PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dribble]

Where do you see that UEFA had that Etisalat information during the 2014 settlement? I was pretty sure it was just a financial breach they were looking at/for and there wasn't an "investigation"?

I know they didn't like all the AD sponsorships and the club accepted some limitations, but wasn't that all?

It was queried & investigated in 2014. However UEFA based this charge on "evidence" found through their financial scrutiny checks.

When the Der Spiegel articles came out years later, UEFA believed this provided the smoking gun they didn't have previously.

IIRC, the first £15m payment received from Abu Dhabi financier Jaber Mohammed on behalf of Etisalat, was made in 2012, with the second made twelve months later.

 

[WRicko]

I thought this too. However the issue of the 2 x £15m Etisalat sponsorship monies paid to City by an Abu Dhabi financier, who was reimbursed by Etisalat in 2015, had already been discussed & settled with UEFA.

The Der Spiegel articles threw new light on UEFA's previous investigations, hence City retorting that the stolen emails were taken out of context.

UEFA found against us, & CAS threw the lot out on appeal, apart from the non-compliance with the investigation charge, for which we were fined £10m.

The PL have nothing new which hasn't been posed to us previously. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Can you shed more light on the Etisalate stuff I have heard about it but don’t know th details or justification for it

 

[halfcenturyup]

It was queried & investigated in 2014. However UEFA based this charge on "evidence" found through their financial scrutiny checks.

When the Der Spiegel articles came out years later, UEFA believed this provided the smoking gun they didn't have previously.

IIRC, the first £15m payment received from Abu Dhabi financier Jaber Mohammed on behalf of Etisalat, was made in 2012, with the second made twelve months later.

You have a source for that? That isn't my recollection at all. But I could be wrong, of course.

 

[Dribble]

Can you shed more light on the Etisalate stuff I have heard about it but don’t know th details or justification for it

After agreeing the Etisalat sponsorship deal, they wanted to pay in 2015, but we desperately needed the dough on our books in 2012-14 for FFP purposes.

Etisalat arranged a bridging loan, where Abu Dhabi financier Jaber Mohammed, paid City a total of £30m in two payment in 2012 & 2013.

Etisalat reimbursed Mohammed in 2015, but UEFA contend that they suspected the payment came from Sheikh Mansour, but was disguised as sponsorship from Etisalat, when in fact it was equity funding.

There were accusations, but no concrete evidence until the Der Spiegel article. UEFA added this to their list of charges & found us guilty, but CAS threw the lot out on appeal. Much of it because it was time barred.

 

[WRicko]

It wasn't abolished, ot was amended because a question regarding DNA was raised in the Commons.

Now DNA evidence was accepted, MP's argued why should someone be allowed protection under double jeopardy, if conclusive DNA evidence is found in later years proving their guilt?

Conversely, DNA could also be the conclusive evidence needed to prove someone's innocence.

This was the amendment made, but double jeopardy still exists in UK Law.

This is why legally I don't think the PL would have a leg to stand on just on the point of double jeopardy.

When you take into account that no statutory bodies have been in contact over criminal charges being filed against us, it should be obvious for all to see that these charges are nothing more than a steaming pile of bullshit, designed to besmirch our name & character.

The whole thing baffles me. You read the media and rivals fans and we are banged to rights.

Even city fans who do not come on here must think there will be something in the allegations. Some who do will be expecting as yet unseen evidence to to come out or for us to be done for non co- operation.

Yet as we have said on here multiple times by many posters especially in the know it’s seems like there is no new evidence no whistle blower. No investigation by the required bodies.

I know the media are thick and have an agenda and I know the premier league have not directly accused of fraud cooking the books etc but even the media know that is what we are accused of I would expect someone in the media maybe not the sports press but the news media to say affectively look this has got be a load of rubbish are we seriously to believe that the charges are not trumped up by the red clubs etc. Are we to believe that senior royals diplomats business people at serval company conned or conspired with auditors to cheat the premier league etc

 

[Shirley]

The whole thing baffles me. You read the media and rivals fans and we are banged to rights.

Even city fans who do not come on here must think there will be something in the allegations. Some who do will be expecting as yet unseen evidence to to come out or for us to be done for non co- operation.

Yet as we have said on here multiple times by many posters especially in the know it’s seems like there is no new evidence no whistle blower. No investigation by the required bodies.

I know the media are thick and have an agenda and I know the premier league have not directly accused of fraud cooking the boobs etc but even the media know that is what we are accused of I would expect someone in the media maybe not the sports press but the news media to say affectively look this has got be a load of rubbish are we seriously to believe that the charges are not trumped up by the red clubs etc. Are we to believe that senior royals diplomats business people at serval company conned or conspired with auditors to cheat the premier league etc

Cooking the boobs, now that’s hot :-)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

No, it does I think. Prosecution has to get pre trial permission on narrow grounds to re try after acquittal. Without new evidence, you could still plead Autrefois acquit….i stand to be corrected by someone still practising.

You can only re-try someone for Schedule 5 offences.

Criminal Justice Act 2003

An Act to make provision about criminal justice (including the powers and duties of the police) and about dealing with offenders; to amend the law relating to jury service; to amend Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Part 5 of the Police Act 1997; to make provision about...

www.legislation.gov.uk

None of which are crimes of dishonesty. Even robbery isn’t on there.

 

[WRicko]

After agreeing the Etisalat sponsorship deal, they wanted to pay in 2015, but we desperately needed the dough on our books in 2012-14 for FFP purposes.

Etisalat arranged a bridging loan, where Abu Dhabi financier Jaber Mohammed, paid City a total of £30m in two payment in 2012 & 2013.

Etisalat reimbursed Mohammed in 2015, but UEFA contend that they suspected the payment came from Sheikh Mansour, but was disguised as sponsorship from Etisalat, when in fact it was equity funding.

There were accusations, but no concrete evidence until the Der Spiegel article. UEFA added this to their list of charges & found us guilty, but CAS threw the lot out on appeal. Much of it because it was time barred.

Find it odd that Etisalat couldn’t afford it

 

[halfcenturyup]

Find it odd that Etisalat couldn’t afford it

You should read the CAS award.

 

[WRicko]

You can only re-try someone for Schedule 5 offences.

Criminal Justice Act 2003

An Act to make provision about criminal justice (including the powers and duties of the police) and about dealing with offenders; to amend the law relating to jury service; to amend Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Part 5 of the Police Act 1997; to make provision about...

www.legislation.gov.uk

None of which are crimes of dishonesty. Even robbery isn’t on there.

What would happen if Pannick said the tribunal or panel etc are not qualified to find on the matters as they relate to accusations of fraud and time barring and double jeopardy ?

 

[KS55]

What would happen if Pannick said the tribunal or panel etc are not qualified to find on the matters as they relate to accusations of fraud and time barring and double jeopardy ?

That won’t happen. It might be used faut de mieux to get an appeal to a court.

 

[Dribble]

You have a source for that? That isn't my recollection at all. But I could be wrong, of course.

This explains what happened in June 2023, when the charges were refined & released.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...m-sponsorship-payment-mystery-figure-UAE.html



Go to the following link & read sections 11, 12 and 13. The Etisalat & Etihad sponsorships were investigated in 2014, but UEFA contended their findings wouldn't count toward our sanctions & fines.

"While these sponsorships had been investigated by the Investigatory Chamber and mentioned in the Referral Decision, they were not directly considered by the Adjudicatory Chamber in the Appealed Decision."

However, with the 2018 Der Spiegel publication, UEFA reopened the Etisalat investigation because of what they believed was the missing smoking gun.

If you then go to Section A: The Appellant, & read from 13 - 30, it explains how CAS saw this different to UEFA.

"D. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Etisalat and Etihad met their sponsorship obligations in full in return for valuable rights and that the sponsorship payments were not funded by ADUG"

https://jusmundi.com/en/document/de...l-uefa-arbitral-award-monday-13th-july-2020-1

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

View attachment 102278

This explains what happened in June 2023, when the charges were refined & released.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...m-sponsorship-payment-mystery-figure-UAE.html

View attachment 102280

Go to the following link & read sections 11, 12 and 13. The Etisalat & Etihad sponsorships were investigated in 2014, but UEFA contended their findings wouldn't count toward our sanctions & fines.

"While these sponsorships had been investigated by the Investigatory Chamber and mentioned in the Referral Decision, they were not directly considered by the Adjudicatory Chamber in the Appealed Decision."

However, with the 2018 Der Spiegel publication, UEFA reopened the Etisalat investigation because of what they believed was the missing smoking gun.

If the then go to Section A: The Appellant, & read from 13 - 30, it explains how CAS saw this different to UEFA.

"D. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Etisalat and Etihad met their sponsorship obligations in full in return for valuable rights and that the sponsorship payments were not funded by ADUG"

https://jusmundi.com/en/document/de...l-uefa-arbitral-award-monday-13th-july-2020-1

This was what Piers Moron got his panties in a bunch about, only for David Dein to dismiss it as “not the smoking gun” Moron thought it was……

 

[KS55]

This was what Piers Moron got his panties in a bunch about, only for David Dein to dismiss it as “not the smoking gun” Moron thought it was……

The Times also thought it was the smoking gun, but they have been wrong about everything in this saga.
The idea that there was a mystery introduced by the video from ?? fooled them all. No mystery at all as demonstrated by para D above in Dribble’s post.

 

[CC1]

Can Ratcliffe fund repairs & improvements to the swamp without it affecting their FFP position?

 

[Dribble]

The whole thing baffles me. You read the media and rivals fans and we are banged to rights.

Even city fans who do not come on here must think there will be something in the allegations. Some who do will be expecting as yet unseen evidence to to come out or for us to be done for non co- operation.

Yet as we have said on here multiple times by many posters especially in the know it’s seems like there is no new evidence no whistle blower. No investigation by the required bodies.

I know the media are thick and have an agenda and I know the premier league have not directly accused of fraud cooking the books etc but even the media know that is what we are accused of I would expect someone in the media maybe not the sports press but the news media to say affectively look this has got be a load of rubbish are we seriously to believe that the charges are not trumped up by the red clubs etc. Are we to believe that senior royals diplomats business people at serval company conned or conspired with auditors to cheat the premier league etc

What we weren't charged with in 2014 was part of the investigation in 2014 anyway.

With the Der Spiegel publications, the investigations were exhumed, after UEFA said they were satisfied in 2014. The new email revelations were seen to provide fresh evidence of guilt on our part.

UEFA charge & find us guilty. We appeal to CAS who throw the case out, bar the non-compliance with the investigation aspect, but now it seems the PL has picked up the baton & decided to run with "The PL submits all PL club's accounts to UEFA, so if City lied to UEFA, defacto to they lied to the PL, which is a serious breach".

I'm finding it difficult to get past double jeopardy with this. To my knowledge the PL isn't presenting anything new that we haven't already covered with UEFA & CAS. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[Dribble]

Find it odd that Etisalat couldn’t afford it

Well.... I suppose UEFA found it odd that a £52bn company couldn't afford it either, hence their investigations.

Suspicion is one thing. Proof is another thing altogether. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[Dribble]

Can Ratcliffe fund repairs & improvements to the swamp without it affecting their FFP position?

Yes. Structural & academy funding don't affect FFP. It's just player transfer fees, wages, & the sponsorship, TV, gate receipts & merchandising monies that are used to offset these costs that's subject to FFP.

Essentially anything related to a club strengthening on the pitch to challenge the elite G14 clubs is affected by FFP, just as intended.

 

[ganganvince]

Yes. Structural & academy funding don't affect FFP. It's just player transfer fees, wages, & the sponsorship, TV, gate receipts & merchandising monies that are used to offset these costs that's subject to FFP.

Essentially anything related to a club strengthening on the pitch to challenge the elite G14 clubs is affected by FFP, just as intended.

That also includes spending on imaginary stadia

 

[Dribble]

This was what Piers Moron got his panties in a bunch about, only for David Dein to dismiss it as “not the smoking gun” Moron thought it was……

They all thought it was the smoking gun, until City provided the full email transcripts which added the missing context. Once this was qualified by Etisalat, Etihad, City finance chiefs & our auditors, CAS ruled we had nothing to answer & overturned our ban.

However they found us guilty for non-compliance saying if we'd cooperated, this case could've been settled at the UEFA stage.

However City countered that in 2014, UEFA used our submissions to change their FFP rules which led to us being sanctioned & heavily fined, hence the non-cooperation this time around.