PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
What do people think of this paragraph from the APT tribunal award?

View attachment 134890
It's clearly talking about the 115 case and it's relevance to the introduction of the APT rules. Whatever Herbert said convinced the arbitrators that a move from ex-post to ex-ante was justified so it couldn't have been the funding aspects of the sponsorships, because that wouldn't have been picked up by any review of fmv, whenever it was carried out.

Which leads me to think that the PL has re-opened the questions of the fmv of the AD sponsorships and the related party nature of the sponsors going back to 2009/10. They may well be re-litigating the funding issues dismissed at CAS and may even have extended their time frame if they have additional evidence. But it seems to me now that they are also pressing on the related party nature of the sponsors, the fact that they weren't disclosed as such in the accounts and the fact that required details of the RPTs were not provided and on the fmv of the transactions.

This would explain the reference to related parties in the list of allegations referred to the disciplinary procedure in 2023 and their inclusion in the APT jusgment as a relevant factor.

I thought that was unlikely previously (especially as UEFA has never formally alleged that the AD sponsors were related parties or were anything other than fmv) but it seems almost certain to me that the PL has opened those issues up again.
Click to expand...

Cunts.
 
halfcenturyup said:
What do people think of this paragraph from the APT tribunal award?

View attachment 134890
It's clearly talking about the 115 case and it's relevance to the introduction of the APT rules. Whatever Herbert said convinced the arbitrators that a move from ex-post to ex-ante was justified so it couldn't have been the funding aspects of the sponsorships, because that wouldn't have been picked up by any review of fmv, whenever it was carried out.

Which leads me to think that the PL has re-opened the questions of the fmv of the AD sponsorships and the related party nature of the sponsors going back to 2009/10. They may well be re-litigating the funding issues dismissed at CAS and may even have extended their time frame if they have additional evidence. But it seems to me now that they are also pressing on the related party nature of the sponsors, the fact that they weren't disclosed as such in the accounts and the fact that required details of the RPTs were not provided and on the fmv of the transactions.

This would explain the reference to related parties in the list of allegations referred to the disciplinary procedure in 2023 and their inclusion in the APT jusgment as a relevant factor.

I thought that was unlikely previously (especially as UEFA has never formally alleged that the AD sponsors were related parties or were anything other than fmv) but it seems almost certain to me that the PL has opened those issues up again.
Click to expand...
Throw as much shit as possible and hope that some sticks is my take.

Regarding related parties, I’d argue that City aren’t daft and we know exactly what does and what doesn’t constitute a related party. To that end, I’d imagine we’re on pretty solid ground, whereas the PL seems to want to make it up as they go along at times. On a related (pardon the pun!) note, I’ve said it many times before but if Etihad were actually a related party then ironically there would’ve been nothing wrong if Mansour had funded part of that deal!
 
Zabbasbeard said:
Oh indeed. They got into bed with the corrupt red cartel and now they have been caught...

And despite lying here, ill in a hospital bed...

I'm lovin' it, lovin' it, lovin' it,
I'm lovin' like that, er...
Click to expand...


Hope you are up and about in no time mate, look after yourself.
 
halfcenturyup said:
What do people think of this paragraph from the APT tribunal award?

View attachment 134890
It's clearly talking about the 115 case and it's relevance to the introduction of the APT rules. Whatever Herbert said convinced the arbitrators that a move from ex-post to ex-ante was justified so it couldn't have been the funding aspects of the sponsorships, because that wouldn't have been picked up by any review of fmv, whenever it was carried out.

Which leads me to think that the PL has re-opened the questions of the fmv of the AD sponsorships and the related party nature of the sponsors going back to 2009/10. They may well be re-litigating the funding issues dismissed at CAS and may even have extended their time frame if they have additional evidence. But it seems to me now that they are also pressing on the related party nature of the sponsors, the fact that they weren't disclosed as such in the accounts and the fact that required details of the RPTs were not provided and on the fmv of the transactions.

This would explain the reference to related parties in the list of allegations referred to the disciplinary procedure in 2023 and their inclusion in the APT jusgment as a relevant factor.

I thought that was unlikely previously (especially as UEFA has never formally alleged that the AD sponsors were related parties or were anything other than fmv) but it seems almost certain to me that the PL has opened those issues up again.
Click to expand...
Why is that utter canute giving evidence about anything? He's not an expert witness in any capacity, surely?

And surely such a move won't have blindsided us? I would expect our legal team to have prepared itself for every snide trick imaginable.....
 
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.