Unless you know otherwise, everything I’ve read suggests UEFA knew we’d sold off the image rights to a company on very favourable terms, not that Fordham was ultimately being funded by ADUG.
That was the new info from 2018.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Unless you know otherwise, everything I’ve read suggests UEFA knew we’d sold off the image rights to a company on very favourable terms, not that Fordham was ultimately being funded by ADUG.
That was the new info from 2018.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
We don't know whether it was new or had been discussed but even in 2018, when UEFA knew, they still didn't pursue it. If they thought we had knowingly deceived them then they'd have come down on us like a ton of bricks.Unless you know otherwise, everything I’ve read suggests UEFA knew we’d sold off the image rights to a company on very favourable terms, not that Fordham was ultimately being funded by ADUG.
That was the new info from 2018.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
We withheld documents only on legal advice. The situation seems to have been (as I suspect it was with the PL) that UEFA were deemed to be on a fishing expedition. In other words "Give us something that will incriminate you."At the expense of our reputation as a football club? I agree with you but it’s a hard pill to swallow.
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that if you're pursuing a case, you can only ask for material that will clarify a case or claim you've ready formulated, not whether there's the basis for a claim in the first place.
wolviedinho
Well-Known Member
Did they have the scope to pursue? Is this what Leterme is alluding too when he says “the scope of the complaint is now broader than that at UEFA, both in time and in substance”.We don't know whether it was new or had been discussed but even in 2018, when UEFA knew, they still didn't pursue it. If they thought we had knowingly deceived them then they'd have come down on us like a ton of bricks.
The Stockport Iniesta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 9,917
Thanks mate.UEFA were aware of the arrangement apparently and had discussions with us about it. The arrangement seems to have ended in 2018 but UEFA seems to have been satisfied that it wasn't an attempt to deceive FFP. So they seemingly had concerns but not enough to make it a breach of FFP.
Hence they didn't pursue it. It's all in that Reuters article linked to above. Reading that, I'm even more confident this is going nowhere.
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,372
They might have known the image rights issue would be time barred, if they did pursue it at CAS. However, none of this would be new to City either and their statement was pretty clear on the evidence the club has.
Also, if time barring was the reason UEFA didn't bring it up at CAS, then what's the excuse for trying to charge City with the other time barred stuff, that their own rules prohibited?
Also, if time barring was the reason UEFA didn't bring it up at CAS, then what's the excuse for trying to charge City with the other time barred stuff, that their own rules prohibited?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
That would have been the argument used by our lawyers. The PL can't go looking for a case to pursue. They have to have one when they ask for documents, emails, etc.Did they have the scope to pursue? Is this what Leterme is alluding too when he says “the scope of the complaint is now broader than that at UEFA, both in time and in substance”.
I could be wrong but it looks increasingly like all they had was UEFA's sloppy seconds.
Worsleyweb
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2022
- Messages
- 1,384
- Team supported
- City
That would have been the argument used by our lawyers. The PL can't go looking for a case to pursue. They have to have one when they ask for documents, emails, etc.
I could be wrong but it looks increasingly like all they had was UEFA's sloppy seconds.
Never mind all that you looked resplendent in your Gap top!
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I think, without referring to the CAS documentation, that they could go back to 2013/14 onwards. So I doubt it was time-barred.They might have known the image rights issue would be time barred, if they did pursue it at CAS. However, none of this would be new to City either and their statement was pretty clear on the evidence the club has.
Also, if time barring was the reason UEFA didn't bring it up at CAS, then what's the excuse for trying to charge City with the other time barred stuff, that their own rules prohibited?
It seems they talked to us about it, presumably didn't like it but I'd guess it wasn't necessarily against any FFP rules. So what could they charge us with?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
That's my "I've just had my energy bill so the fucking heating isn't going on" top.Never mind all that you looked resplendent in your Gap top!