So in a nutshell, in your opinion, we've done some of what the PL have alleged and they have substantive proof to support it.
Well yes as the Mancini and Fordham bits are well known and established ‘facts’ now, as discussed at CAS with Mancini although it can be proven that he did have a ‘second contract’ with Abu Dhabi, the amount of money is completely immaterial and wouldn’t have made the club pass or fail FFP.
With Fordham again it’s no secret that the club did move its image rights to a seperate company, ostensibly to ‘create’ some extra revenue in the years before the club didn’t have to worry about FFP. It’s generally agreed that UEFA were aware and didn’t take issue with this and it ended from memory in 2017 anyway.
My glass half empty expectation is that the tribunal will come down hard on these two aspects and impose a penalty that will ultimately be pedalled way back as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never a secret to anyone.
As said though, I’m a natural pessimist!
They have more than the der Spiegel emails?
And you know that because....?
They have nothing. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
We know this because it’s public record that City lost in Commercial Court and were forced to turn over additional requested documents.
They might not have anything more substantive, but they 100% have more than the Der Spiegel emails which was my only point.
Now, you see, what I don't understand about this argument is exactly what you are expecting there to be in the books and records of the club that would support the allegations that have been made.
Take Mancini, even assuming it isn't time limited, exactly what are you expecting there to be at the club that would show anything other than a difference of opinion about how much of Mancini's salary should be disclosed to the PL? I am pretty sure they must have all the accounting information relating to the club's contract, there may be some payments made to/from ADUG or AJ relating to the AJ contract, but I am assuming none of those AJ-related payments actually entered the club's profit and loss account otherwise what is the PL wanting exactly? The only things the PL could want, and imho aren't entitled to demand, is confirmation from Mancini's management company of the actual contracts that were operative with AJ, and details of the time spent by Mancini fulfilling that contract. That, if you ask me, is the PL's problem with Mancini, they haven't had access to information that would remove the allegation, because the club told them to fuck off and they don't have the jurisdiction to go independently to third parties even, and I will underline this for emphasis, they have been given everything relevant in the club's books and records as required by the PL rules and the court ruling.
Multiply this by the number of allegations for which the PL has the same problem, and I can't see what the PL could have gleaned from the books and records of the club that would prove, for example, that ADUG funded the Etihad sponsorship, that the Etisalat story at CAS was or wasn't true, that Fordham was created to reduce expenses, that the AD sponsorships weren't fair value or related party transactions. That is why you have 115 charges including non-cooperation, even though the club says they have complied, and acting in bad faith.
Well on Mancini and Fordham the whole point is not what is in the clubs record, but what’s *not* in the clubs records.
On Mancini I think we can safely surmise that their entire argument is that the club should’ve declared a further £1.5m a year in expenses for the AD contract. They may or may not have a case on that but as said above it’s ultimately completely immaterial - £1.5m per year wouldnt have put the club above the FFP line as it was losing around £100m+ a year at that point.
This one should be an easy ‘win’ for the P&L but any sanction would have to be extremely minimal for such an immaterial sum.
In Fordham, you have it the wrong way round when you say that it was ‘to reduce expenses’ - the whole point of Fordham was to ‘sell’ the image rights from the club to Fordham to generate additional revenue and I think it’s the only place the PL could have any substantive ‘success’ as it’s established that this did happen.
The issue for the PL is that Fordham is a limited company and was from memory disclosed as a related party in the filed accounts so they can’t claim City ‘hid’ anything from them, it was there in black and white at the time, so again any sporting sanction cannot be large imo.
To repeat myself from above, I’m a natural pessimist so my expectation is that the tribunal will come down in a draconian manner but it won’t hold on appeal as these two issues are clearly not game changers.
Not guilty until the facts prevail. Irrefutable evidence is the clubs starting point. I don’t get this long winded explanation. You think we have given the league evidence of our guilt because a court ruled in their favour regarding how much evidence we should give them?
Eh? In the exact same sentence as saying the club was forced to turn over addition documents, I said there’s no way they would’ve self incriminated in doing so.
As said, my only point on the additional documents is that it’s fact that the PL will have more than the Der Speigel emails, but for them to have anything substantive it will have had to come from an outside source.
