PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

pauls said:
Good question for Stefan maybe, get the impression Khaldoon wants total exoneration and will fight this as long as it takes even though Pep wants a quick resolution.
In a recent interview with Talkshite, Parish from the Palace was being goaded into revealing other clubs opinion on the case which he rebuffed but did reveal he had an option to go to the high court with a manager issue he had so that could be again a possibility but don't really know.
Click to expand...
City (or the PL) can choose what they appeal. The issue either party will have is that any appeal is not a retrial. The parties will be lumbered with the factual findings of the initial hearing. Appeals will have more success on sanctions and, if any, misapplications of the law. You don’t want to lose the initial hearing especially one where the findings of fact and witness impressions will be so crucial
 
Brendan110_0 said:
I admire your naivety, personally I think we'll be found guilty of most charges with scant evidence just like UEFA's independent panel, it'll be buried under the red-top outrage to disassemble Manchester City and ten year bans.
Click to expand...
I admire your commitment to a conspiracy theory that you completely disregard legal due process but fyi uefas panel was not independent but cas was and as i have continually and repeatedly said the red-top outrage which consists of the british press, sky sports etc doesnt have the global outreach that we think it does and we are not going to be disassembled etc etc i get it that it has become tiresome to listen to the constant stream of moronic outrage that its easier to just believe it than fight against it because whats the point right but what the press want to happen quite simply wont you quite simply expect any persons whos sole qualification is writing their opinion about football and talking crap on social media to remotely understand complex financial and legal machinations so their opinion counts the same as 99% of people everywhere in that it is irrelevant.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
Social media means not only cant you fix stupid but you can mobilise them. Look at the riots last month, purpose misinformation led to lots of knuckle draggers trying to attack mosques. Media outlets, social media pages pump out their hate driven bile at City as they know they can monetise it. It’s been a wet dream for them since February 2023, where will they have to go to when all this gets chucked in the bin?
Click to expand...
Where will they hide?
Where will they go?
Where will they find the moral fibre to wake up in the morning? :-)
 
slbsn said:
City (or the PL) can choose what they appeal. The issue either party will have is that any appeal is not a retrial. The parties will be lumbered with the factual findings of the initial hearing. Appeals will have more success on sanctions and, if any, misapplications of the law. You don’t want to lose the initial hearing especially one where the findings of fact and witness impressions will be so crucial
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Can one of the parties present new evidence with leave of the appeals panel if some new evidence has "come to light"?
 
has anyone put a financial number on our alleged transgressions? I haven't seen it. How much are we alleged to have benefited by?
 
Saddleworth2 said:
has anyone put a financial number on our alleged transgressions? I haven't seen it. How much are we alleged to have benefited by?
Click to expand...
Great point. Someone posted on here that we would not have breached FFP for most of the seasons even without the Etihad money. I can’t recall seeing any detailed figures.
 
halfcenturyup said:
It probably isn't so simple one way or the other. The Open Skies document alleges that the AD government paid the sponsorship, which is where the ADEC thought comes from, I think.

But, at the end of the day, both can be true. 8 million could be paid out of the cash resources of Etihad and the remainder could have been forwarded from ADEC to Etihad specifically to fund the sponsorship. So Etihad would have paid all the sponsorship as Pearce said, but the vast majority would have had to be arranged from ADEC, as the emails said.

Context is everything.

Edit: And if the allegations are anything like UEFA, they aren't questioning that Etihad paid the full amount, anyway. The allegation is that the majority was funded into Etihad by ADUG/ Mansour for which, I expect, they will have no evidence at all.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm aware of where the ADEC theory came from. It was well reasoned and something I was saying alot myself until that submission from City's defence at CAS was pointed out.

As I understand it, the difference with the open skies case was operational costs were the problem, that was being subsidised, which the US firms were claiming was unfair. This was done via equity funding and shareholder loans, which is where ADEC came in. Etihad said this was fully compliant with the open skies agreement and I assume the decision went their way on that.

Marketing could well be treated differently to operational costs, with it's own funds/accounts set up specifically for that purpose.

As you say, it's not really an issue if ADEC were involved or not, in terms of the accusation, just as long as no related parties were involved in securing the rest of the revenue. I just think there's no need to mention ADEC at all, if City's defence aren't because they might not have been involved for all we know. Maybe that will be cleared up with the Independent Commission's arbitration or maybe City will just stick to what Pearce said.
 
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff said:
Great point. Someone posted on here that we would not have breached FFP for most of the seasons even without the Etihad money. I can’t recall seeing any detailed figures.
Click to expand...
It was probably me but I'd ignored the Etihad/Etisalat sponsorships because there not a hope in hell of those being found in breach of the PL rules in my opinion. CAS made sure of that and the PL would have to have solid evidence that a load of people lied at CAS to overturn that.

Fordham was probably in the region of £12/13m a year for three years (2013/14 to 2015/16) and Mancini's contract was for £1.75m a year for the years 2009/10 to 2012/13.

So never more than £13m in any one year.
 
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.