How do you know all this with such certainty? Sounds like you are being highly speculative.Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.
On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.
I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.
On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….
That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…
As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.
The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.
The purpose of the whole exercise has been to defame, discredit and denigrate the achievements of Manchester City.The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.
Agree . couldnt give a monkey's if we have been creative with our accounting it is'nt life or death and i am quite sure we will all survive the incoming sunami of shit from the media ,now if my football club had been involved in the 39 deaths of innocent football fans i would be absolutely ashamed and would not tbe able to hold my head up high as a Blue ever again.I could not give a damn about the 115 charges, but when the media tell us of the City punishment, without the balance of what the PL punishment would be then they are building costs. to them it probably viewed as click bait, problem with that though is no one is interested in 115 this 115 that, except liverpool fans, and they have to read it on the walls of their houses. so they have upped the ante.
i could not give a damn what the PL do, in a court of law they lose, and we get compensation. But what compensation would we want? mine would be, every member of the G14 and their American allies, removed from the corridors of power, within the PL/FA, and every sub committee, out with Masters and the other three, a reintroduction of dept to FFP
Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.
On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.
I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.
On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….
That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…
As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.
The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.
Indeed. I’m so gutted with all this. I would have much preferred us to have sacked Hughes and appointed Moyes followed by Big Sam, Harry Rednapp and Sean Dyche with a best finish of 8th and worst of 16th. Watching the dippers win 4 titles in recent years and the rags winning a couple more would have been so much more fun. Jordan Belfort might have spent a couple of years in the slammer but fuck me he had a good time getting there!I personally don’t give a fuck I’ve had a brilliant time Wembley every year Istanbul great last day dramas winning league can’t take my memories away amazing I’ve watched us in the 80/90 00 when we were shite not bothered if I have to go to York away again
Well given the scandalous reporting of 115 has gone off the scale in the last 2 weeks - especially on broadcasters our ITKs told us had received legal ‘cease and desist’ letters, it’s pretty safe to assume that was a load of bollocks.
We were told Talksport had been legally warned - the following day we were being called Lance Armstrong live on air.
I recieved one a couple of years back to stop using IPTV via email. No read receipt and didn't have my name on it they just had an email address attached to the account at provider. Carried on never heard any more.
Edit.
I live no where near Norfolk.
View attachment 119202
With an emoji wink at the end, just to boils some more piss.All I want when this is done and we are cleared is for the Etihad screens to do a roll down from 115 to 0 (cleared) in full f#cking view of the cameras
To be fair, he does it really fucking well. Might as well excel at something.Get a grip.
You’re embarrassing yourself.
Warning *Long post*
We go around and around sometimes, so I tried to summarise where we are and how we got here. By necessity it avoids some of the intricacies, but I tried to be factual where I could. Feel free to comment if I have said anything you disagree with.
2014 UEFA investigation and settlement
- City were never charged with anything.
- City accepted the settlement without accepting guilt.
- There was an investigation but UEFA and City settled before referral to the Adjudicatory Chamber for verdict.
- A settlement does not indicate guilt.
- UEFA moving the goalposts was the club’s main concern for an FFP breach but it wasn’t the only issue.
- Other issues included fair values of sponsorships, related party nature of sponsorships, the inclusion of contract amortisation in the pre-2010 squad cost mitigation, the sale of IP to CFG and the sale of image rights to Fordham.
- Any of these could have led to a breach even if the goalposts hadn't been moved.
- It was in the interest of both parties not to litigate all this, so they settled.
- Importantly for City, the settlement meant the issues of fair value, related party, CDG and Fordham weren’t raised again in 2019.
2019 UEFA investigation, punishment and CAS
- City were found guilty by UEFA but all charges except non-compliance were not proven on appeal at CAS
- So, while it is accurate to say City were found guilty by UEFA, it is disingenuous to say that without referring to the successful appeal.
- The issues for which City were punished by UEFA were: funding of Etihad sponsorship, funding of Etisalat sponsorship, filing incorrect accounts, filing incorrect FFP information.
- City were banned from the CL for two years and fined 30 million Euros (for all the charges, there was no split).
- City appealed to CAS and provided new information, mostly external.
- City didn’t choose the Chairman of the CAS panel, City chose one arbitrator, UEFA chose one and City proposed the Chairman, which was accepted by UEFA. CAS rules allow the two parties to choose the three arbitrators, if they can’t agree they select one each and the two selected arbitrators choose a Chairman and, finally, if they can’t agree then the Chairman of the Judicial Panel can appoint a Chairman. Nothing untoward there.
- CAS time limited the Etisalat issue and part of the Etihad issue.
- Note time limiting isn't a “got off on a technicality”, it is a part of case law in every jurisdiction and just means the issue can’t be proven.
- CAS found, on the balance of probabilities, taking into account the “evidence” presented by UEFA and the counter-evidence provided by the club, that the issue of Etihad was not proven.
- CAS found that City had not complied sufficiently with UEFA, distinguishing three areas: information requested by UEFA on which they later did not insist - no sanction; information requested by UEFA but was presented for the first time at CAS - sanction; information not requested by UEFA that was later presented to CAS - no sanction.
- So the CAS award was Etihad and Etisalat not proven, non-compliance partly proven - CL ban overturned and 10 million Euro sanction.
2019 PL investigation
- Investigation was opened concurrently with UEFA investigation.
- Was delayed firstly by UEFA investigation/ charges and CAS then by some procedural complaints from City on cooperation (countered by PL) and confidentiality (backed by PL).
- Complaints were legitimate but ultimately rejected.
- Allegations referred to disciplinary panel chairman in February 2023.
- Alleged rule breaches were:
- Filing incorrect accounts, presenting incorrect financial information to the PL, acting in bad faith, 50 alleged breaches.
- Understating manager remuneration, 8 alleged breaches.
- Understating player remuneration, 12 alleged breaches.
- UEFA FFP and licensing, 5 alleged breaches.
- PL FFP, 6 alleged breaches.
- Non-cooperation, 30 alleged breaches.
- Total 111 alleged breaches (plus 4 for when rule changes mid-season led to two rule breaches multiple times in a season).
2023 Independent PL Panel (more personal comment as in progress)
- Three member panel chosen by chairman of judicial panel who was chosen by PL.
- We don't know the detail of the allegations, but:
- Some of the allegations mirror the UEFA charges (funding of sponsorships, filing incorrect accounting information, acting in bad faith), so it is safe to assume the detail of the allegations, and the evidence to support them, is also the same.
- The PL may also have additional evidence from their investigation, but, even if the allegations were true, any real incriminating evidence would be external and I doubt any external evidence was provided to the investigation.
- There are also additional allegations concerning matters that were clearly time limited at UEFA (certainly Mancini), matters that were time limited by CAS (Etihad partly, Etisalat), matters that were included in the 2014 settlement and therefore not raised by UEFA in 2019 (most probably Fordham) and, possibly if unlikely, matters that were not in the leaked emails but were included in the 2014 UEFA settlement and therefore not raised by UEFA in 2019 (fair values, related parties, IP sale to CFG).
- General consensus is a hearing in the autumn, an award next year followed by the inevitable appeals.
- Possibility of a settlement before that.
Predictions (completely personal)
- Mancini, time- limited unless the PL can show knowing concealment (unlikely).
- Fordham, time- limited unless the PL can show knowing concealment (unlikely, but don’t know enough about Fordham to be sure).
- Etihad, same as CAS, unproven unless PL have some particularly cogent incriminating evidence from somewhere (unlikely).
- Etisalat, CAS evidence will show no knowing concealment, so time- limited.
- Filing of incorrect accounts, hinges on Etihad (rest isn’t material), so unlikely to be proven.
- Acting in bad faith, if the above comes to pass, this falls away.
- PL FFP breaches, if Etihad resolved as above, shouldn't be a problem.
- UEFA FFP and licensing breaches, if all resolved as above, shouldn’t be a problem.
- So what is left -1? Non-compliance. I can’t imagine that City didn't comply with all reasonable requests from the PL after the failed court appeals, so that leaves requests from the PL that City considered either unreasonable (fishing) or requests outside the scope of the PL rules (external information, imo). Probably same as CAS, financial sanction, maybe reduced if City can show unreasonable or outside scope.
- So what is left - 2? PL disagreeing with some 10 year old accounting treatments (understating expenses due to Fordham / IP sales to CFG). Possible sporting sanction (very unlikely), possible financial sanction (more likely, possibly suspended).
- So that is it, imho. Most likely outcome: financial sanction for non-compliance and (possibly) understatement of expenses on Fordham/IP sales.