PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

And that's also a very good point, It makes sense as the CAS hearing was a private issue between City and UEFA and the files aren't in the public domain I presume

If that's the case no one but City and UEFA and the CAS panel should know what was presented evidence wise

Meaning the Premier League has no more than what's in the Public Domain

Or am I missing something?

I think that must be right. I can't just call them up and ask to see City's evidence and the PL has no more rights than I do in that case.

 

[Skip Donoghue]

I think that UEFA looked at it, as part of their original investigation after Der Spiegel published it. But once CAS decided what the relevant cut-off date was, I doubt it was examined as part of that hearing. Some of it would have been earlier Etihad payments. so there should be no issue there. Another time-barred sponsorship was one from Etisalat, where Der Spiegel showed this had apparently been paid by ADUG iirc. But we know how selective DS were and I definitely recall seeing something about Etisalat later paying Etihad.

Thanks PB your knowledge on this stuff needs to be front and centre in this thread as there does seem to be a lot of guessing from the majority of us on here
And wishful thinking too

 

[Dribble]

Has anyone else noticed a dearth of Rags wanting to take the piss about Manchester City, the Premier League & FFP, since A22 announced a revised Super League today?

My phone's gone awfully quiet... \0/

 

[Coatigan]

Doesn't matter. We were talking at cross purposes :)

And repeating ourselves as well :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks PB your knowledge on this stuff needs to be front and centre in this thread as there does seem to be a lot of guessing from the majority of us on here
And wishful thinking too

That should have been repaying ADUG, not Etihad.

 

[domalino]

I think that UEFA looked at it, as part of their original investigation after Der Spiegel published it. But once CAS decided what the relevant cut-off date was, I doubt it was examined as part of that hearing. Some of it would have been earlier Etihad payments. so there should be no issue there. Another time-barred sponsorship was one from Etisalat, where Der Spiegel showed this had apparently been paid by ADUG iirc. But we know how selective DS were and I definitely recall seeing something about Etisalat later paying Etihad.

As soon as CAS decided the emails alone weren't proof of the transactions happening, and Simon Pearce stood up and testified they didn't happen, we would have won any case based on the emails, including the time barred ones.

I assume that line of thinking is behind the reported brief of looking forward to clearing those up.

 

[Chi-town blues]

The Week in Football Summary.

So let me get this straight...

1. Monday: The UK Government announce a 2 week delay to the leaked white paper on football governance & the creation of an independent regulator.

2. Monday: The Premier League announce disciplinary proceedings against Manchester City for breaches of FFP after a 4 year investigation.

3. Thursday: A22 announce a revised European Super League, which is the same as the old Super League, but with two lower Leagues & NO owner investment allowed.

Conclusion: There's absolutely ZERO coincidences here, so please trot along... :-/

 

[Manchester_lalala]

I think the time barred evidence (as long as its not dodgy) the club want out there as its the biggest claim from the UEFA/CAS trial that we got away with a load of stuff as it was time barred? I think the end of the club statement is telling and they feel now is the time to put that myth to bed as well.

I hope it is. Letermes comments yesterday point towards this, imo. He said they had hard evidence against City, which I presume is the Etisalat time barrings.

 

[Skip Donoghue]

The premier

Ahh OK but what do they have?

if the CAS hearing was a private matter between CITY and UEFA, what do the Premier League have?
as from what I can gather the findings are not in the public domain

And if that is so they have no evidence from City with regards the time barred issues and I recon that's what they want to see and that's what City want to show

 

[Keepingthefaithsince1976]

I think that UEFA looked at it, as part of their original investigation after Der Spiegel published it. But once CAS decided what the relevant cut-off date was, I doubt it was examined as part of that hearing. Some of it would have been earlier Etihad payments. so there should be no issue there. Another time-barred sponsorship was one from Etisalat, where Der Spiegel showed this had apparently been paid by ADUG iirc. But we know how selective DS were and I definitely recall seeing something about Etisalat later repaying ADUG.

Etisalat are a mobile communications provider who sponsor City and have every right to pay City for that honour. Surely if Sheik Mansour wants to support Etisalat as a company from his homeland he has that right also. Why wouldn't he want to grow his homelands profile?