PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

IrishBlueSince92 said:
Anyone got the 1 page verdict from the CAS hearing that said we aren't guilty?

I'm pretty sure that Stefan has tweeted it a few times to prove people wrong who argued that we weren't found not guilty
Click to expand...
  1. The Panel has no reason to believe that Mr Pearce's testimony in this respect was inaccurate and there is no evidence from UEFA supporting the allegation that the reference to "His Highness" was in fact to HHSM. Accordingly, the Panel finds that it must be concluded that UEFA failed to prove that Leaked Email No. I demonstrates that Mr Pearce was entitled to conclude contracts at the behest of ADUG.
  2. In any event, the Panel finds that a single email cannot establish a pattern whereby Mr Pearce would consistently arrange alternative sources of funds from HHSM and/or ADUG to contribute to the sponsorship obligations of MCFC's Abu Dhabi-based sponsors. Leaked Email No. I was also sent 10 years ago and two years before the implementation of the CLFFPR. So, even if true, at the time there would have been nothing wrong with channelling equity funding through sponsors. There is no evidence that similar arrangements were made after the implementation of the CLFFPR. The Panel finds that insufficient evidence is available to conclude that Mr Pearce represented ADUG vis-à-vis MCFC's Abu Dhabi-based sponsors with the aim of disguising equity funding as sponsorship contributions.
  3. In Leaked Email No. 2, reference is made to a "Mohamed", of which Mr Pearce testified that this was [Mr Z] of ADUG. From this email the inference could be drawn, as UEFA indeed does, that ADUG would be the entity remitting funds to MCFC through the sponsors. There is however no evidence on file suggesting that this is also what happened in fact, and it is contradicted by the witness evidence and accounting evidence set out below.
234. There is, in the view of the majority of the Panel, however, no evidence to support the conclusion that the payment of the amount of GBP 59,500,000 was funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG, as alleged by UEFA. The majority of the Panel considers the connection between the content of Leaked Email No. 6 and the two payments from Etihad insufficient to conclude that the only reasonable explanation therefore is that the payments came from two different sources, i.c. ADUG and Etihad.

To suggest that the sequence of the two payments is demonstrative for this would necessarily require finding that both Mr Hogan and Mr Pearce were lying. This is not accepted and the Panel finds that MCFC's explanation is not incredible per se.

240. The Panel however notes that there is no evidence on file that the arrangement discussed in the schedule attached to Leaked Email No. 2 was ever executed. The information contained in the creditor's ledger predates the payments investigated here, i.e. the payments made by Etihad to MCFC in the seasons 2013/14 and 2015/16.

242. More importantly, again, there is no evidence whatsoever that Etihad was somehow in on the arrangement discussed in Leaked Email No. 2 or the payments processed in MCFC's creditor's ledger. The majority of the Panel therefore remains of the view that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails are proven to have been executed.

256. The Panel was also provided with credible and uncontested evidence regarding the functioning of Eithad's owner, the Abu Dhabi Government, as well as the Abu Dhabi Accountability Authority, particularly from Mr Abdelhaq. While in the absolute the Panel cannot exclude the theoretical possibility that Etihad may have received funding from third parties and that this was somehow indirectly arranged by HHSM and/or ADUG, this would add another "missing link" to the puzzle, because not only is there no evidence of such a link between HHSM and/or ADUG and such third party/parties, there is also no evidence to establish a link between such third party/parties and Etihad.
This argument remains entirely unparticularised and unproven.

260. The Panel finds that the fact that Etihad is owned by the Government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi provides no proper basis for such conclusion and that no evidence has been presented about the particulars of funding potentially having come from other unidentified sources. In the absence of such particulars, as argued by MCFC, UEFA's case with respect to funding being channelled through unidentified third parties is based on innuendo and does not meet the requisite standard of proof.





  1. In view of all the above, there is no doubt that Etihad fully complied with its payment obligations towards MCFC and that MCFC rendered the contractually agreed services to Etihad in return. The majority of the Panel finds that Etihad Sponsorship Agreements are presumed to be negotiated at fair value and that MCFC, HHSM, ADUG and Etihad are considered not to be "related parties". The Etihad Sponsorship Agreements were legally binding contracts. There is no evidence that agreements were backdated or that MCFC otherwise retrospectively tried to cover up any alleged violations following the publication of the Leaked Emails.
  2. The Leaked Emails discuss an arrangement whereby Etihad's sponsorship contributions would be funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG. The participation of HHSM and/or ADUG and Etihad is a prerequisite for the arrangement to be executed, but such participation has not been established. Mr Pearce may have tried to implement the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails, but in the view of the majority of the Panel there is no evidence on file establishing that he actually went ahead with or succeeded in such attempt.
 
schfc6 said:
  1. The Panel has no reason to believe that Mr Pearce's testimony in this respect was inaccurate and there is no evidence from UEFA supporting the allegation that the reference to "His Highness" was in fact to HHSM. Accordingly, the Panel finds that it must be concluded that UEFA failed to prove that Leaked Email No. I demonstrates that Mr Pearce was entitled to conclude contracts at the behest of ADUG.
  2. In any event, the Panel finds that a single email cannot establish a pattern whereby Mr Pearce would consistently arrange alternative sources of funds from HHSM and/or ADUG to contribute to the sponsorship obligations of MCFC's Abu Dhabi-based sponsors. Leaked Email No. I was also sent 10 years ago and two years before the implementation of the CLFFPR. So, even if true, at the time there would have been nothing wrong with channelling equity funding through sponsors. There is no evidence that similar arrangements were made after the implementation of the CLFFPR. The Panel finds that insufficient evidence is available to conclude that Mr Pearce represented ADUG vis-à-vis MCFC's Abu Dhabi-based sponsors with the aim of disguising equity funding as sponsorship contributions.
  3. In Leaked Email No. 2, reference is made to a "Mohamed", of which Mr Pearce testified that this was [Mr Z] of ADUG. From this email the inference could be drawn, as UEFA indeed does, that ADUG would be the entity remitting funds to MCFC through the sponsors. There is however no evidence on file suggesting that this is also what happened in fact, and it is contradicted by the witness evidence and accounting evidence set out below.
234. There is, in the view of the majority of the Panel, however, no evidence to support the conclusion that the payment of the amount of GBP 59,500,000 was funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG, as alleged by UEFA. The majority of the Panel considers the connection between the content of Leaked Email No. 6 and the two payments from Etihad insufficient to conclude that the only reasonable explanation therefore is that the payments came from two different sources, i.c. ADUG and Etihad.

To suggest that the sequence of the two payments is demonstrative for this would necessarily require finding that both Mr Hogan and Mr Pearce were lying. This is not accepted and the Panel finds that MCFC's explanation is not incredible per se.

240. The Panel however notes that there is no evidence on file that the arrangement discussed in the schedule attached to Leaked Email No. 2 was ever executed. The information contained in the creditor's ledger predates the payments investigated here, i.e. the payments made by Etihad to MCFC in the seasons 2013/14 and 2015/16.

242. More importantly, again, there is no evidence whatsoever that Etihad was somehow in on the arrangement discussed in Leaked Email No. 2 or the payments processed in MCFC's creditor's ledger. The majority of the Panel therefore remains of the view that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails are proven to have been executed.

256. The Panel was also provided with credible and uncontested evidence regarding the functioning of Eithad's owner, the Abu Dhabi Government, as well as the Abu Dhabi Accountability Authority, particularly from Mr Abdelhaq. While in the absolute the Panel cannot exclude the theoretical possibility that Etihad may have received funding from third parties and that this was somehow indirectly arranged by HHSM and/or ADUG, this would add another "missing link" to the puzzle, because not only is there no evidence of such a link between HHSM and/or ADUG and such third party/parties, there is also no evidence to establish a link between such third party/parties and Etihad.
This argument remains entirely unparticularised and unproven.

260. The Panel finds that the fact that Etihad is owned by the Government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi provides no proper basis for such conclusion and that no evidence has been presented about the particulars of funding potentially having come from other unidentified sources. In the absence of such particulars, as argued by MCFC, UEFA's case with respect to funding being channelled through unidentified third parties is based on innuendo and does not meet the requisite standard of proof.





  1. In view of all the above, there is no doubt that Etihad fully complied with its payment obligations towards MCFC and that MCFC rendered the contractually agreed services to Etihad in return. The majority of the Panel finds that Etihad Sponsorship Agreements are presumed to be negotiated at fair value and that MCFC, HHSM, ADUG and Etihad are considered not to be "related parties". The Etihad Sponsorship Agreements were legally binding contracts. There is no evidence that agreements were backdated or that MCFC otherwise retrospectively tried to cover up any alleged violations following the publication of the Leaked Emails.
  2. The Leaked Emails discuss an arrangement whereby Etihad's sponsorship contributions would be funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG. The participation of HHSM and/or ADUG and Etihad is a prerequisite for the arrangement to be executed, but such participation has not been established. Mr Pearce may have tried to implement the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails, but in the view of the majority of the Panel there is no evidence on file establishing that he actually went ahead with or succeeded in such attempt.
Click to expand...
If I read all of that, my clothes will have come back into fashion.



And gone out again.
 
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.