PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

AlexWilliamsGloves said:
Dunno about you, but i absolutely relish that thought. i regularly "admit" that we are just cheating our way to titles....i find it pisses them off more than trying to refute everything.

Wallow in their misery i say
Click to expand...
Just to go back to my previous point....having a read through the City thread on RAWK just makes me want this to drag on and on and on...its fuckin delicious
 
Luca1894 said:
re the YouTube attack in June 23. Absolutely everything re the integrity/validity of the Etisalat payments could be resolved via an affidavit from the relevant Etisalat CEO or CFO circa 2011/2012. Of course they are under no obligation whatsoever to cooperate with a PL kangaroo court. However a witness statement from either executive would be the type of irrefutable evidence mentioned in the clubs statement in Feb 2023. The notion that our legal experts, who are amongst the best in the world, would propose a defence based on a contrived third party called "Mr Jabber" is so pathetic it would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
Click to expand...
City called a Senior Vice President in the Contracts and Administration Department of Etisalat who gave witness evidence to CAS under oath. His evidence was that the allegations were "ridiculous" and that the sponsorship had "delivered excellent returns" and outperformed expectations.
 
projectriver said:
City called a Senior Vice President in the Contracts and Administration Department of Etisalat who gave witness evidence to CAS under oath. His evidence was that the allegations were "ridiculous" and that the sponsorship had "delivered excellent returns" and outperformed expectations.
Click to expand...

I know Etisalat aren't the ones under investigation, but presumably their marketing department and upper management would have some sort of document trail showing what they expected to get out of a sponsorship, and reviews of quarterly sales before and after. If it was such an excellent deal there would have been correspondence from the time between Etisalat employees.

We basically relied on CAS taking him at his word, and I know he was under oath but different people might find him less credible or think Etisalat's ownership compromises his reliability.
 
domalino said:
I know Etisalat aren't the ones under investigation, but presumably their marketing department and upper management would have some sort of document trail showing what they expected to get out of a sponsorship, and reviews of quarterly sales before and after. If it was such an excellent deal there would have been correspondence from the time between Etisalat employees.

We basically relied on CAS taking him at his word, and I know he was under oath but different people might find him less credible or think Etisalat's ownership compromises his reliability.
Click to expand...

Nobody is disputing the fair value of the contracts as far as I am aware. There is no need to justify the performance of the sponsorship. All the club has to show is that valid contracts existed, the services described in the contracts were provided and that the amounts invoiced were settled in accordance with the contracts / HoAs in place at the time.

I will say again, the idea that a company regulated by the authorities and funded by one of the richest governments in the world would enter into an agreement it couldn't finance for a measely 30 million is just ridiculous. If they don't have alternative contracts or a whistleblower from AD, then they don't have any chance of making anything stick, other than innuendo, on Etisalat. And I am 99.9% sure they have neither.
 
domalino said:
I know Etisalat aren't the ones under investigation, but presumably their marketing department and upper management would have some sort of document trail showing what they expected to get out of a sponsorship, and reviews of quarterly sales before and after. If it was such an excellent deal there would have been correspondence from the time between Etisalat employees.

We basically relied on CAS taking him at his word, and I know he was under oath but different people might find him less credible or think Etisalat's ownership compromises his reliability.
Click to expand...
The latter being the case, then the panel would have to provide a detailed and cogent explanation in their determination as to why the testimony of a man taken under oath should have little or no weight applied to it. I think it is highly unlikely that such a sworn testimony would be taken lightly. The board at Etisalat would not take lightly any inference by the panel that they are not to be believed.
 
The Der Spiegal weasel Riu Pinto (self proclaimed whistle blower) has been handed a four year prison sentence (suspended). Apparently he was the beneficiary of a Papal amnesty in Portugal so the sentence was lenient. However he's still in deep shit and facing an additional 377 charges ! These are related to "hacking and leaking, correspondence crimes and computer damage".
Its not clear if the charges relate to the illegal hacking of MCFC email servers. I've not spotted any coverage of this in the UK MSM, I wonder why ?

www.icij.org

Whistleblower Rui Pinto given four-year suspended sentence in Football Leaks trial amid ongoing legal woes - ICIJ

Dozens of charges against Pinto — who is also the source behind ICIJ’s Luanda Leaks — were dropped due to a recent amnesty. He faces 377 charges in a separate case tied to the exposé that revealed the dark underbelly of the global football industry.
www.icij.org www.icij.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.