PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[CC1]

No. The improvements to the stadium, the surrounding area (Coop Live), & the CFA & Academy players are outside FFP considerations.

We can raise money by borrowing, or by selling shares, both of which we've done.

View attachment 102289

Sheikh Mansour has previously converted loans in to share equity, & he's now a member of the richest family on the planet!

Yup! Bloomberg have just named the Al Nayan family of Manchester City Football Club's Sheikh Mansour as the richest on earth, worth an estimated $1.5trn!

I doubt another billion quid invested in City's infrastructure, Academy & the surrounding area of the stadium is gonna have him waking up in a sweat at night.

Just look how proud & animated Khaldoon was when handing out the medals at the CWC? I don't think I've ever seen him so chipper!

Regardless of the spectacle the Saudis put on, it was to ultimately award & honour an Abu Dhabi owned team, just crowned the best in England, Europe & now the world.

We shouldn't underestimate the seismic effect this win will have within the competing Gulf States.

https://www.financialexpress.com/li...e-world-in-2023-know-their-net-worth/3340070/

Thanks again. If Sir Jim gives rags 2OO million of his own money to improve OT, I’m sure he’ll want it paying back over time, which leaves less for football issues?

 

[Prater70]

I posted it earlier in this thread. I'll find it again & repost it.

Essentially UEFA had our audited accounts, bank transfers & statement referring to Jaber Mohammed paying funds to City for the Etisalat sponsorship. This money was repaid by Etisalat to Mohammed, which was all checked & fine.

However in one of the stolen emails, one of our finance guys mentioned if "We could get his Highness" (or a moniker to that effect) to make the payment for Etisalat so we had the money banked.

This is what triggered the 2018 investigation. UEFA were of the thinking ADUG paid Mohammed, he paid City & Etisalat repaid Mohammed in 2015 to tie up any loose ends.

It's the email comment from the City finance fella UEFA were hanging their case on. However, unless they got ADUG, Mohammed's & Etisalat's audited accounts & banks statements which is out of their jurisdiction, it's essentially our explanation vs their accusations.

As per the CAS findings I posted earlier, UEFA didn't prove its case, & the burden of proof was on them, not City.

I posted it earlier in this thread. I'll find it again & repost it.

Essentially UEFA had our audited accounts, bank transfers & statement referring to Jaber Mohammed paying funds to City for the Etisalat sponsorship. This money was repaid by Etisalat to Mohammed, which was all checked & fine.

However in one of the stolen emails, one of our finance guys mentioned if "We could get his Highness" (or a moniker to that effect) to make the payment for Etisalat so we had the money banked.

This is what triggered the 2018 investigation. UEFA were of the thinking ADUG paid Mohammed, he paid City & Etisalat repaid Mohammed in 2015 to tie up any loose ends.

It's the email comment from the City finance fella UEFA were hanging their case on. However, unless they got ADUG, Mohammed's & Etisalat's audited accounts & banks statements which is out of their jurisdiction, it's essentially our explanation vs their accusations.

As per the CAS findings I posted earlier, UEFA didn't prove its case, & the burden of proof was on them, not City.

Thanks Dribble, but does the Balance of Probability come into this?

 

[lancs blue]

this was thrown out by the Commercial Court and passed back to the PL with City ordered to produce all requested documents.

So if the club obeyed the court's order - which I assume they would have done - what's the basis for the PL's non-cooperation charge?

 

[cheekybids]

They all thought it was the smoking gun, until City provided the full email transcripts which added the missing context. Once this was qualified by Etisalat, Etihad, City finance chiefs & our auditors, CAS ruled we had nothing to answer & overturned our ban.

However they found us guilty for non-compliance saying if we'd cooperated, this case could've been settled at the UEFA stage.

However City countered that in 2014, UEFA used our submissions to change their FFP rules which led to us being sanctioned & heavily fined, hence the non-cooperation this time around.

Has the full email transcripts ever been reported by any media organisation?

I can’t remember seeing 1 article which tells you everything you want to know.

 

[WRicko]

1. Because this is arbitration with a panel selected according to the PL rules.
Whatever the implications of their findings, they will be ruling based on the evidence before them not on possible implications of their decision, which may be a factor in the level of proof required.
2. We will concentrate on the evidence and keep our council on any misgivings we have so as not to muddy the waters.
As I suggested, such a tactic would be a Hail Mary best left until we need it.

Surely it cannot be right that the panel can find us guilty of breaking a law that the police etc have not investigated but know about and therefore we can assume don’t think there is anything to investigate. Not to mention for anyone to actually prove we have done what ie alleged they they would probably have to investigate companies etc that outside even the police jurisdiction let alone the PLs o feel sure even the panel or court would accept this

 

[WRicko]

The club tried that back in 2020 - there were 2x arbitration panels to try and move forward, City then challenged in commercial court that the PL had jurisdiction to try any allegations (and were also biased) but this was thrown out by the Commercial Court and passed back to the PL with City ordered to produce all requested documents.

Surely it cannot be right that the panel can find us guilty of breaking a law that the police etc have not investigated but know about and therefore we can assume don’t think there is anything to investigate. Not to mention for anyone to actually prove we have done what ie alleged they they would probably have to investigate companies etc that outside even the police jurisdiction let alone the PLs o feel sure even the panel or court would accept this

 

[M18CTID]

This was what Piers Moron got his panties in a bunch about, only for David Dein to dismiss it as “not the smoking gun” Moron thought it was……

And it’s been in the public domain for years that ADUG paid it initially and Etisalat later reimbursed them. From what I’ve read, City never disguised this fact and were totally open about it so it can hardly be classed as disguised owner funding.

 

[M18CTID]

Re Etislat and the £30m payments:

Mansour's payments and a U-turn by Uefa: key Manchester City findings | Manchester City | The Guardian

Court of arbitration for sport judgment also finds no Uefa bias and shows why an alleged FFP breach was unsubstantiated

amp.theguardian.com

 

[KS55]

Surely it cannot be right that the panel can find us guilty of breaking a law that the police etc have not investigated but know about and therefore we can assume don’t think there is anything to investigate. Not to mention for anyone to actually prove we have done what ie alleged they they would probably have to investigate companies etc that outside even the police jurisdiction let alone the PLs o feel sure even the panel or court would accept this

The panel cannot find us guilty of breaking a law. They can only rule on whether we infringed PL regs. The implication of that might be that we broke a law which is why the standard of proof may be high. But even if their verdict implies we broke a law, that has no legal effect. You must grasp the distinction between arbitration on an essentially ‘private organisation matter’ and the wider law of England.
Mind you the journos would shout from the rooftops ‘City falsified their accounts, guilty of fraud, lock them up’ and so on.
Be assured, Pannick and the team have this in hand. Relax.

 

[pauls]

The panel cannot find us guilty of breaking a law. They can only rule on whether we infringed PL regs. The implication of that might be that we broke a law which is why the standard of proof may be high. But even if their verdict implies we broke a law, that has no legal effect. You must grasp the distinction between arbitration on an essentially ‘private organisation matter’ and the wider law of England.
Mind you the journos would shout from the rooftops ‘City falsified their accounts, guilty of fraud, lock them up’ and so on.
Be assured, Pannick and the team have this in hand. Relax.

Thanks for the input guys, maybe I'm worrying unduly but, I'm reading that UEFA were aware of the Etisalat payments from ADUG and subsequent reimbursement. I'm not seeing where this is allowed in Prem rules and seems to be their whole case against us ?
Unless I'm missing something?