PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

cheekybids said:
I’d hazard a guess Der Spiegel were provided the assignment as the original plan was to destroy us on the European stage.

The world is awash with filth but the media decides what the great unwashed should be angry about, behind that is someone deciding what the media should focus on. If anyone thinks the City emails were the biggest story on his hard drive, they weren’t even the biggest football story on his hard drive. The worlds best footballer raped a woman & paid hush money, could no longer visit the USA & risk arrest meaning Madrid, Juve & the Rags couldn’t go there pre-season.
Click to expand...
The media and large corporations controlling what we think is an age old problem. Hell, Rage Against the Machine wrote a whole song about it in 1992, it's called Bullet in the Head (for those too young to remember it)
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
The media and large corporations controlling what we think is an age old problem. Hell, Rage Against the Machine wrote a whole song about it in 1992, it's called Bullet in the Head (for those too young to remember it)
Click to expand...
The mad thing about that is that we are still all falling for it, albeit in a different way, we as a society have access to more information that at any point in our history and for the most part its right at the end of our fingertips yet still an alarmingly large number of people choose to believe what some moron at the daily fail writes or what some dickhead on social media posts rather than verifying any kind of information.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Why? Do you think the PL have a strong case to support Etihad being any or all of:
  • a related party,
  • not FMV,
  • disguised equity investment?
I'm pretty certain you've discounted all these possibilities in your previous posts and have said that the PL are unlikely to be able to prove these particular charges.

You've made the point that, via disclosure, the PL will have access to far more documents than CAS were presented with. But that doesn't necessarily mean their evidence is any stronger than UEFA's. There's just more of it and it's virtually inconceivable that everyone lied through their teeth at CAS when presenting evidence on our behalf about the Etihad sponsorship. It could be that the PL are simply going to go down the same route as UEFA over Etihad, hopefully with the same outcome.

Of course we are assuming Etihad is at the core of the first group of charges but we may be wrong, and they may be going after Etisalat or other AD-based sponsorships, which weren't tested at CAS.

The fundamental difference we have over this whole case is the PL's motivation. I'm a cynic about that, along with others, believing that this is part of a coordinated attack on us by other clubs, and that proving the charges isn't necessarily the overall objective. You believe the PL is acting independently of some of its members and has brought this case purely on the strength of the evidence they have. I don't think our chairman shares your view, and club officials I've spoken to certainly don't.

We'll hopefully know one way or the other in the next 2-3 months.
Click to expand...
The case (and the most serious allegation) is predominantly about Etihad and disguised equity. I am surprised this is still debated - both the club and PL would have guided the media away from that suggestion. Can the PL prove it? Did it happen as alleged? I doubt it. We will see.

I just don't get the idea this is about whether these parties are actually related parties or not and as I have said if that is some kind of argument in the alternative, it will fail.

PS I’m not saying the “was Etihad a related party” won’t be an issue on the issues list (I would expect the lawyers on the PL side to consider it a distraction) but I’m saying in the context of the main allegations, the point goes nowhere.
 
Last edited:
slbsn said:
The case (and the most serious allegation) is predominantly about Etihad and disguised equity. I am surprised this is still debated - both the club and PL would have guided the media away from that suggestion. Can the PL prove it? Did it happen as alleged? I doubt it. We will see.

I just don't get the idea this is about whether these parties are actually related parties or not and as I have said if that is some kind of argument in the alternative, it will fail.

PS I’m not saying the “was Etihad a related party” won’t be an issue on the issues list (I would expect the lawyers on the PL side to consider it a distraction) but I’m saying in the context of the main allegations, the point goes nowhere.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has disputed that the most serious allegations are those around the funding of the AD sponsorships, especially Etihad, of course.

But I am surprised you think the question of RPT and FMV is so inconsequential. Is it any more so than the allegations in respect of Mancini and Touré? Yet here we are.
 
manimanc said:
www.skysports.com

Man Utd's £900m adidas kit deal could be terminated if club are relegated from Premier League - Paper Talk

Plus: Fulham fear Marseille will renew their interest in signing Andreas Pereira; Tottenham are considering delving into the transfer market to sign a new goalkeeper; Aston Villa have recalled Lewis Dobbin from his season-long loan at West Bromwich Albion
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com

Any debate about the amount?

Fair value?

Another free pass for them pricks.
Click to expand...
Ye. But it’s manchesh yernited we’re talking about
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Not at all.

Just irritated that PB was was forcibly arguing Open Skies stuff again as a matter of fact when it's not imo for the reasons stated.
Click to expand...
I take your point, and having re-read the CAS decision, it's clear I misunderstood that the 'central funds' referred to were actually Etihad's not Abu Dhabi's. But that doesn't mean that the Booz Allen document is necessarily 100% incorrect. Neither you nor I know what the full truth is.

The statements that Etihad provided the sponsorship out of its own liquidity, and that ADEC took care of the funding for the Etihad sponsorship could both potentially be true. Tony Douglas, who was then Group CEO of Etihad said that money was available to Etihad from its shareholder, banks and other commercial partners. But he also said no money came from ADUG or Sheikh Mansour himself. So he's not specifically ruling out money coming from central sources & CAS said they were unable to establish whether that was the case or not.

If I give someone £100 and they then go out and spend £100, they've done that out of their own liquidity. If I spend £100 on a present for someone, that's come out of my funds, directly for their benefit.

CAS established that all the sponsorship money came to City directly from Etihad, albeit from different budgets, and none came from ADUG.
 
slbsn said:
The case (and the most serious allegation) is predominantly about Etihad and disguised equity. I am surprised this is still debated - both the club and PL would have guided the media away from that suggestion. Can the PL prove it? Did it happen as alleged? I doubt it. We will see.

I just don't get the idea this is about whether these parties are actually related parties or not and as I have said if that is some kind of argument in the alternative, it will fail.

PS I’m not saying the “was Etihad a related party” won’t be an issue on the issues list (I would expect the lawyers on the PL side to consider it a distraction) but I’m saying in the context of the main allegations, the point goes nowhere.
Click to expand...
I think we're pretty well in agreement on this. Whether Etihad is or isn't a related party has no bearing on the sponsorship itself, which has to be at FMV regardless. And that's never been challenged.

Looking back at the CAS document though, they said that the issue about related parties was that if Etihad et al were deemed to be related, then we could be held to have misreported this in our financial statements.

The reason I thought it was a strange hill to fight a battle on was that any attack on the valuation of the sponsorship seems doomed to fail. Any attempt to prove that it was disguised equity funding seems doomed to fail. The only avenue of attack therefore is that it was a related party, which is corroborated by the background to the APT case, where clubs felt we were misreporting this.

But even if that is the case (and neither of us believe it is) that's certainly not going to lead to any sporting penalties such as points deductions.
 
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.