Newmoston1212
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2022
- Messages
- 174
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Don’t know if this is meaningful in anyway but just seen this post
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,060
Nice post and thank you. But in what alternative universe did I ask that question?
Gone, what'd it say?
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,548
It’s better when it’s raw……. Prior to the addition of melamine.
2008 Chinese milk scandal - Wikipedia
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,372
That's a good point. They clearly give a big weighting to PLC clubs on the 'Good Governance' part of the index because, as they put it, they have a legal requirement for 'Good Governance'. But they also say: Good Governance draws on 55 different metrics and covers areas such as board structure, accountability and transparency. They do note United, Spurs and Celtic have a significant fan presence on their boards, so maybe that adds to the supposed 'transparency' but I don't think Spurs or United fans think the way their clubs are run is transparent.
I'm not sure the PLC status is all that indicative of good governance either personally(though I'm no expert). Or how United ended up with such as high Financial Sustainability score given their debt, wages, netspend and so on. United fans themselves have been complaining for many years about how poorly the club has been ran, how wasteful they have been, the board structure and ownership has been refreshed exactly because it wasn't considered good.
United and their fans use the PLC card way to often, more recently they were using it to explain why they got way more exceptions approved for PSR by the PL. "Because we are more honest, open and transparent and clubs like Everton aren't, that's why we got everything we wanted and they didn't". Which sounds like bullshit, how would they know how transparent Everton or Forest were being with the exceptions they asked for? UEFA denied United all the exceptions they asked for their part, but we are supposed to believe the PL were justified and move on, nothing to see because United released a PR statement...
I've read business insider articles suggesting their corporate structure is that the brand is based in the Cayman Islands and the club itself is a shell corporation.
Last edited:
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,060
Yes, I know the source, but it's just as valuable as the original .....
The Football Is Fixed Integrity Index 2023 / 2024 Season
The Football Is Fixed Integrity Index 2023 / 2024 Season We have been closely monitoring the development of the Fair Game Index which ranks ...
footballisfixed.blogspot.com
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,372
How about, City have to show an accurate and a clear view of the accounts or UEFA/the PL might jump to the wrong conclusions. Hence why there was some back and forth when certain things were unclear or up in the air over in Abu Dhabi(while the Etihad contract was still being finalised for example). If one side of the conversation was over in Abu Dhabi, I imagine they'd have more access to information from these companies directly than someone who wasn't too, if necessary. All that really matters, is neither ADUG or Sheikh Mansour funded any of the sponsorships in question. Magic Hat is still mistakenly working from an assumption on their part, that there is only one interpretation of what is being said in those emails.
Last edited:
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,548
Yes, I know the source, but it's just as valuable as the original .....
The Football Is Fixed Integrity Index 2023 / 2024 Season
The Football Is Fixed Integrity Index 2023 / 2024 Season We have been closely monitoring the development of the Fair Game Index which ranks ...
What’s the purpose of fair game as a business? Every bit of research is normally biased by the sponsor.
City with no debt modern stadium, being upgraded in an entertainment precinct in champions league & club World Cup competitions isn’t considered as good as the Rags that not only have debt but cannot afford to develop their ground. Their only chance is to get money from a government that has an empty pot all caused by being a PLC.
Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
The answer to Magic Twats question of "reason" for the content of the emails is of course the answer City gave both prior to and during the CAS case and that is in the "context" of the whole run of emails. This includes a) those released by der Spiegel and used as evidence by UEFA (and now the PL) and b) those that were held only by City prior to CAS, that we witheld once we knew information was being leaked to Panja (Parrys mate) at the New York Times but released to CAS.
We have seen partial excerpts of some additional emails in addition to their "evidence", but these have large swathes of text redacted hiding their overall context so it's impossible to get a thorough answer to the question of the "context" he poses. I suspect he knows that hence the bluster.
The fact remains, the PL must prove to the required standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, whatever is suggested in those emails, perceived as equity investment by either ADUG or HHSM, was in fact what occurred.
As rebuttal evidence, City say they have irrefutable proof to the contrary of those allegations. At CAS it was accounts for receivables and expenses for Etihad, senior Etihad and City officials' testimony to business conduct. Expert witness testimony from "accounts experts" to the veracity of payments and transactional activity. I.e. checks carried out on movement of monies between Etihad accounts in respect of sponsorship liabilities. City say the above proves the Etihad sponsorship monies were funded partly from Etihad marketing funds and partly from either Etihad central funds or ADEC central funds, two separate sources of avaiable monies for Etihad.
The key question therefore is, what additional evidence do our accusers have that proves all the above offered by City as evidence, are lies, untruths and fraudulent fabrications?
There has been nothing suggested, offered or discovered by the one eyed, shithouse media throughout the now, in excess of 5 years of this witch hunt. Imagine that, nothing, nada, zilch, zero. Despite the despotic will of Harris, Delooney and the WhatsApp boys who claim to be the best investigative journalists out there, they cannot turn up a single shred of "smoking gun" evidence.
I will offer a reason and that is because there isn't any or at the very least the PL don't have any. I would boldly suggest if they thought City had any and that City were going to hand it over from a formal legal fishing request whilst tugging a forelock, that they must have been under some painfully sad delusion.
This is of course in my opinion as nobody knows, apart from the two parties now that full discovery is likely to have taken place. I base this opinion on what UEFA too brought to the party. The same questions were asked prior to CAS. "Is there a whistleblower", "they must have additional information", what could it be that such serious charges are being brought sufficient to ban City from the CL for 2 years, we all asked. Surely barristers for UEFA must have something incredibly damning and defamatory. Well we found out at CAS they had fuck all. They turned up with der Spiegel emails in one hand and their dick in the other. They couldn't sufficiently prove anything they accused us of apart from none co-operation, which we admitted with mitigation their investigation was leaking like a sieve.
Now I hear the same questions being asked of the legal team for the PL (Bird & Bird). So I say, "You want to allege we fraudulently cooked the books for 10 years", you allege Citys owner, the deputy PM of AD, is a fraud, cheat and a charlatan, the executives of Etihad are liars and cheats, that high proflle accountants and auditors, Deloitte and similar are complicit or negligent to wide scale fraud. Well you better have more than your cock in your left hand and some 12-14 year old emails in the other when you turn up at this Committee hearing or Lord Pannick will defer his use of lube.
We have seen partial excerpts of some additional emails in addition to their "evidence", but these have large swathes of text redacted hiding their overall context so it's impossible to get a thorough answer to the question of the "context" he poses. I suspect he knows that hence the bluster.
The fact remains, the PL must prove to the required standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, whatever is suggested in those emails, perceived as equity investment by either ADUG or HHSM, was in fact what occurred.
As rebuttal evidence, City say they have irrefutable proof to the contrary of those allegations. At CAS it was accounts for receivables and expenses for Etihad, senior Etihad and City officials' testimony to business conduct. Expert witness testimony from "accounts experts" to the veracity of payments and transactional activity. I.e. checks carried out on movement of monies between Etihad accounts in respect of sponsorship liabilities. City say the above proves the Etihad sponsorship monies were funded partly from Etihad marketing funds and partly from either Etihad central funds or ADEC central funds, two separate sources of avaiable monies for Etihad.
The key question therefore is, what additional evidence do our accusers have that proves all the above offered by City as evidence, are lies, untruths and fraudulent fabrications?
There has been nothing suggested, offered or discovered by the one eyed, shithouse media throughout the now, in excess of 5 years of this witch hunt. Imagine that, nothing, nada, zilch, zero. Despite the despotic will of Harris, Delooney and the WhatsApp boys who claim to be the best investigative journalists out there, they cannot turn up a single shred of "smoking gun" evidence.
I will offer a reason and that is because there isn't any or at the very least the PL don't have any. I would boldly suggest if they thought City had any and that City were going to hand it over from a formal legal fishing request whilst tugging a forelock, that they must have been under some painfully sad delusion.
This is of course in my opinion as nobody knows, apart from the two parties now that full discovery is likely to have taken place. I base this opinion on what UEFA too brought to the party. The same questions were asked prior to CAS. "Is there a whistleblower", "they must have additional information", what could it be that such serious charges are being brought sufficient to ban City from the CL for 2 years, we all asked. Surely barristers for UEFA must have something incredibly damning and defamatory. Well we found out at CAS they had fuck all. They turned up with der Spiegel emails in one hand and their dick in the other. They couldn't sufficiently prove anything they accused us of apart from none co-operation, which we admitted with mitigation their investigation was leaking like a sieve.
Now I hear the same questions being asked of the legal team for the PL (Bird & Bird). So I say, "You want to allege we fraudulently cooked the books for 10 years", you allege Citys owner, the deputy PM of AD, is a fraud, cheat and a charlatan, the executives of Etihad are liars and cheats, that high proflle accountants and auditors, Deloitte and similar are complicit or negligent to wide scale fraud. Well you better have more than your cock in your left hand and some 12-14 year old emails in the other when you turn up at this Committee hearing or Lord Pannick will defer his use of lube.
Last edited: