PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[chesterbells]

This thread is so enervating to visit. Thankfully I’ve reduced my visiting times drastically.

 

[jaiguruKun]

This thread is so enervating to visit. Thankfully I’ve reduced my visiting times drastically.

We need a support group for those suffering from withdrawal.

 

[M18CTID]

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.

Bang on the money as per usual mate.

Regarding that first paragraph, do we know whether UEFA ever considered Etihad to be a related party prior to all this Der Spiegel stuff kicking off? I can’t see anything concrete anywhere but I have come across talk that City said they weren’t a related party, whereas UEFA felt differently but never really pushed it - a kind of “let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that as we’ve signed the deal off as fair value anyway”.

I’ve long found it amusing that if that was UEFA’s stance then it wouldn’t have mattered if SM had directly funded some of the Etihad deal after all. Or is it a case that Etihad are a related party in UEFA’s eyes when it suits them but when it doesn’t (ie: when they investigated us and banned us) then all of a sudden they’re not a related party?!

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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?

Any appeal would be to another 3 man PL appointed panel. More of the same in other words……

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Bang on the money as per usual mate.

Regarding that first paragraph, do we know whether UEFA ever considered Etihad to be a related party prior to all this Der Spiegel stuff kicking off? I can’t see anything concrete anywhere but I have come across talk that City said they weren’t a related party, whereas UEFA felt differently but never really pushed it - a kind of “let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that as we’ve signed the deal off as fair value anyway”.

I’ve long found it amusing that if that was UEFA’s stance then it wouldn’t have mattered if SM had directly funded some of the Etihad deal after all. Or is it a case that Etihad are a related party in UEFA’s eyes when it suits them but when it doesn’t (ie: when they investigated us and banned us) then all of a sudden they’re not a related party?!

The subject came up, as I understand it, although it was never actually formally tested.

I think UEFA's accountants (PWC iirc) considered Etihad to be a related party, which was not the view of City and our advisers. It didn't matter in the end as UEFA accepted that the sponsorship was broadly fair market value anyway. And CAS also took that view.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

There are lots of HH's in Abu Dhabi but even if it was Mansour, the email said "HH will arrange funding", not "HH will provide the funding" or "It will be funded by HH via ADUG".

So Sheikh Mansour or one of his staff could pick up the phone, ring another HH and arrange for the Executive Council to provide the funding to Etihad. But even in the most extreme case, where SM clearly provided the additional funding from ADUG, as long as Etihad were getting full value for the money, and the sponsorship was seen as fair value (which CAS said it was) then even that might not be a problem, as owners are allowed to sponsor clubs under FFP rules. So in that last scenario, which Stefan and me disagreed slightly on, I'd say he was more likely to be right. I always said that if we agreed Etihad was a related party, then there's nothing UEFA could have done.

FYI, the exact wording in Leaked Email1 as per the CAS judgement:

"The remaining 12 million GBP requirement will come from alternative sources provided by His Highness.
and .... All other amounts required will be directed by His Highness from alternative sources."

In any case Pearce testified His Highness was Sheikh Sultan Bin Tahnoon Al Nahyan - the then chairman of ADTA.

 

[eastmanc]

I see the fat twat from Spain, Tebas, has been sticking his nose into our affairs again. Saying that it is taking too long stating that we all know they are guilty of over a 100 charges. He doesn't want to hear our side, he admitted that, he wants us banned now. What a nasty piece of work he his.

 

[nmc]

In addition I can recall on the day of the announcement of the sponsorship with Ethihad Airways the owners of LFC immediately started to cast aspersions re the integrity of the deal, eg demanding details of the negotiations were published in the public domain and details of 2nd and 3rd biders, an absolutely unprecedented response. This war has been on going for a decade, the PL case will end it one way or another for good.

That’s right… and I think that’s what this is about and who is behind it.

 

[nmc]

How does the panel decide if Mancini did or not did four days of work a year which was stated? That’s going to tough to find concrete evidence for them to screw City over with. All of this up against very heavy losses is a mere drop in the ocean for what City have been accused of.

City just need Mancini to confirm he fulfilled his contractual obligations. They can’t prove otherwise. Case closed.

 

[nmc]

It really wasn't, as the document used in the Open Skies case pointed towards 'HH' potentially being Sheikh Mohammed, or at least one of the senior members of the royal court that deal with financial stuff. And I'm sure that latter one was correct.

That’s the most credible scenario. Etihad are state owned and funded so Sheikh Mohammed would be the person to authorise funding I would guess.