So simply put it was there to see in the accounts then, sum owed by Etisalat, then sum paid by Etisalat, is that a fair summary.?
Yes, effectively. It was from a page of the cas verdict, which was then picked up and repackaged in this homemade youtube documentary. Which I haven't seen just fyi, so am basing on Morgan's presentation of Lawson's interpretation of how the youtubers portrayed it. Which really is ultimately that whole ficking charade really is.
As I read it (the cas verdict), Etisalat were paid the same amount by another person, that they paid City per their agreement. Twice. Then Etisalat paid the other person back, the same amount, later. CAS were satisfied that it wasn't disguised funding, because it was paid back, so effectively Etisalat taking a loan to meet their payment obligations.
If you focus just on one line of that, and don't complete the full sequence of events, it can very much look like someone paid Etisalat under the table to pay us, disguising owner investment. If you leave out the part it was paid back, and CAS found that satisfactory, which they did.
What Morgan and co then went to embelish, was that this charge was valid, but supposedly dismissed by CAS because it was time barred, and this won't be the case with the PL. But as I understand the cas verdict, that is not the case, it was dismissed because it was seen as an internal loan by a sponsor meeting their own obligations.
Either way, it is not new, not a new discovery, revelation, charge or anything that the club haven't previously provided evidence and an explanation for. Whether the PL will have a different interpretation remains to be seen, but you would think if it made sense at CAS, it would make sense elsewhere.
