PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

It is hard to see how the ECAD putting Etihad in funds specifically for City would square with
"[Etihad] did not receive any payments from ADUG or [HHSM] or any person or entity controlled or influenced by them, whether directly or indirectly in relation to any of the Sponsorship Agreements, whether by way of advance funding or subsequent reimbursement." ECAD would seem to be at least indirectly influenced by SM.

The point is that any funding from any other entity must have gone into general and unspecified funds not to counter the witness evidence given how broad the witness evidence was. Anyway all a bit irrelevant

Agree that it isn't relevant to club's defence, but that isn't the point I was making. Someone highlighted the apparent contradiction between the view on here that ADEC may have funded the sponsorship and the witness statements at CAS. I was trying to make the point that both could be true, to calm nerves as it were. A point which I still think is a good one. I guess you don't. That's fine.

Probably time to draw a line under this, but one point, though. Mansour isn't a member of ADEC afaik, so unless we are using the PL's definition of "associated" influence rather than a more common usage, I don't think we can say he has influence over ADEC. I suspect the CAS statements were written by very expensive lawyers with plenty of wiggle-room.

 

[slbsn]

I seem to recall that the issue was that separate payments had been recorded for Etihad's direct £8m contribution and the other £52m, leading to the charge that the latter amount came from ADUG (although there was no actual evidence to support that).

The CAS hearing revealed that that it had come from what was described as a 'central marketing budget', which was presumably an Abu Dhabi-controlled one, rather than Etihad. That supported the Booz Allen presentation that claimed the Etihad sponsorship was covered by the Executive Council (ADEC).

The point is that the CAS witness evidence does not support that in respect of City.

All CAS references to central funds were Etihad’s central funds as distinguished from Etihad’s marketing funds not Abu Dhabi central funds.

 

[slbsn]

Agree that it isn't relevant to club's defence, but that isn't the point I was making. Someone highlighted the apparent contradiction between the view on here that ADEC may have funded the sponsorship and the witness statements at CAS. I was trying to make the point that both could be true, to calm nerves as it were. A point which I still think is a good one. I guess you don't. That's fine.

Probably time to draw a line under this, but one point, though. Mansour isn't a member of ADEC afaik, so unless we are using the PL's definition of "associated" influence rather than a more common usage, I don't think we can say he has influence over ADEC. I suspect the CAS statements were written by very expensive lawyers with plenty of wiggle-room.

Indirect influence is wide and Khaldoon has been on the EXCO since 2006. It really wouldn’t fit with the witness evidence.

 

[CC1]

It depends upon what you mean by guilty. Guilty of what? You can only be guilty of a crime but there are no crimes and there won't even be a jury. It's no different to me saying that you are guilty of a rule I just made up.

If you're Etihad and the Premier League says can you disclose how you fund your sponsorship of Manchester City, what would you expect them to say? They'd say get stuffed. So what happens next?

The Premier League has no power to force Etihad to do anything and no power to force city to do anything so do they just then kick us out of the Premier League like criminals? This is where litigation comes in and city have unlimited resources and power that goes beyond football.

In this case we are being charged with breaking PL rules - rules we agreed to adhere to when we “joined” what is a private organisation. Nothing to do with “crime” and they have purposely avoided the use of the word “fraud”

We don’t have to “prove” our innocence - they have to prove we did break their rules. Our KC will be using the “irrefutable evidence” to demonstrate that we haven’t broken their rules.

If we lose - any appeal is to another independent panel.

 

[CC1]

Mental post.

If SM was able to crack skulls to this extent he’d have done so at the beginning before even a whiff of these alleged breaches got out.

He wouldn’t have allowed the club to be dragged through the mire like we have.

Exactly

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Too many TLA's 3LA's and even FLA's in here to keep up.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Of course it goes beyond football. We are mostly owned by a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family. We have also come to be sponsored by companies supported by Abu Dhabi such as Etihad, Aldar, Etisalat etc. We aren't state owned no but we are certainly a related party. If we're found guilty of 'cheating' then how does that make Abu Dhabi look purely by association? These guys do not mess about with such accusations let alone actual findings.

I know the Middle Eastern airlines well and they operate exactly the same. They are world class and fantastic but one could easily argue against them on grounds of competition given not a single one of them has ever made a profit. How can an airline that must make a profit compete against one that doesn't care about profit and still puts out a better product? All they care about is having the best airline.

You'd be extremely naive to think that our owner is just willing to have his investments threatened by this and something that may potentially embarass him and Abu Dhabi. He will use every tool he can to ensure this goes his way whether that's through lawyers or political and even international pressure.

I'm not saying that we're guilty of anything by the way. You have to remember that this IS NOT a criminal process, there is no alleged criminality. All we've apparently done is broken rules that the Premer League dreamt up. This is what city will challenge and the guy with the most resources and friends always wins.

A second critical point for the league and any critics is that you'd also have to be EXTREMELY naive to think that the other clubs aren't exactly doing the same thing.

Also remember that, as well as being City Chair, Khaldoon runs the main AD sovereign wealth fund which does lots of business with the UK. The politics is always a factor,

 

[CC1]

Also remember that, as well as being City Chair, Khaldoon runs the main AD sovereign wealth fund which does lots of business with the UK. The politics is always a factor,

I think it would have been stopped before it got to this stage - especially in view of the damage to the club’s reputation - if the AF sovereign wealth fund had any influence

 

[Bentheblue]

I think you’ll find that not only does it NOT go beyond football - it doesn’t even go beyond the PL. If we’re cleared of all charges it’s because we’re innocent - NOT because we have an owner who is related to royalty. And I say that on purpose because we are NOT state owned.

Try telling the media.

 

[CC1]

Try telling the media.

Impossible-:)