PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[meltonblue]

My thoughts exactly! Where have they come from?

Were all the hacked emails released to the public by Der Spiegal? If so, why have these only just been released & how does some internet troll get hold of them

They haven’t only just been released, this is the tranche that got released not long after the CAS verdict by Der Spiegel.

 

[manimanc]

So basically magic hat thinks he's been a clever twat when in reality he has just raked over old coals?

Cheers Nick for the belly laughs, god loves a trier and by thunder you really do try to be relevant but always come across as always like a complete fruit loop.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

I spent half an hour skimming through the batch of emails assembled by our friend Magic Hat/Twat.
What struck me was the absolute routine nature of the various exchanges both within CFG and with Sponsors. No sense whatsoever of any conspiracy to conceal, deceive or defraud. Having been intimately aware of Companies who have (ahem) “pushed the envelope” a little, these emails don’t fit the bill at all. All very open and unguarded about who pays for what, when and how. The various authors clearly had no sense that they were doing anything untoward beyond financial tracking and administration. City’s owner was building a multi-national, multi-club football business from scratch. It was also a flagship “Abu Dhabi” enterprise and its Companies like Etihad and Etisalat wanted to be on-board. This is a different business culture at work. It is not Anglo-Saxon capitalism. It’s much more like a collaborative network following a common purpose than any sinister fraudulent plot. Having seen this batch of emails, I’m even less concerned than I was before. The PL and (old)UEFA don’t like it but it’s not illegal or evidence that rules have been broken.

It's something I keep returning to. The accusation involves multiple internationally run businesses committing fraud and City are just CCing in multiples and producing PowerPoint slides with incriminating evidence. And to cover this up multiple people, with no actual link to City beyond sponsorship deals, risked their careers and perhaps even freedoms to stop City getting a 2 year ban from Europe. I just don't think those emails, at its core, explain everything that follows.

 

[meltonblue]

The guy has put a lot of work in. I got asked about it and I don't want any lack of response to be a suggestion it has lots of great points.

I think he genuinely does believe City are fcked. But so what? I read enough to know a lot of it was sound reading of the emails presented - much of that reading wouldn't be disputed by City. The emails say what the emails say. But I am not spending the time going through 25 long posts and responding line by line. The fundamental misunderstanding is how these trials work, the documents that will likely be available (lots), the importance of witness evidence, the submissions of the defence barristers etc.

It is not Nick Harris. Most likely a young American lawyer or law student.

I think you summed it up pretty well in terms of it’s a good summary of what the PLs case will be but no comment on any form of defence to it.

Quick question on that though, given the CAS case has happened and is in the public domain, just by accusing us, I’d consider that as the PL as a consequence directly accusing people like Simon Pearce of perjury. Is that right and if so, if the case was to go against the PL, could he subsequently individually have any recourse against them? Or, given that there’s new evidence that wasn’t there for the CAS adjudication, is that a no goer?

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

The guy has put a lot of work in. I got asked about it and I don't want any lack of response to be a suggestion it has lots of great points.

I think he genuinely does believe City are fcked. But so what? I read enough to know a lot of it was sound reading of the emails presented - much of that reading wouldn't be disputed by City. The emails say what the emails say. But I am not spending the time going through 25 long posts and responding line by line. The fundamental misunderstanding is how these trials work, the documents that will likely be available (lots), the importance of witness evidence, the submissions of the defence barristers etc.

It is not Nick Harris. Most likely a young American lawyer or law student.

And do we think he/she could be doing this as part of an orchestrated push by our 'enemies" to further besmudge our reputation

 

[cheekybids]

That was just a sample. There were many more but the implications of them all were a bit over my head. Too many to post but if your on Twitter here’s a link
@themagic_tophat
https://twitter.com/themagic_tophat

There over everyone’s head. The simple truth is the pricks thinking they are a smoking gun don’t understand the rules, this evidence & what it refers to & can’t see any counter evidence from City.

If they were confident there would be nothing leaked & they’d allow the process to resolve. This is a coordinated smear campaign “a-fucking-gain” & along with an absolute deluge of “cheat-115” which has hit City over the last few weeks.

City have to start taking a few down, no longer can it be ignored.

 

[Damanino]

no question in my mind that all our rivals still heavily pushing PL/independent panel to seriously punish us. Chelsea maybe not as they have their own serious case to be answered soon but Spurs, arse, rags, dippers 100% putting pressure on Masters to catch us and give us the most serious punishment.

and also the pressure they put on their media friends/mouthpieces, they clearly are invested in keeping up this agenda about City being guilty, asterisks etc.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Hi mate not been on for a few days.

Has something new popped up? Seems to be a huge number of posts since I was last on?

Some guy on Twitter had popped up with a "new" analysis of "evidence" against the club (the emails). In the style of our friend Nick Harris but with a different name. Nothing new but people get nervous when this sort of thing happens.

Just that really.

 

[cheekybids]

Having worked in business for many years - thankfully I am no longer in the corporate sphere these days - there was internal correspondence between key stakeholders that included proposals/suggestions/ideas which then had to be tested from a compliance point of view via the usual specialists before being implemented - obviously some proposals would be stopped in their tracks and go no further because of this. To use a crude example, a senior business leader might say to HR via an email I would like to dismiss Mr Magic Hat - clearly, this is not a wise thing to put on email, but the email itself does not mean that Mr Magic Hat would actually be sacked or that the dismissal would be unfair - This type of correspondence happens from time to time. When I worked in a really big company, there were loads of proposals/ideas/presentations relating to sales campaigns that had to be checked with the compliance team due to the company in question being in a regulated industry. I am pretty sure if you looked at some of the presentations in isolation (with no context) they could have been in breach of specific regulations (if implemented), but again, a presentation or an email does not mean something ultimately happened. In an organisation like City, under heavy scrutiny since the early 2010s from UEFA, there is no way they would actively look to breach specific regulations. I remember when UEFA created the FFP rules, I saw it reported that City actively engaged with the advisers that helped create the regulations for UEFA with the sole aim of being compliant with them. I cannot remember who the advisers for UEFA were, but they were one of the big hitters in the industry at the time. So, why would we do that and then go and implement something in breach of the regulations - sounds counter intuitive to me. If anything, like in any business, because accounting is a black art as opposed to a science, there are creative ways to present specific transactions/activities, this does not mean these transactions are in breach of any rules. That does not mean the regulating body are not going to challenge them or that they don't like them (e.g. Fordham the case of City via UEFA). It does not mean that they are in breach of the rules though. Anyway, back to Magic Hat, if City have done the things this individual is suggesting, City have managed to deceive a lot of very intelligent and capable people, which I find very hard to believe on the basis that we have been under scrutiny by UEFA since the early 2010s.

Happened all the time when I was involved. The CEO would fly off the handle & say I’m willing to put a test to the rules & someone usually HR Director telling him you can’t or would probably walk along to the office & explain over a coffee.

 

[Son of Merv]

I think you summed it up pretty well in terms of it’s a good summary of what the PLs case will be but no comment on any form of defence to it.

Quick question on that though, given the CAS case has happened and is in the public domain, just by accusing us, I’d consider that as the PL as a consequence directly accusing people like Simon Pearce of perjury. Is that right and if so, if the case was to go against the PL, could he subsequently individually have any recourse against them? Or, given that there’s new evidence that wasn’t there for the CAS adjudication, is that a no goer?

The PL accusations are against City as an organisation, not the individuals they employ. We dont know enough about what they are basing the allegations of breaches on to know if it's even related to CAS, so there is nothing public that openly identifies or accuses any individual. Nor do I think that even if they are testing the same evidence through their own procedures it would be enough to say they have accused any witnesses of perjury.
But if any of their findings are supported by evidence that directly contradicts witness statements given previously, and it is reasonable to assume those witnesses were party to the particulars of that evidence, UEFA may bring this to the attention of CAS who may pursue it. The Swiss dont have oath swearing like we do, but all CAS witnesses are reminded that 'false testimony' is subject to their laws of perjury.