PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[johnevans]

Would be interesting to know what the steps were from the emails being stolen, to the cut and paste , publication by der speigel I.e who was pulling the strings , might make an interesting story.

Exactly.

Been saying this for years, that there's a story (or even two or three..) to be uncovered and told about who's been driving this vendetta against City for the past decade and a half.

All it would take is for one of the lard-arse UK sports journalists, helped by an expert finance journalist or other, to either get off that lard-arse or else to grow the cojones (..or even both..) to do the hard yards and investigate it all, then bring into public discussion and awareness.

I hasten to add, I won't be holding my breath while they decide to do so..

 

[johnevans]

That's right. Some guy called Mohammed. Shouldn't be too difficult to track down in the UAE.

For sure, that's got the wrong'un cornered..

 

[M18CTID]

Exactly right, and not just The Mail, although it is the most repulsive. It knows its target audience and how to rile them up. The front pages are full of spite about Prince Harry, ’lefties’, the Unions, ’remoaners’ etc, and the back pages casually target City as a natural born enemy of United and Liverpool, the clubs with the most fans. Get them clicking away and you’re quids in.

I have to say though that the reactions of many of those fans, whilst unquestionably having their strings pulled by elements of the media, isn’t hard to understand. If it were say Arsenal who had had their emails hacked and who had been the ones apparently fronting up the cash on behalf of a sponsor, I too would be jumping up and down wanting answers. It looks like disguised equity funding and tbh I’m still not sure how it isn’t. I thought I had a semblance of a grasp on it on here a couple of weeks ago when someone said we got the Abu Dhabi Executive Authority (central funds) to pony up the shortfall, but now the suggestion is that ADUG paid it themselves. The matter was time barred at CAS, so we didn’t actually get a verdict on City’s explanation, but it may not be time barred this time (cos I’m pretty sure that 6 year English law limitation will not apply) around.

Piers Moron and those backing that You Tube non-shock revelation, may be utter cnuts with an agenda, but I think casually dismissing the issue, as many on here seem to be doing, on the grounds that CAS looked at it previously, is not a mistake that City will make in front of the Tribunal

As @halfcenturyup said, you’re getting mixed up between Etihad and Etisalat. All this latest kerfuffle is to do with the Etisalat deal - nobody, not even City, ever claimed that the payments on that particular deal came from central funds and City have been up front about where it came from initially (and later paid back by Etisalat). You’re right that it wasn’t ruled on by CAS so it’s potentially a matter of concern but no-one can claim it was disguised equity funding as we’ve not made any attempt to disguise it from what I can see. I do worry a little that the independent panel might flag it up and rule against us but on the other hand you have David Dein saying that he doesn’t believe it’s that much of a smoking gun.

 

[give it to gordon]

If it ever meets.

We're getting on for six months now and yet we still have no panel, no idea what its remit is, or its powers.

I remember something or other about City taking legal action over the legitimacy of this Star Chamber, Kangaroo Court, Ducking Stool thingamajig.

It's all gone very quiet on that front.

Agree I dont understand how you can have a discipline procedure without the right to appeal. That in itself leads you to think kangaroo court.
It also undermines the appeal proceedings as it does really have to follow any rules, just the made up rules they made.

Football doesn't live in the real world from the top to grassroots its badly run.

Going of topic I was banned for 4 yrs without a hearing just got a letter from kent fa lol.

Football doesn't seem to have to follow any sensible laws or rules. It's a basic common right to be able to appeal a decision. Yet in the pl you cant. You can see why City want an independent committee.

 

[waspish]

Would be interesting to know what the steps were from the emails being stolen, to the cut and paste , publication by der speigel I.e who was pulling the strings , might make an interesting story.

If your a hacker you ain’t going to just look for Man City emails unless someone had paid him to do it

 

[ZanteWeatherman]

You can always get @twosips to invite you on to his YouTube, saying that he's a bit of an A- lister nowadays

Or Big Steve's youtube channel, proper top lad.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Exactly.

Been saying this for years, that there's a story (or even two or three..) to be uncovered and told about who's been driving this vendetta against City for the past decade and a half.

All it would take is for one of the lard-arse UK sports journalists, helped by an expert finance journalist or other, to either get off that lard-arse or else to grow the cojones (..or even both..) to do the hard yards and investigate it all, then bring into public discussion and awareness.

I hasten to add, I won't be holding my breath while they decide to do so..

The other story is how Uefa used stolen emails to attack a club because of the likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Liverpool and United couldn’t compete with how well City are run. Barring Madrid everyone of these clubs are in sort of turmoil financially or looking for new owners. These said clubs then went on to try and destroy the football pyramid in European club football but City are the bad guys,

 

[halfcenturyup]

Apologies, I conflated the two. Etisalat is the one I’m talking about currently. Leaving the time barring issue to one side, how is ADUG effectively paying their sponsorship money for them for 2 years, not disguised equity funding?

It's not equity funding because they got the money back. It's short-term financing if it's anything. In effect, selling a receivable at the worst.

As I understand it, Etisalat couldn't pay the amounts because the renewal contract signature was delayed while some issues were ironed out. Until that happened, the parties were working under an MOU. Services were performed under the MOU and Etisalat's liability under the MOU recorded. Invoices were issued.

I imagine the club had budgeted the cash from the renewed contract and needed it to meet payments. So, until Etisalat could pay under a signed contract, ADUG advanced the money. When the contract was signed, Etisalat paid the sponsorship money to ADUG. In fact, when the contract was signed, it stipulated that money should be paid to ADUG.

There are some questions around all this, I only have the information from CAS, but in my opinion, it is in no way equity funding.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

Absolutely this
I notice that the WhatsApp wankers Delooney, Harris and McGeehan have been unusually silent about it all as well
Especially as they are usually all over anything slagging us like a tramp on chips
Wasn’t the latter even featured in the video?
If he’s involved then doubt it would be Qatar. That was a deliberate attempt at deflection/distraction imo by the Times, to try and hide the true identities of the culprits
Strange indeed the WhatsApp group silence. Almost like they are all collectively trying not to draw attention to themselves all of a sudden….

Tebas, as well, hasn’t stuck his fat fuck face into it either.

Perhaps they have a whiff of something on the wind

 

[M18CTID]

Apologies, I conflated the two. Etisalat is the one I’m talking about currently. Leaving the time barring issue to one side, how is ADUG effectively paying their sponsorship money for them for 2 years, not disguised equity funding?

It was paid back by Etisalat though. Also, it could be that Etisalat is a related party? I’m not sure we’ve ever had a definitive answer on that but if they are then surely it doesn’t get off the ground anyway. Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me that UEFA and the PL only rule if a company is a related party or not when it suits them. In this case, it doesn’t suit the PL for Etisalat to be a related party.