Hate to be one of those people but heard another positive soft signal (not transfer related) this morning. Seems to me that it would be incompatible with a finding of serious wrong doing at the club. I can't say anything specific but consistent with the other soft signals (being something in the background that would seem unlikely if a seriously negative outcome was coming from the case).
Good to hear Stefan.
But just for the knicker-wetters (and there seems to be a few) let's reiterate:
1. The Etihad allegations were all comprehensively covered at CAS.
- Etihad paid properly for their sponsorship.
- No money came from ADUG.
- Etihad paid fair value for their sponsorship.
- Etihad got fair value for their sponsorship.
- Etihad are not a related party (and it would make no difference if they were due to the above points).
I would be amazed if there was any issue with this group of charges. In fact they may be the subject of the rumours (but we don't know how true these are) that around 50 of the charges might have been dropped. The PL would need some pretty damning evidence that wasn't available to CAS to land these charges.
2. The Mancini allegations are a complete red-herring/crock of shit (delete as applicable). This was far more likely to be Mancini seeking a tax advantage of some sort (which isn't in itself illegal) than any attempt to disguise an expense. The numbers involved are completely insignificant given the scale of our losses at that time. Also likely to be time-barred anyway.
3. The Fordham stuff is the only one of the three substantive allegations where I initially thought that we might have been on dodgy ground. But then I thought about it and the point of these was to get revenue on the books in 2012/13, in order (as we thought back then) to meet the Annex XI transitional relief that we hoped would help us avoid punishment.
However they didn't, we negotiated a settlement, and UEFA were aware of Fordham around 2015, with the arrangement ending in 2017 or 2018. No charges were ever brought over Fordham and Der Spiegel's 'revelations' about the arrangement in 2018 were already a known quantity. Of course it's possible that the IC may take a different view but even if they do, the amounts involved are really significant.
Happy Chanukah to you and yours Stefan (and any other Jewish posters) and Happy Xmas to those who celebrate. There are things that worry me about City and our direction of travel, but the PL case isn't one of them.
Point of information. The related party question wasn't explicitly covered at CAS but, as I said, Etihad aren't a related party and even if they were it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
