PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Metalartin]

Etihad don’t need soft loans they are backed by the UAE government as opposed to a very wealthy member of it in the Sheik

Yep, I've said as much numerous times. I was just entertaining the theory, to pick holes in it. As I did with, if Manchester City were secretly owned by Abu Dhabi(which there is no legal reason to do either) along with Etihad... Abu Dhabi wouldn't have Sheikh Mansour anywhere near the Etihad finances either. Disguise an ownership, then let your frontman do the very thing the disguised ownership theory says you're trying to avoid(the legal owner, funding the sponsorships)?

From every angle you look at it, since it was all within fair market value, there would have been a safer/legal way to go about it, without changing much for City at all. Every cheat theory, seems an unnecessary risk.

Abu Dhabi wants to own a club? They could have done that.
Etihad is related party? Tell the PL and UEFA it is, no need to jump through any hoops.
Want to overpay Mancini for consultancy work for an Abu Dhabi football club? Nothing to do with City, the PL or UEFA(though it may be a Mancini and Sheikh Mansour/whoever arranged it problem). It doesn't need to be paid by City and it doesn't need to be included in their accounts.

And so on.

 

[Bez]

Thinking about it, you're probably right that, if we'd asserted that Etihad was a related party, it wouldn't have mattered if Mansour was funding

UEFA maintained that Mansour had funded most of the Etihad sponsorship, and, despite Etihad having clearly received the sponsorship services under the agreement with City and the sponsorship fee being accepted by their specialist advisers as being of a fair value, saw fit to impose a 2-year ban on us and fine us EUR 30 million. For them, Mansour being involved at all in paying the Etihad sponsorship on its own was sufficient to prove our guilt and justify that swingeing sanction.

It seems ridiculous that a contract under which services are actually being performed at a fair fee can effectively be claimed, as UEFA did, to be fraudulent. I maintain that if City had wanted to devise a dishonest scheme for Mansour to funnel money into the club, they'd have done it much better than was alleged. It wouldn't be hard for the Abu Dhabi state to provide the finance and for Mansour to square it with them through ostensibly unrelated lawful means if that were the objective here.

The truth, as you've regularly pointed out, is that the Open Skies case in the States showed that it was the Abu Dhabi state that was financing the sponsorship. The powers that be over there no doubt think it reflects well on them if City do well, and want Etihad to benefit from the exposure created by a sponsorship of a prominent team in the domestic sporting competition that enjoys the greatest global popularity.

Finally, one more thing to note. Our detractors constantly parrot that we can afford the best lawyers so can get off when we go to arbitration to challenge sanctions against us. Don't these idiots ever take time to reflect that maybe if we can afford top lawyers, we employ some to ensure that we act within the letter of the rules and thus have strong chances of prevailing when we come before impartial authorities as opposed to those that are out to nail us unjustly come what may.

And the detractors need to be told that the Premier League will also be using very expensive lawyers too.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

There is no way that the PL are going after us in this way, based on possible semantics ........... surely!
Especially when you consider the considerable strength and subsequently very (very!) costly legal team!
Is their a smoking gun somewhere?

Everyone said that in the UEFA battle but it turned out they literally had no evidence. Just photocopies of Der Spiegl magazine pages. It was absurd.

 

[Bez]

I once said (On redcafe) that City run a squeaky clean ship. I got banned for that comment.

But its becoming clear to me (And hopefully our owners), that we have had to run a squeaky clean ship because of the microscopic detail they go over with our club.

Totally agree. When UEFA were creating ffp it is my understanding that City took advice from the same advisors that UEFA used to set it up in order to comply with the original ffp rules. It is also my understanding that UEFA changed the original ffp rules at the last minute so that City would not be able to comply. UEFA wanted to snare City from the off because they were told to do so. The agenda was/is clear. On this basis, assuming there are no new evidence, I believe City will be ok if they get a fair hearing, but inevitably they will be found guilty for not cooperating again.

 

[paulchapo]

The nagging worry about this case is don't forget EUFA found us guilty, fined and banned us for two years. Thankfully we had CAS otherwise we'd have been stitched up like a kipper. We don't have such an appeal process this time, well not one I'd consider impartial.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

He comes across as very sad and embittered. Spouting out the same old dross that has already been dealt with via CAS. However, he does make one relevant point. Why have the PL taken so long on this? So, at least briefly, he has shown some sanity.

Can todays article in the Mail please put to bed any nonsense that the media are suddenly shitting their pants to write anything negative about City.

It hasn’t stopped and won’t stop.

 

[AirbagsOptionalTheReturn]

The PL has done what they wanted IMO, they have thrown dirt and it will stick even if we are fully cleared. All that other supporters at work are saying is that we have cheated and they have taken it hook line and sinker. These supporters range from rags to Wigan fans so it’s not even the usual suspects. I hope, if we get cleared we sue the Pl for damage to reputation and loss of income.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

The nagging worry about this case is don't forget EUFA found us guilty, fined and banned us for two years. Thankfully we had CAS otherwise we'd have been stitched up like a kipper. We don't have such an appeal process this time, well not one I'd consider impartial.

Agree with this, a nagging worry that the truth won't really matter. If they think something smells funny, regardless of what irrefutable evidence we can provide them proving there's nothing wrong, it's a concern that their decision has already been made at this time and the process is merely a long drawn formality.

 

[jaiguruKun]

And the detractors need to be told that the Premier League will also be using very expensive lawyers too.

They're allowed to 'lawyer up' whereas we must be guilty as we haven't gone to injurylawyers4u.

 

[Bluewonder]

Agree with this, a nagging worry that the truth won't really matter. If they think something smells funny, regardless of what irrefutable evidence we can provide them proving there's nothing wrong, it's a concern that their decision has already been made at this time and the process is merely a long drawn formality.

I thought it had been established by our legal experts that we would be entitled to appeal if we believed we hadn't been given a fair trial?