PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

Surely the PL would not accept any stolen documents from Rui Pinto? An organisation with their level of integrity?

 

[M18CTID]

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.

Is there reference to this in the CAS report? It seems to ring a bell

 

[KS55]

You are right of course but my understanding is that to stay within FFP regs we committed the fraud.

Normally fraud means taking money away from accounts ie stealing but in our case money claimed to be added.

Am I wrong?

If you post income or expenditure to an inapproprpriate account in order to increase available spending under ffp, that may be fraud.

 

[wolviedinho]

didnt we want to use the time barred documents but wernt allowed?

Yes and hopefully the evidence is overwhelming in our favour. The league doesn’t know what proof we have, hence no cooperation. For them to come out swinging like they have, they must have received encouragement from the CAS findings.

As I said, trying to go after city for issues that CAS did not rule on. Who on the CAS panel or Uefa is feeding the info to the league?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I just hope the "irrefutable evidence" we have is in fact statements from both the concerned banks, I believe MCFC use Barclays. As the PL process is not criminal I don't know if the Banks are obliged to produce evidence. However either the contentious £59 million was sent from Etihad Airway's to MCFC or is wasn't. Lets stop all this bull shit and this frenzy in the MSM. From my own puny experience of dealing with HMRC re Corporation Tax and VAT the Bank statements are gospel. This whole thing is about financial transactions, forget all the shit being sprayed around, so where are the frickin statements ?. Etihad Airways is a billion dollar company it must by LAW keep records of it bank transactions.

UEFA weren't disputing that Etihad paid MCFC, they were alleging that ADUG gave the money to Etihad to pay MCFC. This, apparently, would be part of a conspiracy to fraudulently increase sponsorship income at MCFC, presumably over and above what Etihad could have paid without the funds from ADUG.

Don't buy it myself, but I think that was the crux of it.

 

[Centurions]

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

He hasn't. If he had, his lawyers would be screaming it from the rooftops to try and reinforce their defence that he's a whistleblower and not a thief and a blackmailer.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

Is there reference to this in the CAS report? It seems to ring a bell

There's an extended section in the CAS report about Etihad payments. 57-78, with the Etihad stuff specifically 67-68.

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf

 

[halfcenturyup]

If you post income or expenditure to an inapproprpriate account in order to increase available spending under ffp, that may be fraud.

Yes, I am finally getting round to reconciling, in my mind at least, the conflict I had between fraudulent behaviour and "true and fair" accounts. Taken me a while to get there, and one or two maulings from our legal eagles, but I am happy with where I am now. :)

 

[Dribble]

Would City want to open up less limited investment at the moment?
We have highest revenue, and currently all owners are limited to the same investment - while we're at the top of the tree, FFP helps keep City there.

BUT if FFP suited City, surely they wouldn't be using it to keep coming after us?

 

[flb]

Its going to be evidence thrown on the table from both sides like the card game scene out of Casino Royale !