PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[vincent]

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

‘PR strategist’ funny.

 

[KS55]

The next rags target

They couldn’t afford him.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

‘PR strategist’ funny.

It's a great idea. Maybe we should get a 'PR strategist' on board to help deflect all this 'sportswashing' and 'oil cheats' stuff that's constantly thrown at us.

I wonder if this Simon Pearce guy is available?

 

[halfcenturyup]

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 ADUGz 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.

That's right, you can't infer anything from that document as to what actually happened, but including the sponsorship amounts in shareholder funding on the document can only strengthen the PL's circumstantial case. I don't think it's a big problem, but it's not helpful. I was just using it as an example of the evidence the PL has that UEFA didn't have at CAS.

The good thing is the club knows what "evidence" the PL has and can ramp up it's counter-evidence from third parties to counter any new "evidence". I think :)

Edit: And 20 quid? That was luxury when I was growing up .....

 

[Blue Mist]

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.

There are 2 ways to look at any problem. You state that Uefa chose a route for the dippers that had bottlenecks and Uefa should have worked into the problem the fake tickets.
I look at that purely as Liverpools problem, a huge one. The idiot manager encouraged fans with no tickets to travel over. The idiot fans produced hundreds (more) fake tickets and many went to jib in as well. How do Uefa get the blame for that ? The bottle necks were caused by French police trying to stop the jibbers and the fake ticket mob. If they had not been present the bottle necks would be either, non existent or easily managed.
It was totally different to our problems. Ours was logistics. A stadium miles from anywhere that could only be reached by the underound train or a notoriously congested motorway. We got the motorway.
If anyone jibbed in I'd be very surprised and I doubt anyone turned up without a ticket. The difference was that our fans behaved, theirs never do.

 

[bluenova]

There are 2 ways to look at any problem. You state that Uefa chose a route for the dippers that had bottlenecks and Uefa should have worked into the problem the fake tickets.
I look at that purely as Liverpools problem, a huge one. The idiot manager encouraged fans with no tickets to travel over. The idiot fans produced hundreds (more) fake tickets and many went to jib in as well. How do Uefa get the blame for that ? The bottle necks were caused by French police trying to stop the jibbers and the fake ticket mob. If they had not been present the bottle necks would be either, non existent or easily managed.
It was totally different to our problems. Ours was logistics. A stadium miles from anywhere that could only be reached by the underound train or a notoriously congested motorway. We got the motorway.
If anyone jibbed in I'd be very surprised and I doubt anyone turned up without a ticket. The difference was that our fans behaved, theirs never do.

So, if someone gets a fake copy of your ticket, and the police tell City that it's happened, but they let in the faker, and then make you queue for 3 hours, and then don't let you in. That's your problem? Because you support the same team as the person with the fake ticket?

I appreciate that Liverpool fans have a reputation for using fakes/jibbing, but that doesn't mean the people who bought genuine tickets and had a shit time, deserve it.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

As the hearing is (seemingly) underway I have a couple of questions regarding procedures.

How much of it will be 'in person'? Obviously there are gaps for reading the submissions etc but when the PL put their case forward, for example, will that be in front of the panel? Will witnesses such as Simon Pearce (if required) be there at the hearing so they can be cross examined by the opposing briefs and would they need to be available if recalled following further evidence?

Although I assume it is highly unlikely, is it possible even at this stage that an agreed resolution could be reached which would then remove any need for panel deliberations and a judgement?

 

[Resurrection Joe...]

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 ADUGz 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.

once again.....

 

[cheekybids]

So, if someone gets a fake copy of your ticket, and the police tell City that it's happened, but they let in the faker, and then make you queue for 3 hours, and then don't let you in. That's your problem? Because you support the same team as the person with the fake ticket?

I appreciate that Liverpool fans have a reputation for using fakes/jibbing, but that doesn't mean the people who bought genuine tickets and had a shit time, deserve it.

No it’s the Liverpool fans who bought the fake tickets, the jibbers & the Dipper Manager who encouraged. None of those gave a flying fuck about the ones who bought genuine tickets.

 

[halfcenturyup]

As the hearing is (seemingly) underway I have a couple of questions regarding procedures.

How much of it will be 'in person'? Obviously there are gaps for reading the submissions etc but when the PL put their case forward, for example, will that be in front of the panel? Will witnesses such as Simon Pearce (if required) be there at the hearing so they can be cross examined by the opposing briefs and would they need to be available if recalled following further evidence?

Although I assume it is highly unlikely, is it possible even at this stage that an agreed resolution could be reached which would then remove any need for panel deliberations and a judgement?

Maybe this helps?