PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[77lost by a point]

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

The next rags target

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

Apologies to @WRicko then as I was rushing and didn't see the "I quote...".

But I don't recall seeing any emails equating Abu Dhabi sponsorships with equity funding/owner investment. There were the ones detailing ADUG meeting the payment of the Etisalat sponsorship but that was dealt with in City's submission to CAS, together with the claim that UEFA were satisfied with the process.

There was also an email detailing how a payment from ADUG should be allocated, some of which was recorded as equity investment. There was the email that referred to ADUG providing the funds for the Etihad sponsorship but CAS showed that didn't happen (and I suspect was just someone at City who didn't know exactly where the funds were coming from because they weren't in the loop about the EC funding, so assumed it was ADUG).

I could be wrong but I just don't recall any email that specifically referred to treating equity funding as revenue.

 

[manimanc]

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

Ok.
Which one then?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Apologies to @WRicko then as I was rushing and didn't see the "I quote...".

But I don't recall seeing any emails equating Abu Dhabi sponsorships with equity funding/owner investment. There were the ones detailing ADUG meeting the payment of the Etisalat sponsorship but that was dealt with in City's submission to CAS, together with the claim that UEFA were satisfied with the process.

There was also an email detailing how a payment from ADUG should be allocated, some of which was recorded as equity investment. There was the email that referred to ADUG providing the funds for the Etihad sponsorship but CAS showed that didn't happen (and I suspect was just someone at City who didn't know exactly where the funds were coming from because they weren't in the loop about the EC funding, so assumed it was ADUG).

I could be wrong but I just don't recall any email that specifically referred to treating equity funding as revenue.

For example (note to those of a nervous disposition: this proves nothing other than some people in the club equated monies from sponsors as AD equity funding. There could be lots of reasons for this, it could have been corrected quickly, or later. We don't know. It can be countered with witness evidence and accounting information from the sponsors and ADUG. And, once again, the way this is labelled proves absolutely nothing about where the money came from and the PL will have no evidence to back up the allegation):

 

[Gordyola]

View attachment 131337

Ok.
Which one then?

Not sure he's in disguise

 

[Maly]

The next rags target

Hopefully they get his cousin…..Stuart

 

[BerkshireBlue]

For example (note to those of a nervous disposition: this proves nothing other than some people in the club equated monies from sponsors as AD equity funding. There could be lots of reasons for this, it could have been corrected quickly, or later. We don't know. It can be countered with witness evidence and accounting information from the sponsors and ADUG. And, once again, the way this is labelled proves absolutely nothing about where the money came from and the PL will have no evidence to back up the allegation):

View attachment 131338

this is just out of context forecasts and has nothing to do with actualities. probably Written in January to March 2012 (you can tell that by the comments box) what happened in April 13 is all that matters

 

[SilverFox2]

Of course the PL has more "evidence". They have had access to much more information from the club, basically all the relevant emails (not just those leaked by der Spiegel in 2018) and, I would imagine, all the club's relevant accounting information over a much longer investigation. No-one sensible is claiming they don't have more "evidence".

The point is that, firstly, even if they have a hundred times as many emails, they still have the same problem UEFA had at CAS, which is that they prove nothing and, secondly, that the real incriminating evidence (in the very unlikely case there is any) would be held externally and to which they have had no access.

So, while a hundred times the number of emails may increase their evidential weight and some of the things discussed in those emails may seem incriminatory, that "evidence" will, imho, be trumped by the witness statements and financial accounting from external parties that the club can choose to provide, in the form and to the extent they want, to counter the PL's "evidence", as at CAS.

As you say if the evidence of high ranking sponsors be disregarded to find us probably guilty then maybe they leave themselves open to actual legal issues from our sponsors never mind what City will do.

 

[halfcenturyup]

this is just out of context forecasts and has nothing to do with actualities. probably Written in January to March 2012 (you can tell that by the comments box) what happened in April 13 is all that matters

That was the point I was trying to make, but it is "evidence" nonetheless as is the point about Pearce "arranging" payments. My point was that the PL will inevitably have more "evidence" either from the 2022 leaks or from their own four year investigation. As @petrusha once reminded me, for the PL it's about being "meticulous in devising as many reasons as possible to chip away at the other side's evidence to give the IC as many reasons as possible to doubt the (....) case" (although he was talking about the reverse case and the club's requested email disclosure from the PL).

Yes, the documents can probably be explained, but the fact that sponsorship income was actually being discussed as shareholder funding in budget documents for the board is significant and gives additional weight to the PL's "evidence". I don't think for a minute it proves anything, but it raises the level of doubt in the panel's minds, maybe.

Same for Pearce. If he has been "arranging" payments to the club after his CAS testimony, he needs a good explanation otherwise it may taint his witness evidence in front of the panel. As I keep saying, though, he is an experienced businessman, has been involved in many cases more substantial than this one, I suppose, and is being advised by the best lawyers, so I am sure he will be fine.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

For example (note to those of a nervous disposition: this proves nothing other than some people in the club equated monies from sponsors as AD equity funding. There could be lots of reasons for this, it could have been corrected quickly, or later. We don't know. It can be countered with witness evidence and accounting information from the sponsors and ADUG. And, once again, the way this is labelled proves absolutely nothing about where the money came from and the PL will have no evidence to back up the allegation):

View attachment 131338

I don't think you can infer from that we treated equity funding as sponsorship revenue. It clearly separates partner funding from equity funding but makes the point that some sponsorship revenue would be offset against monies due to or from ADUG.

The Etisalat sponsorship is a case in point. ADUG paid that initially and reclaimed that from Etisalat later on. So the monies due to us from Etisalat were offset against the money they owed to ADUG. You can see that there's £15m due from Etisalat and £15m going from us to ADUG effectively meaning Etisalat repaid the money they owed ADUG.

In my younger days, when I lived at home, I'd be going out and need some cash. My brother would lend me £20 but he'd also borrowed £30 from our dad the week before. So I'd repay the £20 I owed my brother direct to my dad.