PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[ZanteWeatherman]

Good question. Taken at face value I'd say no. They've spent 4 years investigating these so lack of evidence is unlikely to be an issue. The source is the hacked emails via Der Spiegel. And some of the charges are totally and solely dependent on a few others, so you can't say there's no evidence for them or that the source is unreliable.

But as I've said before, these charges are scraping the bottom of the barrel, and include things UEFA didn't think were worth pursuing. I'm still very confident the PL are going nowhere with these.

I'll never get my head around this non-cooperation nonsense. It's like a turkey voting for Christmas. Why would anyone assist someone who is trying to fuck you over, burden of proof should be on the accuser/prosecution completely imho

 

[Len Rum]

Well having read that instead of being confident I’m a little bit despondent now.

I actually feel more confident .
IMO the allegations re the Etisalat sponsorship come nowhere near the high bar required of failure to submit true accounts and therefore could fall under time barring, as indeed could the Etihad deal.

 

[mayo31]

agreed there is so much speculation however the video released yesterday reminded me of a poker player who was just about to turn his hand in knowing full well he'd won the pot, he's cool, relaxed and thoughtfull with his words, not one ounce of negativity, all that was missing was the cigar roll of Clint Eastwood, to asume were going to get the book chucked at us is fine and we sit and wait BUT have the PL the balls to take this man on i really dont think they have the stomach for the fight especially now that we are the flagship of the outfit that are trying to screw us over, we are their product of how sucesfull the PL have become, from day one when we released the statement that was enough for me to stay chilled and trust those in charge of the club,im 99.9% certain this will run its course and die its death, on the political side is it already there behind the scenes playing its part, we dont know and we will never know, i wouldnt raise an eybrow if it is, trust in Khaldoon he's not going to let us down

Just to add- no one should ever under estimate our owners, they bought the club with a plan and for that plan to work the school bully had to be taken down from the perch and dismantled 'the bully was manchester united' we self destructed them from the outside into a frenzy of panic buying and installing managers which resulted in a failed but very expensive futile attempt to keep up,all part of the plan from day one, we are years infront of anyone and that includes the PL

The funny side is this, imo i doubt our owners ever really wanted a battle with Utd or Liverpool or Arsenal or whoever

The PL was a huge and seen as a vehicle by our owners to invest in and use also. Why would they have wanted all of the hassle the CAS / UEFA stuff has brought them

Everyone wants the competition of course for the trophies but the regs etc brought this on themselves

 

[Ducado]

Good question. Taken at face value I'd say no. They've spent 4 years investigating these so lack of evidence is unlikely to be an issue. The source is the hacked emails via Der Spiegel. And some of the charges are totally and solely dependent on a few others, so you can't say there's no evidence for them or that the source is unreliable.

But as I've said before, these charges are scraping the bottom of the barrel, and include things UEFA didn't think were worth pursuing. I'm still very confident the PL are going nowhere with these.

I believe the club has argued in the past that some of the information asked for was commercially sensitive and they were asking us to hand it over to our rivals

 

[M18CTID]

Does this tie in with the Der Spiegel email PB, where City informed Etihad they only needed to pay £8m of the £68m sponsorship, and how did we explain that away with CAS?

Looking at those figures, that's the Etihad deal. From memory, the £8m came from Etihad's funds and the rest came from central funds, ie: the Abu Dhabi government, rather than - as UEFA and Der Spackel claimed - Mansour's own pocket. This was backed up by several witnesses AFAIK

 

[Gordyola]

I believe the club has argued in the past that some of the information asked for was commercially sensitive and they were asking us to hand it over to our rivals

They even went to law to get a ruling and lost, the judge said that the hearing should be made public, City supported by the PL, wanted to keep it private but lost on appeal. I think it was the appeal judge who commented how long it had been ongoing and that City had won 2 PLs in that time

 

[Maly]

Looking at those figures, that's the Etihad deal. From memory, the £8m came from Etihad's funds and the rest came from central funds, ie: the Abu Dhabi government, rather than - as UEFA and Der Spackel claimed - Mansour's own pocket. This was backed up by several witnesses AFAIK

That’s how I remember it too

I believe Etihad is underwritten by ADEC not ADUG

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Does this tie in with the Der Spiegel email PB, where City informed Etihad they only needed to pay £8m of the £68m sponsorship, and how did we explain that away with CAS?

Others have answered this correctly later in the thread.

I suspect the PL are going after the other deals such as Etisalat. I think this one was time barred at CAS but UEFA did question us about it early on in FFP I think and, like the image rights payments, they're was nothing to see.

 

[Cobwebcat]

I might be overly positive but the fact that Khaldoon said he would have plenty to say after the case is done gives me a lot of reassurance that we will win this.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I might be overly positive but the fact that Khaldoon said he would have plenty to say after the case is done gives me a lot of reassurance that we will win this.

Genuinely not trying to put a dampener on that optimism just for the sake of it, but wouldn't it be fair to assume he'd have plenty to say either way?