halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,123
And that argument was rejected, iirc.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
And that argument was rejected, iirc.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't UEFA have had access to the related info they needed?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.
1. City & Etisalat agree a sponsorship deal.
2. Etisalat are entered into our ledgers as a client account, & an invoice is raised.
3. City receive payment for the invoice which is credited to Etisalat's account.
4. UEFA ask for bank statements covering these transactions.
5. It's found the Etisalat invoice was paid by UAE Financier, Jaber Mohammed.
6. Questions asked: Why would Mohammed pay Etisalat's invoice?
7. Etisalat used Mohammed's services to secure a bridging loan to pay City.
8. Etisalat repay the loan to Jaber Mohammed in 2015.
9. UEFA note this point, but it really becomes relevant with the Der Spiegel article citing one line of a stolen email where words to the effect of "Perhaps we can get His Highness to cover this payment".
10. Discussions ensue to identify who is the unamed HH in the email.
11. To prove their points, UEFA need the financials & bank statements of Etisalat, Jaber Mohammed, & ADUG to prove their claim that ADUG paid Mohammed, who then paid City.
12. Both ADUG & Jaber Mohammed are outside of UEFA's jurisdiction, so UEFA had zero evidence to provide CAS outside of "On the balance of probabilty" that the HH mentioned in the stolen emails was Sheikh Mansour, & through ADUG, he funnelled equity funding to Jaber Mohammed, who then funnelled the money to Manchester City, disguised as Etisalat Sponsorship.
UEFA seeing the bank statements relating to accounting transactions, would be standard I'd imagine, because it is when HMRC are having a look at your books.
We don’t know what the non-cooperation charges relate to, but conceivably the fact that the club forced 2x arbitration panels and 2x commercial court cases before providing info could justify a non-cooperation charge, especially as the PL charter that all clubs sign up to demands that all clubs fully cooperate in any investigation.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?
The non-cooperation charges are small fry anyway and would almost certainly only be a fine, if the club was cleared of everything else but guilty of non-cooperation, the wouldn’t be any cigars left in Manchester once the exec team got the findings.
As already said, the club did argue this extensively and lost at all turns.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 ?
On the first part, the panel realistically would only find the club guilty of the most serious charges if something explosive is presented by the PL, these are serious allegations and they aren’t going to want to make such a ruling on ‘probability’.
If something so explosive as to effectively prove a serious, coordinated fraud exists, the relevant authorities would jump all over it, but confidence for everyone should come from the fact that UEFA didn’t uncover anything if the sort and the club aren’t going to have provided such evidence to the PL as to implicate themselves.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
And that argument was rejected, iirc.
206. The Panel is satisfied to accept that the allegations in these proceedings are particularly severe. It not only concerns alleged arrangements between MCFC and ADUG as its main shareholder but also Etihad as one of its principal sponsors, concerning equity funding being disguised as sponsorship contributions over a significant period of time, resulting in an influx of relevant income for monitoring purposes, with the consequence that it could spend significantly more money (more than GBP 200,000,000) than it would have been able to spend without such arrangements.
208. The Panel adheres to the reasoning of the CAS panel in CAS 2017/A/5379 set forth above, and that, considering the particularly severe nature of the allegations in the present proceedings, the evidence supporting such allegation must be particularly cogent.
Also, this is an excerpt from the alleged email that UEFA are hanging their case on, which refers to Aabar.
"I have also attached the contract that reflects the rights Inventory described above. For the benefit of financial reporting/management within the club we have extended the term of the agreement to be effective as of December 1 2009. The agreement term is now Three years and four months long. As we discussed the annual direct obligation for Aabar is GBP 3million. The remaining 12 million GBP requirement will come from alternative sources provided by His Highness. The obligation for the initial four month period will also be covered from these alternative sources.
Therefore the actual financial payment obligation for you to oversee is:
• GBP 3million on 1st May 2010
• GBP 3 million on 1st April 2011
• GBP 3 million on 1st April 2012
All other amounts required will be directed by His Highness from alternative sources."
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
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 rag season. \0/
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,123
Why wouldn't UEFA have had access to the related info they needed?
1. City & Etisalat agree a sponsorship deal.
2. Etisalat are entered into our ledgers as a client account, & an invoice is raised.
3. City receive payment for the invoice which is credited to Etisalat's account.
4. UEFA ask for bank statements covering these transactions.
5. It's found the Etisalat invoice was paid by UAE Financier, Jaber Mohammed.
6. Questions asked: Why would Mohammed pay Etisalat's invoice?
7. Etisalat used Mohammed's services to secure a bridging loan to pay City.
8. Etisalat repay the loan to Jaber Mohammed in 2015.
9. UEFA note this point, but it really becomes relevant with the Der Spiegel article citing one line of a stolen email where words to the effect of "Perhaps we can get His Highness to cover this payment".
10. Discussions ensue to identify who is the unamed HH in the email.
11. To prove their points, UEFA need the financials & bank statements of Etisalat, Jaber Mohammed, & ADUG to prove their claim that ADUG paid Mohammed, who then paid City.
12. Both ADUG & Jaber Mohammed are outside of UEFA's jurisdiction, so UEFA had zero evidence to provide CAS outside of "On the balance of probabilty" that the HH mentioned in the stolen emails was Sheikh Mansour, & through ADUG, he funnelled equity funding to Jaber Mohammed, who then funnelled the money to Manchester City, disguised as Etisalat Sponsorship.
UEFA seeing the bank statements relating to accounting transactions, would be standard I'd imagine, because it is when HMRC are having a look at your books.
Because it was a review of the audited annual accounts and supplementary information required by UEFA to ensure FFP compliance (including a breakdown of sponsorship income by sponsor and, for example , allowable deductions from expenses) such as they carry out for all participants in European competitions, not an investigation of the accounting records. In view of the items in the audited annual accounts, they would have asked for explanations for, amongst other things: the nature of the relationship with each AD sponsor, fair value assessments for the AD sponsorships and the details of the intangible asset transactions. This represents a review of the audited annual accounts, not an investigation of the accounting records such as HMRC would carry out.
They had no reason at all to ask for the underlying accounting records concerning Etisalat in 2014.
This must be pretty boring for everyone by now so I won't reply any more but, in my view, you are making things up to support a premise which is just wrong imho, and isn't supported by any evidence at all.
206. The Panel is satisfied to accept that the allegations in these proceedings are particularly severe. It not only concerns alleged arrangements between MCFC and ADUG as its main shareholder but also Etihad as one of its principal sponsors, concerning equity funding being disguised as sponsorship contributions over a significant period of time, resulting in an influx of relevant income for monitoring purposes, with the consequence that it could spend significantly more money (more than GBP 200,000,000) than it would have been able to spend without such arrangements.
208. The Panel adheres to the reasoning of the CAS panel in CAS 2017/A/5379 set forth above, and that, considering the particularly severe nature of the allegations in the present proceedings, the evidence supporting such allegation must be particularly cogent.
Also, this is an excerpt from the alleged email that UEFA are hanging their case on, which refers to Aabar.
"I have also attached the contract that reflects the rights Inventory described above. For the benefit of financial reporting/management within the club we have extended the term of the agreement to be effective as of December 1 2009. The agreement term is now Three years and four months long. As we discussed the annual direct obligation for Aabar is GBP 3million. The remaining 12 million GBP requirement will come from alternative sources provided by His Highness. The obligation for the initial four month period will also be covered from these alternative sources.
Therefore the actual financial payment obligation for you to oversee is:
• GBP 3million on 1st May 2010
• GBP 3 million on 1st April 2011
• GBP 3 million on 1st April 2012
All other amounts required will be directed by His Highness from alternative sources."
Check out para 205 for the rejection. There is a big difference between "comfortable satisfaction"(balance of probabilities) with particularly cogent evidence and "beyond all reasonable doubt".
What do you mean by thisI'm not quite sure what your implications is here regarding rule breaches? These matters are in respect of accountancy for the annual accounts which has their own set of rules and principles.
The payments for an agreement in principle re sponsorship from Etisalat were made by a third party, Muhammed Jabar who in effect acted as the supplier of a bridging loan between the 2 parties. This was apparently necessary at the time because of Citys immediate need and the delay in completed signed sponsorship contracts. Its not clear why the payment of 30 million was made in two amounts. As far as i am aware the amounts were properly accounted for in receivables for Etisalat in Citys accounts and in the expenditure ledger of Etisalad on reimbursement of Mohammed Jabar.
This isn't against any rules and was looked at by UEFA. Only a later inference from an old email released by DS suggested that maybe ADUG funded it but UEFA offered no evidence to prove that and the matters were ruled clearly outside the time period for consideration by CAS according to UEFAs own time barring rules.
I've seen people ask why Etisalat, a 52 Billion quid valued company didn't pay it in one go but surely the same question arises then if it was our owner who allegedly supplied the monies, a company or private individual worth 100's of Billions.
The Etisalat matter isn't necessarily the whole PL case at all. These concerned 2 payments across 12- 13. The liklihood of the recurrent charges would indicate that they allege fraudulent misrepresentation by Citys directors in collusion with Etihad, Aabar, Etisalat and our accountants and auditors over a 10 year period on an annual basis for various matters from player and manager remuneration to alleged disguised owner sponsorship funding. The PL will however have to prove that fraud to the satisfactory burden of proof that withstands the mountain of rebuttal evidence City will undoubtedly supply.
I've seen people ask why Etisalat, a 52 Billion quid valued company didn't pay it in one go but surely the same question arises then if it was our owner who allegedly supplied the monies, a company or private individual worth 100's of Billions.
jimmygrimblesboots
Well-Known Member
It appears to be business as normal at our club , stadium expansion , player contracts , etc , and there doesnt appear to be any fire sale or panic at the club ,which i can only presume that our hierarchy are supremely confident of any outcome of the hearing/charges. The fall out between the Premier league and the red'istree clubs , when we disprove all the charges will be fun to watch , and the media will have to careful what they say/print. The club has taken the softly softly approach but i am sure once the hearing is over the club will not take kindly to repeated slander/libel of our club in the media after all it is damaging a multi-million pound investment , hopefully we will get tough and drag them through the courts and just maybe an editor will think twice before spewing more blatant lies about our club
Merry Xmas Blues and if this year is half as good as last year , it will still be a good 'un
Merry Xmas Blues and if this year is half as good as last year , it will still be a good 'un
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,123
We don’t know what the non-cooperation charges relate to, but conceivably the fact that the club forced 2x arbitration panels and 2x commercial court cases before providing info could justify a non-cooperation charge, especially as the PL charter that all clubs sign up to demands that all clubs fully cooperate in any investigation.
What do you make of my theory that the non-cooperation charges (and the bad faith charge) arise from the club not handing over third party evidence to the investigation? This would explain:
i) The number of charges and the years they cover, as all alleged breaches required some third party evidence to exonerate the club which was not forth coming. Made worse by the fact that the PL knows the club has such evidence as it was presented at CAS. Why not hand it over? Because the rules at the time didn't require it, and to control any further investigation of the evidence once handed over to the PL.
ii) Why the club says it has provided all the information required of it in good faith, while the PL says it hasn't.
iii) The new rules for last year that a club must make all reasonable efforts to acquire such evidence from third parties.
iv) The challenge from the club that such new rules can't be applied retroactively to the investigation.
That all makes sense to me, and the conclusion that can be drawn from it, if it is true, is that the club will be just fine when the external evidence is provided, as it was at CAS.
Makes sense but could just be bollocks. What do you think?
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Even my accountants ask for transaction details. How're they supposed to reconcile financial accounts, without bank statements to match to the figures generated.Because it was a review of the audited annual accounts and supplementary information required by UEFA to ensure FFP compliance (including a breakdown of sponsorship income by sponsor and, for example , allowable deductions from expenses) such as they carry out for all participants in European competitions, not an investigation of the accounting records. In view of the items in the audited annual accounts, they would have asked for explanations for, amongst other things: the nature of the relationship with each AD sponsor, fair value assessments for the AD sponsorships and the details of the intangible asset transactions. This represents a review of the audited annual accounts, not an investigation of the accounting records such as HMRC would carry out.
They had no reason at all to ask for the underlying accounting records concerning Etisalat in 2014.
This must be pretty boring for everyone by now so I won't reply any more but, in my view, you are making things up to support a premise which is just wrong imho, and isn't supported by any evidence at all.
Check out para 205 for the rejection. There is a big difference between "comfortable satisfaction"(balance of probabilities) with particularly cogent evidence and "beyond all reasonable doubt".
It's not required for annual returns for submissions to Companies House, but it's quite proper to ask for during an investigation. I don't see how you conduct an investigation without one.
Evidently, UEFA moved beyond account inspection to investigation, based on the fact we were sanctioned & fined. They wouldn't have taken this draconian course of action, without a full investigation. How could they?
There's nothing to make up mate. I wasn't there, so just like everyone outside of the process, I'm trying to make sense out of nonsense.
You're splitting hairs on what I've outlined, but your own suppositions aren't providing emprical counter evidence, which seems to be the standard you're holding me to.
To reconcile accounts, explain how you can do this without cross referencing the journal entries with bank statements? The bank statements alone will state the source with a reference eg: Invoice Etisa-743297-23, the date & the amount.
This is basic accounting principles that even untrained householders use to budget.
It's OK if you don't understand the process & its ramifications. Just because someone hasn't explicitly said "On such a day, X requested bank statements to reconcile against journal entries in relation to Etisalat", it doesn't mean you can't infer that this action is usual for the auditing process.
Unless you have empirical evidence to the contrary?