stuff." I just wondered why that was. In terms of materiality, Mancini is golf ball size, player payments is tennis ball size but the sponsorship is potentially beach ball size. Why have you not addressed the beach ball. I know we have little detail but are you confident the sponsorship stuff is not a threat (can you pop the beach ball?). I ask simply because it is only the sponsorship stuff that really worries me. Thankyou

 

[halfcenturyup]

Looking at the CAS Judgement, it states there was NOT sufficient documentary evidence that MCFC had received and disguised owner equity as Sponsorship. This is the core accusation and the WHOLE saga rests on this issue. The image rights and Mancini issues are relatively minor. From my point of view, as a lay person, I keep thinking why cant the related Banks produce the evidence of the financial transactions. How hard would it be for Etihad's bank to prove the transactions from Etihad to MCFC. Assuming MCFC have a different bank, it would be even stronger evidence, i.e. if the club produced the corresponding evidence of receipt. So that would prove absolutely the amounts, dates, the sender and recipient account holders ?.

This is crucial because the CAS judgement for MCFC was based on the witness evidence of the Chairman and CEO of Etihad Airways and CEO of MCFC.

It actually says this in the judgement, because otherwise both would have committed perjury in a Swiss court!. Here is the clause...
View attachment 69043

The issue, I think, wasn't whether Etihad paid MCFC, it was if ADUG had provided the funds to Etihad to pay MCFC.

IIRC, ADUG''s auditors analysed all company payments over a certain amount (USD 250K?) and reported that none were paid to Etihad or related companies. So that should have been that, really.

 

[wolviedinho]

I have often wondered if Uefa have given the premier league the CAS files? Or to be more precise, the files they could not prove against us. Especially the issues either time barred or issues that Uefa did not deem sufficient enough to charge for what ever reason. Now the premier are zoning in on those issues. Thinking they can trip us up with no time limit.

Does that make sense?

Sneaky bastards.

 

[Dribble]

While I understand your sentiment and it might even be a rhetorical question I don’t think it’s for City to suggest an alternative to the current FFP. Perhaps an independent regulator would be in a good position to advise.

My thinking is surely City are best placed to make a better suggestion to replace FFP seeing as we've been on both sides of the fence.

I think an alternative option would begin the process of all stakeholders properly looking into football finance & governance. City announcing a workable option would shine a spotlight on the unfair & unworkable current FFP.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I have often wondered if Uefa have given the premier league the CAS files? Or to be more precise, the files they could not prove against us. Especially the issues either time barred or issues that Uefa did not deem sufficient enough to charge for what ever reason. Now the premier are zoning in on those issues. Thinking they can trip us up with no time limit.

Does that make sense?

Sneaky bastards.

Surely it was all confidential, which means only Liverpool has it all .....