PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[meltonblue]

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.

No, the accusation was it was funded by ADUG but remitted via Etihad, there was no accusation of direct transactions between ADUG and City for that funding. They alleged only 8m was from Etihad directly as in there was nothing else behind that, not that ADUG paid City the rest directly themselves.

 

[KS55]

No, the accusation was it was funded by ADUG but remitted via Etihad, there was no accusation of direct transactions between ADUG and City for that funding. They alleged only 8m was from Etihad directly as in there was nothing else behind that, not that ADUG paid City the rest directly themselves.

Not sure, it is so long ago now. Look it up and come back to me, if it’s important. The funds were said to be from Central sources to Etihad which would be ok. Beginning to remember a bit and think you are right!!
Can anyone cast light on this?

 

[hammocity]

He wouldn't survive, certainly from a visible point.

Silver Lake would be the likeliest buyer.

I did mean he'd easily survive within his business community.

 

[KS55]

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.

Note: 1. there was no ffp when Mancini’s contract was signed.
2. SM was giving us loads at the time, so he could have funded Mancini’s contract on our books, no problem, but Mancini had a problem re compensation conditions from his previous job if he was paid a large sum by another club ie us. Also a hint of tax advantage, though he says he paid all due taxes.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Note: 1. there was no ffp when Mancini’s contract was signed.
2. SM was giving us loads at the time, so he could have funded Mancini’s contract on our books, no problem, but Mancini had a problem re compensation conditions from his previous job if he was paid a large sum by another club ie us. Also a hint of tax advantage, though he says he paid all due taxes.

The Al Jazira contract was renegotiated with a different recipient company in 2011, and the £1.75m was grossed up so that Al Jazira effectively paid the tax.

 

[meltonblue]

I think you’re totally wrong. Look it up.

I’ve read it at least 100 times! Here’s the relevant bit in Uefa’s submission. The whole allegation and our defence to it is around disguised equity through the sponsors.



That’s why I put the picture I did before. Uefa’s whole case was ADUG were providing Etihad with the funds, which is why Mansour went on record with this -


And why the CAS panel found this in their conclusion -

 

[meltonblue]

Not sure, it is so long ago now. Look it up and come back to me, if it’s important. The funds were said to be from Central sources to Etihad which would be ok. Beginning to remember a bit and think you are right!!
Can anyone cast light on this?

Sorry, hadn’t seen you’d changed it. Yes, that’s what our defence was, no evidence whatsoever of anything from Adug to Etihad :)

 

[KS55]

No, the accusation was it was funded by ADUG but remitted via Etihad, there was no accusation of direct transactions between ADUG and City for that funding. They alleged only 8m was from Etihad directly as in there was nothing else behind that, not that ADUG paid City the rest directly themselves.

There is a post at #58,806 saying the accusations of direct or via Etihad were BOTH stated by UEFA, presumably as alternatives.

 

[KS55]

I’ve read it at least 100 times! Here’s the relevant bit in Uefa’s submission. The whole allegation and our defence to it is disguised equity through the sponsors.

View attachment 120885

That’s why I put the picture I did before. Uefa’s whole case was ADUG were providing Etihad with the funds, which is why Mansour went on record with this -

View attachment 120886
And why the CAS panel found this in their conclusion -

View attachment 120887

I deleted that on reflection and conceded you could be right, but you got in first. See post at #58,806 which says the accusation was BOTH. Hope it’s clear as mud now!

 

[meltonblue]

There is a post at #58,806 saying the accusations of direct or via Etihad were BOTH stated by UEFA, presumably as alternatives.

No that was for Etisalat, which had a different payment structure when it was renewed anyway. We never argued there wasn’t an ADUG payment on behalf of Etisalat.