PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dribble]

If a PL chosen panel comes up with a *balance of probability" "guilty" verdict then surely in fairness we can use a *balance of probability* argument that such a panel is likely to be biased.

CAS essentially told UEFA that their findings were conjecture based on the balance of probability.

When it came to the Etisalat payments, City said "This is how it went, & these were the payments made by so & so".

It seems UEFA having seen the Der Spiegel stolen emails have contended that in 2012 ADUG paid Jaber Mohammed, who then paid City & Mohammed was then reimbursed by Etisalat in 2015.

That was all fine & dandy until UEFA were asked for empirical proof by CAS if this was the case. Having no access to Jaber Mohammed or ADUG's accounts because they're out of UEFA's jurisdiction, UEFA's claim was based solely on the stolen emails, not actual bank transfers.

Being unable to produce any actual ADUG > Jaber Mohammed transactions as evidence, UEFA's case fell apart like a cheap suit. \0/

 

[halfcenturyup]

Unless stated by Manchester City or if I were personally in attendance, no I can't state certain bits as factually said. However, when you look at the timeline & piece it all together, like a jigsaw it begins to create a picture based on stated facts, which is what I've done.

For instance, UEFA clearly state the Etisalat & Etihad deals were investigated for fair value & to see if they were related companies. During those 2014 investigations, everything was checked & UEFA had to concede our deals were fair market value, & neither Etihad or Etisalat were related companies.

Are you thinking as part of these investigations, UEFA didn't check where the sponsorship money actually came from?

Connecting the dots, UEFA made it clear that their 2018 probe was directly related to the Der Spiegel revelations, & the major point they pulled out was the one line in the email where a City finance guy mentioned "Perhaps we could get his Highness (or a moniker to that effect) to pay this so we have it in the bank".

Our audited accounts haven't been amended, so must evidently show the two £15m payments in 2012/13 from Jaber Mohammed, because in 2018 UEFA didn't flag this as an issue. Their new issue was did ADUG pay Mohammed to pay City?

Opposition fans & the media have mostly taken UEFA & the PL's word for everything & painted City as FFP cheats & financial crooks.

As a City fan I've tried to get all the info I could, to piece it together so it made sense to me, & I've shared those thoughts.

The elements are all factual events, which I've put together to create the clearest picture I can to make sense of this FFP nonsense.

If you see things differently? Well that's why we're all here to discuss & share our knowledge & views, of which you'll hopefully share with me too. )(

Fair enough, we are all trying to make sense out of what is happening. I have done the same with my theory as to why the alleged breaches cover so many issues and so many years taking into account what we know from CAS and what has been communicated by the club and by the PL. It may all be bollocks. We will see.

But on your 2014 point, I very much doubt UEFA looked at the funding of sponsorships at that time. They would have needed access to the accounting records and they had no need to ask for that to conclude on third party / fair value. 2014 was just a review of the accounts afaik, and not an accounting investigation. I am pretty sure UEFA would have first learned about the Etisalat funding in the 2018 DS articles.

 

[Dribble]

Fair enough, we are all trying to make sense out of what is happening. I have done the same with my theory as to why the alleged breaches cover so many issues and so many years taking into account what we know from CAS and what has been communicated by the club and by the PL. It may all be bollocks. We will see.

But on your 2014 point, I very much doubt UEFA looked at the funding of sponsorships at that time. They would have needed access to the accounting records and they had no need to ask for that to conclude on third party / fair value. 2014 was just a review of the accounts afaik, and not an accounting investigation. I am pretty sure UEFA would have first learned about the Etisalat funding in the 2018 DS articles.

The details of the Etisalat funds were in our 2012/13 accounts, including who the funds came from. This is the very least an investigation would uncover. eg:

2014: Manchester City receive money in 2012/13 for Etisalat sponsorship which is attributed to Etisalat's account. The funds were shown to have come from Jaber Mohammed.

It's only the Der Spiegel stolen emails which had a vague reference to "HH" which aroused UEFA's suspicions & led to the investigation.

Where City would've been knackered is if our explanation in 2018 differed from the facts contained in the 2012/13/14 accounts. They evidently didn't.

What UEFA was claiming is the original source of the £30m paid to City came from ADUG, which was then paid through Jaber Mohammed to City.

City are saying the money came from Mohammed & ADUG had nothing to do with it. That the long & tall of UEFA's claim regarding Etisalat.

 

[dadnlad]

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.

that fat bald irish scouser has got them

 

[KS55]

Your missing my point how can a panel find us guilt of breaking a private members rules when in order to have done so we would have to have broken the law a law they cannot find us guilt of and cannot properly investigate ? The whole thing should be chucked in the bin is my point and we should be arguing they cannot asses the matter they are not qualified. I am asking why can we not argue this or why are we not ?

Sorry you are plain wrong. You cannot mix an arbitration ruling with criminal law. They are separate issues legally speaking.
No doubt, as many have said, we will argue that the evidence required is high because of the implications, but the argument ends at that point. We will not be arguing that the implications mean that the panel is not qualified.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

It seems the balance of probability is what UEFA based its guilty verdict on, but CAS sets a higher bar for burden of proof, like producing actual evidence, not just inferences.

That's not strictly true my friend

Swiss civil courts (UEFA + CAS) rely on "comfortable satisfaction" as the burden of proof.

Although in effect it's very similar to Balance of probability in the UKs courts.

It's accepted that the greater the significance and severity of the allegation then the greater cogency of evidence is required. However this isn't an increase in the required burden of proof. Its an important distinction.

 

[bluemanchester]

CAS essentially told UEFA that their findings were conjecture based on the balance of probability.

When it came to the Etisalat payments, City said "This is how it went, & these were the payments made by so & so".

It seems UEFA having seen the Der Spiegel stolen emails have contended that in 2012 ADUG paid Jaber Mohammed, who then paid City & Mohammed was then reimbursed by Etisalat in 2015.

That was all fine & dandy until UEFA were asked for empirical proof by CAS if this was the case. Having no access to Jaber Mohammed or ADUG's accounts because they're out of UEFA's jurisdiction, UEFA's claim was based solely on the stolen emails, not actual bank transfers.

Being unable to produce any actual ADUG > Jaber Mohammed transactions as evidence, UEFA's case fell apart like a cheap suit. \0/

UEFAs case against City at CAS was over 15 minutes after it started, the rest was just padding. Unless the premier league,livarpool, united, spuds and le arse have a smoking gun, I don't think they have, then this case could fold just as quickly.
For the record I am an anti establishment FOC ;-)
Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[KS55]

It seems the balance of probability is what UEFA based its guilty verdict on, but CAS sets a higher bar for burden of proof, like producing actual evidence, not just inferences.

UEFA verdict was pre-ordained by the corrupt Leterme See CAS1. Evidence had little to do with it! See CAS2.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The details of the Etisalat funds were in our 2012/13 accounts, including who the funds came from. This is the very least an investigation would uncover. eg:

2014: Manchester City receive money in 2012/13 for Etisalat sponsorship which is attributed to Etisalat's account. The funds were shown to have come from Jaber Mohammed.

It's only the Der Spiegel stolen emails which had a vague reference to "HH" which aroused UEFA's suspicions & led to the investigation.

Where City would've been knackered is if our explanation in 2018 differed from the facts contained in the 2012/13/14 accounts. They evidently didn't.

What UEFA was claiming is the original source of the £30m paid to City came from ADUG, which was then paid through Jaber Mohammed to City.

City are saying the money came from Mohammed & ADUG had nothing to do with it. That the long & tall of UEFA's claim regarding Etisalat.

At the risk of pushing the point, UEFA wouldn't have seen who paid the Etisalat invoices from the audited annual accounts. They would have needed access to the underlying accounting records and I am pretty sure they didn't in 2014.

Anyway, this has gone on long enough. We both agree the PL won't be able to prove their allegations to the extent required, I think.

 

[Dribble]

That's not strictly true my friend

Swiss civil courts (UEFA + CAS) rely on "comfortable satisfaction" as the burden of proof.

Although in effect it's very similar to Balance of probability in the UKs courts.

It's accepted that the greater the significance and severity of the allegation then the greater cogency of evidence is required. However this isn't an increase in the required burden of proof. Its an important distinction.

The following was the basis of City's argument about the weight of required evidence being higher, based on the serious nature of the allegations.

201. However, MCFC maintains that the Adjudicatory Chamber failed to apply such standard of proof correctly in the Appealed Decision. MCFC argues that the Adjudicatory Chamber recognised that, in applying the standard of comfortable satisfaction, "the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the supporting evidence must be". MCFC finds that the allegations made by the CFCB in the present proceedings are of the utmost seriousness and that, in those circumstances, the weight of the evidence to discharge the standard of proof is especially high; effectively beyond reasonable doubt.

https://jusmundi.com/en/document/de...l-uefa-arbitral-award-monday-13th-july-2020-1