PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Prater70]

I posted it earlier in this thread. I'll find it again & repost it.

Essentially UEFA had our audited accounts, bank transfers & statement referring to Jaber Mohammed paying funds to City for the Etisalat sponsorship. This money was repaid by Etisalat to Mohammed, which was all checked & fine.

However in one of the stolen emails, one of our finance guys mentioned if "We could get his Highness" (or a moniker to that effect) to make the payment for Etisalat so we had the money banked.

This is what triggered the 2018 investigation. UEFA were of the thinking ADUG paid Mohammed, he paid City & Etisalat repaid Mohammed in 2015 to tie up any loose ends.

It's the email comment from the City finance fella UEFA were hanging their case on. However, unless they got ADUG, Mohammed's & Etisalat's audited accounts & banks statements which is out of their jurisdiction, it's essentially our explanation vs their accusations.

As per the CAS findings I posted earlier, UEFA didn't prove its case, & the burden of proof was on them, not City.

I posted it earlier in this thread. I'll find it again & repost it.

Essentially UEFA had our audited accounts, bank transfers & statement referring to Jaber Mohammed paying funds to City for the Etisalat sponsorship. This money was repaid by Etisalat to Mohammed, which was all checked & fine.

However in one of the stolen emails, one of our finance guys mentioned if "We could get his Highness" (or a moniker to that effect) to make the payment for Etisalat so we had the money banked.

This is what triggered the 2018 investigation. UEFA were of the thinking ADUG paid Mohammed, he paid City & Etisalat repaid Mohammed in 2015 to tie up any loose ends.

It's the email comment from the City finance fella UEFA were hanging their case on. However, unless they got ADUG, Mohammed's & Etisalat's audited accounts & banks statements which is out of their jurisdiction, it's essentially our explanation vs their accusations.

As per the CAS findings I posted earlier, UEFA didn't prove its case, & the burden of proof was on them, not City.

Thanks Dribble, but does the Balance of Probability come into this?

 

[lancs blue]

this was thrown out by the Commercial Court and passed back to the PL with City ordered to produce all requested documents.

So if the club obeyed the court's order - which I assume they would have done - what's the basis for the PL's non-cooperation charge?

 

[cheekybids]

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.

Has the full email transcripts ever been reported by any media organisation?

I can’t remember seeing 1 article which tells you everything you want to know.

 

[WRicko]

1. Because this is arbitration with a panel selected according to the PL rules.
Whatever the implications of their findings, they will be ruling based on the evidence before them not on possible implications of their decision, which may be a factor in the level of proof required.
2. We will concentrate on the evidence and keep our council on any misgivings we have so as not to muddy the waters.
As I suggested, such a tactic would be a Hail Mary best left until we need it.

Surely it cannot be right that the panel can find us guilty of breaking a law that the police etc have not investigated but know about and therefore we can assume don’t think there is anything to investigate. Not to mention for anyone to actually prove we have done what ie alleged they they would probably have to investigate companies etc that outside even the police jurisdiction let alone the PLs o feel sure even the panel or court would accept this

 

[WRicko]

The club tried that back in 2020 - there were 2x arbitration panels to try and move forward, City then challenged in commercial court that the PL had jurisdiction to try any allegations (and were also biased) but this was thrown out by the Commercial Court and passed back to the PL with City ordered to produce all requested documents.

Surely it cannot be right that the panel can find us guilty of breaking a law that the police etc have not investigated but know about and therefore we can assume don’t think there is anything to investigate. Not to mention for anyone to actually prove we have done what ie alleged they they would probably have to investigate companies etc that outside even the police jurisdiction let alone the PLs o feel sure even the panel or court would accept this

 

[M18CTID]

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……

And it’s been in the public domain for years that ADUG paid it initially and Etisalat later reimbursed them. From what I’ve read, City never disguised this fact and were totally open about it so it can hardly be classed as disguised owner funding.

 

[M18CTID]

Re Etislat and the £30m payments:

Mansour's payments and a U-turn by Uefa: key Manchester City findings | Manchester City | The Guardian

Court of arbitration for sport judgment also finds no Uefa bias and shows why an alleged FFP breach was unsubstantiated

amp.theguardian.com

 

[KS55]

Surely it cannot be right that the panel can find us guilty of breaking a law that the police etc have not investigated but know about and therefore we can assume don’t think there is anything to investigate. Not to mention for anyone to actually prove we have done what ie alleged they they would probably have to investigate companies etc that outside even the police jurisdiction let alone the PLs o feel sure even the panel or court would accept this

The panel cannot find us guilty of breaking a law. They can only rule on whether we infringed PL regs. The implication of that might be that we broke a law which is why the standard of proof may be high. But even if their verdict implies we broke a law, that has no legal effect. You must grasp the distinction between arbitration on an essentially ‘private organisation matter’ and the wider law of England.
Mind you the journos would shout from the rooftops ‘City falsified their accounts, guilty of fraud, lock them up’ and so on.
Be assured, Pannick and the team have this in hand. Relax.

 

[pauls]

The panel cannot find us guilty of breaking a law. They can only rule on whether we infringed PL regs. The implication of that might be that we broke a law which is why the standard of proof may be high. But even if their verdict implies we broke a law, that has no legal effect. You must grasp the distinction between arbitration on an essentially ‘private organisation matter’ and the wider law of England.
Mind you the journos would shout from the rooftops ‘City falsified their accounts, guilty of fraud, lock them up’ and so on.
Be assured, Pannick and the team have this in hand. Relax.

Thanks for the input guys, maybe I'm worrying unduly but, I'm reading that UEFA were aware of the Etisalat payments from ADUG and subsequent reimbursement. I'm not seeing where this is allowed in Prem rules and seems to be their whole case against us ?
Unless I'm missing something?

 

[WRicko]

The panel cannot find us guilty of breaking a law. They can only rule on whether we infringed PL regs. The implication of that might be that we broke a law which is why the standard of proof may be high. But even if their verdict implies we broke a law, that has no legal effect. You must grasp the distinction between arbitration on an essentially ‘private organisation matter’ and the wider law of England.
Mind you the journos would shout from the rooftops ‘City falsified their accounts, guilty of fraud, lock them up’ and so on.
Be assured, Pannick and the team have this in hand. Relax.

Your missing my point how can a panel find us guilt of breaking a private members rules when in order to have done so we would have to have broken the law a law they cannot find us guilt of and cannot properly investigate ? The whole thing should be chucked in the bin is my point and we should be arguing they cannot asses the matter they are not qualified. I am asking why can we not argue this or why are we not ?

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Thanks for the input guys, maybe I'm worrying unduly but, I'm reading that UEFA were aware of the Etisalat payments from ADUG and subsequent reimbursement. I'm not seeing where this is allowed in Prem rules and seems to be their whole case against us ?
Unless I'm missing something?

I'm not quite sure what your implications is here regarding rule breaches? These matters are in respect of accountancy for the annual accounts which has their own set of rules and principles.

The payments for an agreement in principle re sponsorship from Etisalat were made by a third party, Muhammed Jabar who in effect acted as the supplier of a bridging loan between the 2 parties. This was apparently necessary at the time because of Citys immediate need and the delay in completed signed sponsorship contracts. Its not clear why the payment of 30 million was made in two amounts. As far as i am aware the amounts were properly accounted for in receivables for Etisalat in Citys accounts and in the expenditure ledger of Etisalad on reimbursement of Mohammed Jabar.

This isn't against any rules and was looked at by UEFA. Only a later inference from an old email released by DS suggested that maybe ADUG funded it but UEFA offered no evidence to prove that and the matters were ruled clearly outside the time period for consideration by CAS according to UEFAs own time barring rules.

I've seen people ask why Etisalat, a 52 Billion quid valued company didn't pay it in one go but surely the same question arises then if it was our owner who allegedly supplied the monies, a company or private individual worth 100's of Billions.

The Etisalat matter isn't necessarily the whole PL case at all. These concerned 2 payments across 12- 13. The liklihood of the recurrent charges would indicate that they allege fraudulent misrepresentation by Citys directors in collusion with Etihad, Aabar, Etisalat and our accountants and auditors over a 10 year period on an annual basis for various matters from player and manager remuneration to alleged disguised owner sponsorship funding. The PL will however have to prove that fraud to the satisfactory burden of proof that withstands the mountain of rebuttal evidence City will undoubtedly supply.

 

[Metalartin]

Thanks for the input guys, maybe I'm worrying unduly but, I'm reading that UEFA were aware of the Etisalat payments from ADUG and subsequent reimbursement. I'm not seeing where this is allowed in Prem rules and seems to be their whole case against us ?
Unless I'm missing something?

Funnily enough, I had just been going through the same confusion reading this thread. For some reason, I had it in my head that this 'mystery figure'(Jaber Mohammed) had brokered an advanced payment of some sort, which was then repaid by ADUG at a later date. Also, that UEFA knew in 2014 and CAS also saw no problem with it in 2020.

It's just a case of recalling it from memory and leaving out the fact that, it was only after Etisalat had paid those funds to the club, that ADUG reimbursed Jaber Mohammed. So, Etisalat are the ones who reimbursed him, not ADUG. Without that, then that clearly would just be disguised equity funding, which is what UEFA were alleging.

Unless I'm mistaken, the club are saying the repayment went: Etisalat>ADUG>J Mohammed.

I was thinking, why didn't Etisalat just pay J Mohammed and leave ADUG out of it? ...But then that wouldn't reflect what actually happened or explain why Jaber Mohammed made those two payments instead of Etisalat in the accounting data.

https://www.skysports.com/football/...ment-from-owners-was-disguised-as-sponsorship

The report said City's lawyers had told a UEFA disciplinary hearing that two £15m sponsorship payments from telecommunications firm Etisalat in 2012 and 2013 were made by a man called Jaber Mohammed, who was described as a broker, and that Etisalat repaid the money to City's owners in 2015.

 

[halfcenturyup]

You have to knit what Khaldoon said in 2014, & what he said in 2018 together. The distrust bred in 2014 led to the other, with the added issue of damaging briefings against us to the press. This is where the non-compliance originated from.

We played fair in 2014, but UEFA were determined to stiff us. It was all a game of move & counter move, as the G14/UEFA created rules to halt our progress, whilst we were trying to find legal ways to traverse them.

In respect to Jaber Mohammed, it was evident UEFA were aware of all this in 2014. All the financials at the time showed everything necessary.

What changed it all was the email suggesting ADUG could have paid Jaber to pay City, albeit they have no audit trail beyond Jaber to City twice, & Etisalat to Jaber once in 2015.

UEFA connected the dots & made an inference, but without any firm evidence beyond Jaber Mohammed's two £15m transfers to City, & Etisalat's repayment to Mohammed to back it up. But they still found us guilty.

OK. You are adding 2+2 to get, what you think is 4. That's OK, we all do that sometimes. But I think you are confusing people by stating your conjecture as fact. For the record, I have never seen any evidence that UEFA knew about the Etisalat funding in 2014 (and I don't see how they could have) and I haven't seen any evidence that the club used the 2014 settlement as a justification for non-compliance in 2019. Not a criticism of you and your posts, which are generally interesting - and conjecture is fine. I just think there are so many false narratives flying around the press that we, at least should stick to proven facts, or at least clearly state imho for conjecture.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Funnily enough, I had just been going through the same confusion reading this thread. For some reason, I had it in my head that this 'mystery figure'(Jaber Mohammed) had brokered an advanced payment of some sort, which was then repaid by ADUG at a later date. Also, that UEFA knew in 2014 and CAS also saw no problem with it in 2020.

It's just a case of recalling it from memory and leaving out the fact that, it was only after Etisalat had paid those funds to the club, that ADUG reimbursed Jaber Mohammed. So, Etisalat are the ones who reimbursed him, not ADUG. Without that, then that clearly would just be disguised equity funding, which is what UEFA were alleging.

Unless I'm mistaken, the club are saying the repayment went: Etisalat>ADUG>J Mohammed.

I was thinking, why didn't Etisalat just pay J Mohammed and leave ADUG out of it? ...But then that wouldn't reflect what actually happened or explain why Jaber Mahammed made those two payments instead of Etisalat in the accounting data.

https://www.skysports.com/football/...ment-from-owners-was-disguised-as-sponsorship

If I remember the CAS award correctly, the Etisalat sponsorship for the two years in question were being operated under a HoA while the Etisalat2 contract was being finalised, so I imagine Etisalat under its own governance guidelines couldn't make any payment until the contract was signed. The Etisalat2 contract terms required Etisalat to pay ADUG (as was) and ADUG to transfer to the club. Why? Not sure. But that was confirmed by the CAS award. The club needed the money so it seems ADUG sold the receivable from Etisalat, received the money from the "broker" in two instalments reflecting the annual sponsorship and paid it to the club. Etisalat later paid the full money due to ADUG and ADUG presumably reimbursed the broker. It's all messy, but it's consistent, I think.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Your missing my point how can a panel find us guilt of breaking a private members rules when in order to have done so we would have to have broken the law a law they cannot find us guilt of and cannot properly investigate ? The whole thing should be chucked in the bin is my point and we should be arguing they cannot asses the matter they are not qualified. I am asking why can we not argue this or why are we not ?

I share your concern about the competence of the panel to conclude on matters that are effectively criminal and I find it incredible that, in a case such as this, an arbitration can come to a conclusion of criminal intent on the basis of the balance of probabilities, notwithstanding the degree of cogency required.

Balance of probabilities in civil courts, as I understand it, is used because the penalties are less severe than in criminal courts, and conversely criminal courts use beyond a reasonable doubt because their sanctions can be much tougher: imprisonment for example. The PL, however, has given itself the power to impose sanctions that are effectively the equivalent to a club of imprisonment, or even a death sentence: relegation and exclusion, whilst the directors, who would be sanctioned in a criminal case, are untouched.

I say again, that if the PL thinks there has been criminal activity, they should have referred this to the proper authorities for investigation before we were charged. By not doing that they are opening themselves up to, at the least, absolute embarrassment, and, at the worst, potential legal action, if they find in favour of the PL but the authorities either find the club not guilty or don't pursue the case at all.

I have set out many times why I think that will not happen, though.

I also think sporting sanctions for FFP breaches are ridiculous, btw. The way to deal with them is fines which should be included in the FFP numbers and so affect how much a club can spend in the future period. Repeat offender? Bigger and bigger fines. If the fines don't get paid, punish the directors and the owners, not the club. But that's another story.

 

[Dribble]

Thanks Dribble, but does the Balance of Probability come into this?

It seems the balance of probability is what UEFA based its guilty verdict on, but CAS sets a higher bar for burden of proof, like producing actual evidence, not just inferences.

 

[Dribble]

Has the full email transcripts ever been reported by any media organisation?

I can’t remember seeing 1 article which tells you everything you want to know.

There were only the Der Spiegel details which revealed one of the major emails UEFA was relying on was spliced together, & missing crucial details which added context.

This didn't paint a good picture for UEFA's case, because it called into question the validity of their accusations.

City see the emails as confidential to our business, so I doubt we'd ever release them.

 

[SilverFox2]

It seems the balance of probability is what UEFA based its guilty verdict on, but CAS sets a higher bar for burden of proof, like producing actual evidence, not just inferences.

If a PL chosen panel comes up with a *balance of probability" "guilty" verdict then surely in fairness we can use a *balance of probability* argument that such a panel is likely to be biased.

 

[Dribble]

OK. You are adding 2+2 to get, what you think is 4. That's OK, we all do that sometimes. But I think you are confusing people by stating your conjecture as fact. For the record, I have never seen any evidence that UEFA knew about the Etisalat funding in 2014 (and I don't see how they could have) and I haven't seen any evidence that the club used the 2014 settlement as a justification for non-compliance in 2019. Not a criticism of you and your posts, which are generally interesting - and conjecture is fine. I just think there are so many false narratives flying around the press that we, at least should stick to proven facts, or at least clearly state imho for conjecture.

Unless stated by Manchester City or if I were personally in attendance, no I can't state certain bits as factually said. However, when you look at the timeline & piece it all together, like a jigsaw it begins to create a picture based on stated facts, which is what I've done.

For instance, UEFA clearly state the Etisalat & Etihad deals were investigated for fair value & to see if they were related companies. During those 2014 investigations, everything was checked & UEFA had to concede our deals were fair market value, & neither Etihad or Etisalat were related companies.

Are you thinking as part of these investigations, UEFA didn't check where the sponsorship money actually came from?

Connecting the dots, UEFA made it clear that their 2018 probe was directly related to the Der Spiegel revelations, & the major point they pulled out was the one line in the email where a City finance guy mentioned "Perhaps we could get his Highness (or a moniker to that effect) to pay this so we have it in the bank".

Our audited accounts haven't been amended, so must evidently show the two £15m payments in 2012/13 from Jaber Mohammed, because in 2018 UEFA didn't flag this as an issue. Their new issue was did ADUG pay Mohammed to pay City?

Opposition fans & the media have mostly taken UEFA & the PL's word for everything & painted City as FFP cheats & financial crooks.

As a City fan I've tried to get all the info I could, to piece it together so it made sense to me, & I've shared those thoughts.

The elements are all factual events, which I've put together to create the clearest picture I can to make sense of this FFP nonsense.

If you see things differently? Well that's why we're all here to discuss & share our knowledge & views, of which you'll hopefully share with me too. )(

 

[Dribble]

If a PL chosen panel comes up with a *balance of probability" "guilty" verdict then surely in fairness we can use a *balance of probability* argument that such a panel is likely to be biased.

CAS essentially told UEFA that their findings were conjecture based on the balance of probability.

When it came to the Etisalat payments, City said "This is how it went, & these were the payments made by so & so".

It seems UEFA having seen the Der Spiegel stolen emails have contended that in 2012 ADUG paid Jaber Mohammed, who then paid City & Mohammed was then reimbursed by Etisalat in 2015.

That was all fine & dandy until UEFA were asked for empirical proof by CAS if this was the case. Having no access to Jaber Mohammed or ADUG's accounts because they're out of UEFA's jurisdiction, UEFA's claim was based solely on the stolen emails, not actual bank transfers.

Being unable to produce any actual ADUG > Jaber Mohammed transactions as evidence, UEFA's case fell apart like a cheap suit. \0/