Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I agree that it's a potentially grey area, and I certainly initially thought it was one where we were vulnerable, but when I thought about it more deeply three things reassured me,I hope so Colin but even if we have felt in maybe the image rights situation we were correct it will be a grey area and we will lose that? I just dont see full not guilty on everything mate.
1. UEFA were aware of this well before 2018, discussed it with us and took no further action. Given the dodgy 'evidence' they did present at CAS, Fordham would have been a slam dunk for them if there was any fraudulent intent.
2. Fordham wasn't some dodgy offshore brass-plate entity that no one but those involved were aware of. It was there in plain sight, included in our Companies House information, having changed the company name from one directly referencing City and image rights. I'm sure far lesser detectives than Sherlock Holmes could've made the connection.
3. The final thing is that Fordham wasn't an attempt to hide expenses, but to increase revenue in 2012/13, when we thought we might be able to squeeze enough revenue to present a case for mitigation under the Annex XI transitional relief provisions for wages. As you mentioned above, we know UEFA then moved the goalposts slightly, meaning we couldn't take advantage of that mitigation.
Last edited: