PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[give it to gordon]

Emails
How can you prove 100% where they came from, who wrote them and they haven't been cut n paste ? Plus were they acted on ?

 

[manimanc]

A lot of Twitter is performance art. Journos with jobs who are much more speculative on social media than on their main platform. Ziegler, for example.

What? You mean to say that people on social media aren't the same people in real life and they just put on a persona for clicks and attention?

I thought the socials are the gospel of truth :)

 

[dave_blue12]

A lot of Twitter is performance art. Journos with jobs who are much more speculative on social media than on their main platform. Ziegler, for example.

It pays to be provocative on Twitter. Engagement = £

 

[SilverFox2]

I see a number of other journos have started following Magic Hat in the past few days !!

Quelle surprise

Any port in a storm of no news.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Produce these emails then. I suspect you've not fully understood or misinterpreted what you've read, as any emails like that would have seriously damaged our case at CAS.

A bit unfair blasting @WRicko for that as he was quoting me. Those emails were in the 2022 der Spiegel leaks, unless I have completely misremembered. Which is possible, I suppose.

Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point was that such emails would give more weight to the allegations, but it still wouldn't be enough in the face of witness evidence and financial evidence from ADUG and the sponsors.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I quote I have seen emails and attachments that talk about AD sponsorships as "shareholder funding" and I have seen the emails where Pearce takes it on himself to "arrange" some payments having stated to CAS that he had categorically never arranged any payments.

Shareholder funding is equity

I said what you quoted and I understand that shareholder funding can be equity (it can also be loans) but I didn't say any of that means that the club disguised equity funding as sponsorship. That is the allegation, it's not a fact

 

[bluenova]

We managed it for Istanbul. There were no bottlenecks, just mile upon mile of queues. The difference was, we set off early.
Oh and we all had tickets.

Weren't there differences in the experience for City and Inter fans? That was due to organisation of different routes, and UEFA messing up (and that was even after what happened the year before, when you'd think they'd put a marginal bit more effort in).

Whatever the situation with fake tickets, and ticketless fans, the route that Liverpool were sent down was grim, and was always going to be an issue. Bear in mind UEFA also had advance notice of fake tickets, so had a duty to those with genuine tickets, and still put in a system where they were checking tickets in a bottle neck, with nowhere to send people who didn't pass the check.

It's easy to just mock all Liverpool fans as being exactly the same, but I know you're not daft. There are plenty of people who will have just bought a ticket for a match, never cause trouble, and turned up to a dangerous mess.

 

[Gordyola]

I looked at it again. It's here if anyone else wants to read it: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...-City-did-cheat-Premier-League-FFP-rules.html

The email was from Pearce, using his Executive Council email, sorting out an issue with the payment to Etihad from the EC, which hadn't been calculated correctly. We already knew that the EC funded the majority of that sponsorship so that's no revelation. In it, he uses the term "we" to refer to City but says "...I have underpaid you". That was jumped on by Harris, in the MoS piece above, to show that Pearce had lied to CAS when he denied arranging any payments to Etihad.

On one level it does seem to contradict that denial but, as we know, those emails were used incredibly selectively. There could easily be other interpretations of that email, including that Pearce was asked to sort out the problem on misaligned payments on behalf of the EC, or that his denial was based on not being the person who made the sponsorship arrangement on behalf of the EC. Or that "arranged" was interpreted by him as being the person who actually made the transfer. Who knows? In that email he appears to be doing some arithmetic and sorting out with Etihad how they want to correct the mistake.

But at the end of the day, even if Pearce had blatantly lied, it's a complete red herring. It has no bearing on the central charge of equity funding being disguised as sponsorship revenue. The Executive Council provided the additional money to Etihad and whether it was Pearce, Sheikh Mohammed, some other functionary or Uncle Tom fucking Cobbleigh. it makes zero difference to the overall outcome. As I said, total grasping at straws.

Also he wears multiple hats and is not just a CFG board member

"Simon Pearce, a British-Australian spin doctor who has orchestrated the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) Western public relations efforts for over a decade. Officially holding the title of ‘Special Advisor to the Chairman of the Executive Affairs Authority of Abu Dhabi,’ Pearce operates within the inner circle of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ). Renowned PR outlet PRovoke hails him as “one of the UAE’s most influential officials,” entrusted with a substantial budget and a colossal mission: to build and safeguard Abu Dhabi’s reputation"

Simon Pearce: The Global PR Strategist Shaping Abu Dhabi's Image - Brussels Watch

In the world of international public relations, there exists a hidden force, skillfully crafting narratives and influencing perceptions. One such figure is

brusselswatch.org

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Ok, I’ll bite on this and know doubt get stick for not being super confident, fun at parties or simply a rag/ bin dipper.

CAS we won and we heard snippets, such as first day unsure, but quite a few indicated second day had gone well and if I remember right 3rd day finished early.

We have agreed to a 12 week trail with the PL, the legal team will be aware of our evidence/ witness statements and also there’s,

Yes, they are on the clock and probably not fully against stringing it out, but they are also professional.

There has to be A LOT more to this one then CAS.

The idea the PL have no evidence seems unlikely.

That seems reasonable. There is nothing in any of the CAS documents that supports the PL false accounting allegations.With hindsight the UEFA case looks laughable which is why it was laughed out of court.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

That seems reasonable. There is nothing in any of the CAS documents that supports the PL false accounting allegations.With hindsight the UEFA case looks laughable which is why it was laughed out of court.

The way Leicester highlighted the Premier League’s interpretation of wordings on its own rules to make them look silly. Also that these charges are a deeper dive rehash of the CAS hearing with other things bolted on as hit and hopes in image rights and manager renumeration, leads me to believe that when this is done we will be asking the same questions of the Premier League that were highlighted with Uefa as to what led them believe they could land what was being alleged.