Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
That's also my understanding, and iirc the CAS verdict showed that UEFA had discussed this with City back in 2014 and were happy with the outcome. Therefore if the PL are claiming we overstated our sponsorship income on the basis of the Etisalat arrangement, it's hard to see how they can land this.I thought City told UEFA/CAS that HHSM had paid the Etisalat sponsorship in 2011/12 while the details of its renewal were being finalised and the money was repaid by Etisalat once that was done?
The former is correct.I'm aware that nobody actually knows but which of these scenarios do you feel is more likely?
The 115 charges are really a small number of alleged offences with multiple charges attached to each one. The main purpose of this is to make it seem like there are 115 separate major offences and this is the thrust of the media coverage and the perception of rival fans. Will there be an interim step in the process whereby the 115 charges are reduced to a core number that the PL think they can make stick or will we find out at the end that we have been found guilty or not on however many of the 115?
I think the former option is most likely.
We don't know for certain but there appear to be three core charges - Mancini's Al Jazira contract, the Etisalat sponsorship and image rights payments to players. These have been stretched out over multiple rules and multiple years, plus there's other charges arising from those that won't stand if those specific charges aren't upheld.
UEFA knew about Etisalat and image rights payments well before 2018 yet didn't charge us with any offence (although Etisalat was probably time-barred). They also knew about the Mancini contract in 2018, as a result of the Der Spiegel leaks, yet didn't charge us with that either, despite all the documentation being revealed. We don't know if UEFA discussed it with City as part of the charges that led to CAS, and it didn't come up at CAS so the assumption must be that there wasn't much mileage in that contract.