PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[chaddblue]

And so the stupid **** should do, he'd be a fool getting involved in the city debate with our owners pumping astronomical investment into east Manchester, maybe just every now and then pillocks like him should just show a bit of support to the club who reside under Manchester City Council, he doesn't mind throwing his weight around supporting tax dodging scruffy Jims "National stadium of the north" plans does he, that's something Trafford Borough Council should be supporting, he's the bloke who wants to implement clean air driving zone in Manchester, fuck off back to Liverpool you nob rash.

I'm not supporting him and I agree with what you say... but he's the mayor of greater manchester not manchester, which includes trafford

 

[wolviedinho]

Half way through the ‘unofficial partner’ podcast with nick harris and stefan and got to say its the first time ive been genuinely worried about the outcome.
Colin savage is also quoted as saying “yeah ive heard that some of the monies that was supposed to have come from etihad came from elsewhere”

As keeps being said, would the prem league have brought this case of incredible magnitude on a wim or on the say so of the red shirts?

Maybe Colin was talking about the 3rd party element involved with Ethiad?

On the balance of probability and the fact that we have a clean paper trail that was accepted at CAS I wouldn’t worry. The bit you quoted is not factual but more hearsay. Going into these proceedings the starting point is that the people involved are not deliberately being dishonest.

Facts will prevail, not innuendos and not out of context information not matter how it looks.

 

[Norbiton]

Half way through the ‘unofficial partner’ podcast with nick harris and stefan and got to say its the first time ive been genuinely worried about the outcome.
Colin savage is also quoted as saying “yeah ive heard that some of the monies that was supposed to have come from etihad came from elsewhere”

As keeps being said, would the prem league have brought this case of incredible magnitude on a wim or on the say so of the red shirts?

I thought it was widely accepted that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council paid some of the Etihad sponsorship. Which wouldn’t break any rules. It would only be a problem if payment came from our owners as disguised equity

 

[Metalartin]

Half way through the ‘unofficial partner’ podcast with nick harris and stefan and got to say its the first time ive been genuinely worried about the outcome.
Colin savage is also quoted as saying “yeah ive heard that some of the monies that was supposed to have come from etihad came from elsewhere”

As keeps being said, would the prem league have brought this case of incredible magnitude on a wim or on the say so of the red shirts?

As someone said, it wasn't really in the know City information, just Colin trying to piece things together. That was because of something in the emails about 'H.H securing funding from elsewhere' which was being used as a smoking gun argument.

Someone will be along to clear this up properly no doubt but from memory: I believe there was a belief, based off the open skies court case that involved Etihad, that ADEC(Abu Dhabi Executive Council?) 'likely' paid the money. H.H(His Highness) was said to be a different Royal, who is actually involved with Etihad, at CAS(so Colin was correct about that and it makes much more sense too). So that wouldn't be disguised equity and it wouldn't have involved Sheikh Mansour authorising payments from government funds. However, there may have still been an argument that the accounts weren't showing an accurate reflection of where the money came from, according to some(I seem to remember Der Spiegel made an article exploring that angle of attack).

It was a well reasoned theory and I certainly appreciated reading that take before the CAS hearing. If only to show the know-it-alls, that what was said in the emails could mean any number of things(not just what our rivals wanted it to mean) and only City truly knew the correct context, not Der Spiegel, not UEFA.

However, at CAS, we found out that £8m came from Etihad's marketing budget/fund, the rest came from Etihad's central funds. I believe they even showed accounting data to prove it but I could be mistaken. CAS accepted this explanation either way.

 

[waspish]

As someone said it wasn't really in the know just City fans trying to piece things together. That was because of something in the emails about 'H.H securing funding from elsewhere' that was being used as a smoking gun argument.

Someone will be along to clear this up properly no doubt but from memory: I believe there was a belief based of the open skies court case that involved Etihad that ADEC(Abu Dhabi Executive Council?) 'likely' paid the money. H.H(His Highness) was said to be a different Royal actually involved with Etihad. So that wouldn't be desguised equity and it woudn't have involved Sheikh Mansour. However, there may have still been an argument that the accounts weren't showing an accurate reflection of where the money came from according to some(I seem to remember Der Spiegel made an article exploring that angle of attack).

At CAS we found out that £8m came from Etihad's own marketing budget, the rest came from Etihad's central funds. I believe they even showed accounting data to prove it but I could be mistaken. CAS accepted this explanation either way.

Oh that info was from the hacked emails and was one email we know one email can be taken out of context! It will be in the accounts either way!Khaldoon did say we have irrefutable evidence!

adjective. Irrefutable evidence, statements, or arguments cannot be shown to be incorrect or unsatisfactory

 

[Centurions]

Where did Savage hear it, RAWK?

Are we talking about Colin Savage aka Prestwichblue or a different Colin Savage?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You do realise Manchester is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe don't you?

It’ll never be the fastest growing though.

That‘ll always be Dublin, because it keeps on Dublin and Dublin.



I’ll get my coat.

 

[mancboy]

It’ll never be the fastest growing though.

That‘ll always be Dublin, because it keeps on Dublin and Dublin.



I’ll get my coat.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

Look I haven't read this entire thread (who has?). But I've sort of followed this farrago at a distance. Just read @Chris in London 's excellent summary of the state of play. Now something I've never been terribly clear on: in what way, on what grounds, and according to what specific charges does the basis of the PL's case against us differ from UEFA's?
Unless it be that we haven't particularly cooperated with the PL, any more than we cooperated with UEFA (so we're likely to get a hefty fine, or at worst a points deduction).
Or have I get it every which way wrong?
As for the non-cooperation, it has always seemed to me like this, according to the information I've read like everyone else. If a copper came up and arrested you in the street, and took you down the station, and the Detective Superintendent or whoever else said, “You're charged with this. We believe you're guilty, you are guilty, and you are now going to help us establish your guilt”… well, you wouldn't exactly feel cooperative, would you? Why would you cooperate when a) you're firmly convinced of your innocence and b) there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

 

[Bluesince1979]

Where did Savage hear it, RAWK?

Ask him