PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

KS55 said:
At CAS, the tradition is that the judges do not vote against the party that selected them. Seems bonkers but the German judge voted in favour of UEFA who selected him from the panel. Afterwards, a junior in that judges law firm wrote an article ‘proving’ we were guilty. They claimed there was no collusion between them. The article appeared in Der Spiegel.
Clear now? Ha.
Click to expand...
Just reinforces my causes for concern!!

Why all this confidence that the same tradition does not apply here??

Yeah, I know ..... KCs etc, but....
 
KS55 said:
At CAS, the tradition is that the judges do not vote against the party that selected them. Seems bonkers but the German judge voted in favour of UEFA who selected him from the panel. Afterwards, a junior in that judges law firm wrote an article ‘proving’ we were guilty. They claimed there was no collusion between them. The article appeared in Der Spiegel.
Clear now? Ha.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that myself and was going to check whether any CAS decisions had been unanimous. Do you have any idea?
 
BrianW said:
Part of me says the game is dead anyway.

Once outcomes are decided by lawyers and accountants, what's the fucking point? The whole financial control side of football is utter bollocks.
Click to expand...
City have beaten everyone on the pitch and are close to beating everyone off it as well.
I will be "glad when it's all over"
Haha.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
My feelings on this are exactly the same as they were before the latest round of media hit job pieces in the Athletic by the buck toothed rag and other outlets.

1. Etihad
I believe they have nothing but the emails and all of those (including the full run, so some not used by UEFA referred to by "Magic Twat" on X as some kind of silver bullet) are insufficient on their own to prove the actual conduct they partly infer took place. City and Etihad Bank statements, accounts and documents with additional testimony from senior management involved in the transactions of both parties, acting as rebuttal evidence, sufficiently prove the monies came from Etihad central funds and ADEC - NOT ADUG.
54 of the charges fail if the PL cannot prove this.

2. Etisalat
The subject of Piers Morgans' wet dream youtube programme and supposed mystery man and the loaned 30 million is a red herring. The monies are properly accounted for in everyone's expense and receivables (incoming and outgoing accounts) as a loan from an intermediary as a method of up front sponsorship payment when only pre contract agreements were in place. In any event without proof of fraud these will AGAIN be outside any limitation period. This time by the 6 year limitation applied by UK law, not 5 year UEFA rule.

3. Aabar / AD Tourist Board
Prior to the 2014 UEFA NDA sanction agreement (the pinch) these 2nd tier two sponsorships were alleged by UEFA to be above FMV. i believe also alleged by UEFA to be related parties. Whilst City are on record dissenting those UEFA opinions the sponsorship values were adjusted down and accepted going forward. Nothing to see here and no indication the PL are interested in either sponsorship value.

4. Fordham Ltd (image rights)
A temporary company vehicle created to generate approx 25 million income by the centralisation and purchase of player image rights from City when we desperately needed supplementary revenue. Like selling a hotel to yourself, it was creative accounting to generate income. There was no skullduggary it was a loophole we used to boost the coffers so as not to fail the 3 year deficit allowance. It was shut down subsequently and image rights given / sold back to club or players. HMRC seemed happy it wasn't used to evade tax as was the case at other clubs, so again, seemingly nothing to see here.

5. Mancini / Toure - remuneration
The PL have to prove that City did not declare the money paid to Mancini, 1.75 mill per annum, by the Abu Dhabi football club Al Jazeera Sports Cultural Club through Sparkleglow Ltd (a Mancini owned company) arranged by ADUG was part of his City remuneration package. If there are separate employment contracts whose obligations are agreed and met by both parties it is difficult to see how it can be proved by the PL. There also seems some confusion as to if the PL are trying to a) include this remuneration money as part of the charge of "failing to submit accurate fincial information" for those years it was paid up to 2013. Clearly it would appear these annual amounts, if proven to be such as alleged, would likely be insufficient to create a "false financial picture" of the accounts on their own.
Or b) simply imply it was omitted from Mancinis full salary declarations by City which is a breach of a current rule in the PL handbook but unsure if it breaches such a rule, if proven, from 2011- 2013.
The inclusion of Toure seems somewhat of an anomaly here and I'm unsure where the link to him comes from the list of PL charges. It seems to come from the media in the wake of the allegations however not all media outlets include Toure in any overview of the charges. Where he does appear it seems a generic inclusion in accusations of image rights payments although his agent, Seluk, like Mancini, deny both any wrongdoing or that they have been approached by the PL for either a statement or comments.
The whole thing seems a stretch by the PL and considering the sums involved in comparison to the main charges a spaghetti against the wall overreach.

6. None co-operation
Due to the seriousness of these charges City have quite rightly argued every point of law where doubt has arisen. For one, City appealed that the Independant Panel was not the appropriate venue for such serious matters to be decided. Although the courts have ruled against City in most, if not all our appeals, City have clearly laid a marker that they will not take any adverse decision lightly. However no appeal for court decisions can be deemed to be none co-operation. There are other Internet myths propagated by the likes of Simon Jordan that City appealed the inclusion of Murray Rosen on the panel as he is an Arsenal supporter and Season Ticket holder. Made all the more ridiculous by the fact that Citys primary advocate KC, Lord Pannick is also an Arsenal fan and supporter.
City say they have co-operated by the sheer volume of material supplied to the PL that rebutts their allegations but the details of alleged none co-operation by the PL are not listed and each (35 at least) will be argued out in front of the panel and it will be for them to decide such matters.
In any event if in some matters City have been none co-operative it will have been on legal advice for good reason and we would have to face the financial penalty for so doing. There is no sporting advantage from such breaches therefore no sporting sanction (points reduction etc) can be attributed to those charges.

So in summing up I am unmoved from my original position which I took some time ago that I am confident that the serious charges are unlikely to be proven and the other matters seem wishy washy at best. We'll all have to wait and see.
I believe our Chairman and Chief Exec when they say we've done nothing wrong.

If we come out of this relatively unscathed as I suspect, I want some fucking heads on sticks, starting with that **** Masters.
We should be relentless in going after media wankers who want to continue the no smoke without fire narrative. I'd like to see us make an example of a gobshite like Collymore or Aldridge even Goldbridge (yes you Brent) who can't keep their traps shut and think they are beyond reach.
This whole fiasco has been a media witchunt, an enormous smear campaign against the club and its fans over 10 years. Let's not get mad, let's get even!
Click to expand...

Probably a reasonable summary of what we think the situation is.

Note that I think the Touré allegation (if, in fact, there is one) comes from the second tranche of leaked emails, post-CAS, where there very definitely seems to be a signed contract between ADUG and Seluk for a million pounds a year to be paid by ADUG. How that was actually paid and how it was included in the books is a question we don't have any visibility on.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
My feelings on this are exactly the same as they were before the latest round of media hit job pieces in the Athletic by the buck toothed rag and other outlets.

1. Etihad
I believe they have nothing but the emails and all of those (including the full run, so some not used by UEFA referred to by "Magic Twat" on X as some kind of silver bullet) are insufficient on their own to prove the actual conduct they partly infer took place. City and Etihad Bank statements, accounts and documents with additional testimony from senior management involved in the transactions of both parties, acting as rebuttal evidence, sufficiently prove the monies came from Etihad central funds and ADEC - NOT ADUG.
54 of the charges fail if the PL cannot prove this.

2. Etisalat
The subject of Piers Morgans' wet dream youtube programme and supposed mystery man and the loaned 30 million is a red herring. The monies are properly accounted for in everyone's expense and receivables (incoming and outgoing accounts) as a loan from an intermediary as a method of up front sponsorship payment when only pre contract agreements were in place. In any event without proof of fraud these will AGAIN be outside any limitation period. This time by the 6 year limitation applied by UK law, not 5 year UEFA rule.

3. Aabar / AD Tourist Board
Prior to the 2014 UEFA NDA sanction agreement (the pinch) these 2nd tier two sponsorships were alleged by UEFA to be above FMV. i believe also alleged by UEFA to be related parties. Whilst City are on record dissenting those UEFA opinions the sponsorship values were adjusted down and accepted going forward. Nothing to see here and no indication the PL are interested in either sponsorship value.

4. Fordham Ltd (image rights)
A temporary company vehicle created to generate approx 25 million income by the centralisation and purchase of player image rights from City when we desperately needed supplementary revenue. Like selling a hotel to yourself, it was creative accounting to generate income. There was no skullduggary it was a loophole we used to boost the coffers so as not to fail the 3 year deficit allowance. It was shut down subsequently and image rights given / sold back to club or players. HMRC seemed happy it wasn't used to evade tax as was the case at other clubs, so again, seemingly nothing to see here.

5. Mancini / Toure - remuneration
The PL have to prove that City did not declare the money paid to Mancini, 1.75 mill per annum, by the Abu Dhabi football club Al Jazeera Sports Cultural Club through Sparkleglow Ltd (a Mancini owned company) arranged by ADUG was part of his City remuneration package. If there are separate employment contracts whose obligations are agreed and met by both parties it is difficult to see how it can be proved by the PL. There also seems some confusion as to if the PL are trying to a) include this remuneration money as part of the charge of "failing to submit accurate fincial information" for those years it was paid up to 2013. Clearly it would appear these annual amounts, if proven to be such as alleged, would likely be insufficient to create a "false financial picture" of the accounts on their own.
Or b) simply imply it was omitted from Mancinis full salary declarations by City which is a breach of a current rule in the PL handbook but unsure if it breaches such a rule, if proven, from 2011- 2013.
The inclusion of Toure seems somewhat of an anomaly here and I'm unsure where the link to him comes from the list of PL charges. It seems to come from the media in the wake of the allegations however not all media outlets include Toure in any overview of the charges. Where he does appear it seems a generic inclusion in accusations of image rights payments although his agent, Seluk, like Mancini, deny both any wrongdoing or that they have been approached by the PL for either a statement or comments.
The whole thing seems a stretch by the PL and considering the sums involved in comparison to the main charges a spaghetti against the wall overreach.

6. None co-operation
Due to the seriousness of these charges City have quite rightly argued every point of law where doubt has arisen. For one, City appealed that the Independant Panel was not the appropriate venue for such serious matters to be decided. Although the courts have ruled against City in most, if not all our appeals, City have clearly laid a marker that they will not take any adverse decision lightly. However no appeal for court decisions can be deemed to be none co-operation. There are other Internet myths propagated by the likes of Simon Jordan that City appealed the inclusion of Murray Rosen on the panel as he is an Arsenal supporter and Season Ticket holder. Made all the more ridiculous by the fact that Citys primary advocate KC, Lord Pannick is also an Arsenal fan and supporter.
City say they have co-operated by the sheer volume of material supplied to the PL that rebutts their allegations but the details of alleged none co-operation by the PL are not listed and each (35 at least) will be argued out in front of the panel and it will be for them to decide such matters.
In any event if in some matters City have been none co-operative it will have been on legal advice for good reason and we would have to face the financial penalty for so doing. There is no sporting advantage from such breaches therefore no sporting sanction (points reduction etc) can be attributed to those charges.

So in summing up I am unmoved from my original position which I took some time ago that I am confident that the serious charges are unlikely to be proven and the other matters seem wishy washy at best. We'll all have to wait and see.
I believe our Chairman and Chief Exec when they say we've done nothing wrong.

If we come out of this relatively unscathed as I suspect, I want some fucking heads on sticks, starting with that **** Masters.
We should be relentless in going after media wankers who want to continue the no smoke without fire narrative. I'd like to see us make an example of a gobshite like Collymore or Aldridge even Goldbridge (yes you Brent) who can't keep their traps shut and think they are beyond reach.
This whole fiasco has been a media witchunt, an enormous smear campaign against the club and its fans over 10 years. Let's not get mad, let's get even!
Click to expand...

We need a “very loud and long applause” button on here.
 
terraloon said:
The inevitable but sad point in all this that despite the holier than though comments from a lot of other clubs officials and supporters must clubs have bent or ignored rules I would imagine that most clubs are a whistleblower away from charges.

I go back to the issues that we have supposedly self reported ( we don’t know exactly what they are ) and the data leaks many of the listed issues are to a degree interpretation of an email, a bank transaction or an opinion. On the face of it many are obvious but as has been said on here on many occasions the evidence has to cogent and case proved by the PL there almost certainly will be a void by the PL not being able to access RAs records or indeed get his side of the story.

As I said I just get the feeling that Masters is setting the scene for something and yes I feel be there charges, no charges a settlement or whatever it will be resolved way before the outcome of yours is announced
Click to expand...
Masters - he who shouts the loudest.....
A desperate individual.
As it stands City are guilty of nothing.
This is what we should be running with.
There will be no settlement other than exoneration and an apology from all our detractors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.