PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[freshie]

Magic Hat = Nick Harris. There is no doubt about it.

Harris has created this alter ego to remind the footballing world of the atrocities committed by City. He then makes up a fictitious dialogue to make everyone think Magic Hat is a North American college student that follows soccer. Having created this false impression, Harris insults his created character to such an extent that they become estranged from each other, leaving Magic Hat to continue Harris's ongoing campaign against City in anonymity.

Well just as Harris accuses Magic Hat of betraying his nationality, Harris himself makes a number of errors that indicate he is Magic Hat.

We have already looked at their shared vocabulary and common use of a number of uncommon words. There is also their common use of arsehole, when, as pointed out on here an American would most likely use asshole.

Further evidence that Harris and Magic Hat both posted from the same time zone can be found in the chat thread Harris asked to be published.

The excerpt here is from Magic Hat's chat. The blue chats show Magic Hat's own time stamps. The white chats are Harris's, with the time stamps for when they were received by Magic Hat. Harris, trying to create the false impression Magic Hat is in America, estimates the local time for him is 5pm or 6pm - five or six hours behind UK time. This means Harris must be five or six hours in front of where he thinks Magic Hat is. So Harris's actual time is 11pm, which is the same time zone as Magic Hat.

Magic Hat also stated in the chat that he discussed City's charges with people at the footy. This can only mean whilst attending games in England. Americans do not use the word footy?

So, there is a very strong likelihood that Harris and Magic Hat are both in the same time zone, here in the UK. Their chats have been between these times:

11:29pm to 01:08am
09:59pm to 10:09pm
08:53pm to 08:58pm
10:10pm to 11:54pm
12:27am to 02:27am

We know Harris is often awake in the early hours of the morning posting his online ravings, but are these really the kind of hours you would have an online chat with a complete stranger? I don't think so.

Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, which is sufficient for this little study, I find that Nick Harris is Magic Hat.

What a thick twat

 

[lefty goldblatt]

 

[Centurions]

What do you base that on ? The sooner the better, but I thought the consensus was the IC sits in “autumn” and we get a decision by the next summer. Has something changed to bring the dates in ?

I'm ITK, just like Magic Harris.


Actually I'm not ITK (neither am I Magic Harris), it's hope more than anything.

 

[Shaggy]

almost, its bottle and glass = class, it comes from boxing when a boxer loses his ability to duck and dive

No, it is aris = Aristotle = bottle, bottle and glass = arse

 

[KS55]

That’s exactly what the accusation from UEFA was, disguised equity funding via (predominantly) Etihad. They never alleged there were any transactions directly from ADUG to City for it, it was alleged through the sponsors.

View attachment 120865

The 9 payments for example are not outlawed by ffp. Otherwise clubs supported by Emirates for example when it was loss making would be breaking the regs.

 

[JULES]

No, it is aris = Aristotle = bottle, bottle and glass = arse

no, the boxing description precedes this, believe it goes back to the 20~s

 

[KS55]

That’s exactly what the accusation from UEFA was, disguised equity funding via (predominantly) Etihad. They never alleged there were any transactions directly from ADUG to City for it, it was alleged through the sponsors.

View attachment 120865

The accusation was DIRECT funding of City by SM, disguised as sponsorship in the accounts. ie Etihad paid £x and the rest came direct from SM or ADUG.
Etihad gave evidence that they paid it all themselves and it was great value.

 

[eastmanc]

What a thick twat

 

[Bozzie]

So following Magic Twats latest revelations on demand:
1. Why City "Got away with it" at CAS

I'm assuming he's referring to the time barred elements. Now as we all know UEFA have a five year disbarring time period. The UEFA rules didn't make clear from what date this ran from. CAS cleared that up and we now know it ran from the date the matters were charged. Not what UEFA stipulated or what MCFC alleged.

The matters concerned within the time barring period I believe were the Etisalat payment schedules via a 3rd party and Mancinis additional contract with AD based ANFC. I'm unsure if the UEFA allegation re Etisalat was that the money was equity funding sponsorship or a sham sponsorship. The Mancini contract I think was that it was a sham contract as a vehicle for additional remuneration.

What was startling was that no evidence was offered by UEFA to try to establish either of those allegations. MCFC presented a wealth of rebuttal evidence in support of their claims both documentary (I'm presuming contract docs for Mancinis contract and invoices and copies of Etisalat account receivables where the movement of monies payable were clear and traceable) and testimonial from appropriate parties.

In any event those matters were time barred and no decision or findings were required by the panel.

I'm sure the same evidence will be available as rebuttal to City in the PL proceedings should those allegations have been made. Its just unclear what evidence the PL may have if the above allegations have been made.

In consideration of the two matters Im pretty sure Citys position will be that these matters occur before the 23.02.2017 and are outside the 6 year limitation period for such matters as laid down by UK law.

The matters could be allowed by the panel should they be subject to "fraud" exemptions of the Limitation Act. However the PL would have to demonstrate that such fraud had taken place or maybe that it would be, "reasonable", to suggest such fraud had taken place. This element of the assumption of fraud seems somewhat opaque to me and I am unsure to what standard the PLs obligations are tested for such matters to be allowed. (Perhaps Stefan can help out here). I would have thought they must supply evidence with the Civil burden of proof of "on the balance of probability" to prove the fraud exists. I'm not sure where this evidence is likely to come from as UEFA certainly had none and I doubt City would provide any (under legal advice) and taking the position that the matters are outside the Limitation Act.

Without the evidence these matters remain time barred due to limitation. I'm interested to know how Magic Twat thinks the PL get around this hurdle so the "how it will be different at the IC" plays out.

I blocked him so haven't read any of his more recent posts but, from memory, he's a fully paid up, card carrying member of the 'City chose the CAS panel' club. I think he also believes CAS are simultaneously incompetent, untrustworthy and generally not fit for purpose. I wouldn't hold your breath for a balanced, impartial take on the CAS verdict.

 

[meltonblue]

With the added clarification that the issues with the two sponsorships were different: the Etihad sponsorship (according to UEFA) had been primarily funded by ADUG, but paid Etihad > MCFC; the Etisalat sponsorship (the renewal) had been paid directly ADUG > MCFC. Both were explained at CAS but, as was pointed out, Etisalat was time limited.

Both explanations, as far as we know, will also work in front of the PL unless they have additional evidence we don't know about. Seems unlikely.

All imho.

The renewal was set up to be Etisalat-ADUG-City wasn’t it? There’s no issues with doing it that way as such, the issue (well, Uefa’s allegation) was that that agreement wasn’t in place at the time and Etisalat didn’t reimburse ADUG, we said they did as part of the payment in 2015 when the renewal was fully signed off.