PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Iassel said:
We don’t know what the non-cooperation charges relate to, but conceivably the fact that the club forced 2x arbitration panels and 2x commercial court cases before providing info could justify a non-cooperation charge, especially as the PL charter that all clubs sign up to demands that all clubs fully cooperate in any investigation.

The non-cooperation charges are small fry anyway and would almost certainly only be a fine, if the club was cleared of everything else but guilty of non-cooperation, the wouldn’t be any cigars left in Manchester once the exec team got the findings.

As already said, the club did argue this extensively and lost at all turns.

On the first part, the panel realistically would only find the club guilty of the most serious charges if something explosive is presented by the PL, these are serious allegations and they aren’t going to want to make such a ruling on ‘probability’.

If something so explosive as to effectively prove a serious, coordinated fraud exists, the relevant authorities would jump all over it, but confidence for everyone should come from the fact that UEFA didn’t uncover anything if the sort and the club aren’t going to have provided such evidence to the PL as to implicate themselves.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe that the panel will have a problem finding us guilty I don’t trust them but leaving that aside.

You haven’t explained the problem with my argument just said the court does not agree but I don’t think that’s what the court ruling was about. I thought it was about remaining private and technical points about the changes in how the panel is set up and it’s bias not it’s actual ability to rule on the matter I bet we will challenge the panels rights at some point be it at the start or in another court if found guilty
 
halfcenturyup said:
What do you make of my theory that the non-cooperation charges (and the bad faith charge) arise from the club not handing over third party evidence to the investigation? This would explain:

i) The number of charges and the years they cover, as all alleged breaches required some third party evidence to exonerate the club which was not forth coming. Made worse by the fact that the PL knows the club has such evidence as it was presented at CAS. Why not hand it over? Because the rules at the time didn't require it, and to control any further investigation of the evidence once handed over to the PL.

ii) Why the club says it has provided all the information required of it in good faith, while the PL says it hasn't.

iii) The new rules for last year that a club must make all reasonable efforts to acquire such evidence from third parties.

iv) The challenge from the club that such new rules can't be applied retroactively to the investigation.

That all makes sense to me, and the conclusion that can be drawn from it, if it is true, is that the club will be just fine when the external evidence is provided, as it was at CAS.

Makes sense but could just be bollocks. What do you think?
Click to expand...
How can any club provide evidence from third parties that it has no control over
 
You are asking for empirical proof of something that didn't happen? And just for information, I have conducted audits of financial statements, I have signed off on auditors' reports, I have performed reviews of annual accounts, I have performed detailed financial investigations, I have worked with HMRC and European equivalents on investigations. I know the difference. I don't think you do.

Anyway, we are getting nowhere with this. Let's leave it.

Just, for the love of God, try not to confuse people with your conjecture, by passing it off as fact. At least state it is your opinion.

Anyway, Merry Christmas :)
 
Metalartin said:
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
Click to expand...
UEFA are alleging the payments went:

ADUG > J Mohammed > City

What the records show is:

J Mohammed > City / Etisalat > J Mohammed

City have asked UEFA for proof of their claim, & they don't have any. Their proof is solely from an inference drawn from the stolen emails, which City said were taken out of context.

That's the long & short of it. \0/
 
WRicko said:
How can any club provide evidence from third parties that it has no control over
Click to expand...

Did you read the CAS Award? That is exactly what the club did, of course. And the new PL rules on investigations? They explicitly state a club should make its best efforts to acquire such information if requested. My point being the PL knows we have such evidence (for a number of years anyway) because we presented it at CAS.
 
pauls said:
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?
Click to expand...
No. UEFA inferred the Etisalat payments originated from ADUG. As yet they've provided zero evidence, aside from a reference in the stolen emails.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Did you read the CAS Award? That is exactly what the club did, of course. And the new PL rules on investigations? They explicitly state a club should make its best efforts to acquire such information if requested. My point being the PL knows we have such evidence (for a number of years anyway) because we presented it at CAS.
Click to expand...
So United should provide the bank statements of their noodle sponsors yeh right
 
halfcenturyup said:
You are asking for empirical proof of something that didn't happen? And just for information, I have conducted audits of financial statements, I have signed off on auditors' reports, I have performed reviews of annual accounts, I have performed detailed financial investigations, I have worked with HMRC and European equivalents on investigations. I know the difference. I don't think you do.

Anyway, we are getting nowhere with this. Let's leave it.

Just, for the love of God, try not to confuse people with your conjecture, by passing it off as fact. At least state it is your opinion.

Anyway, Merry Christmas :)
Click to expand...
To be honest you've offered zero empirical evidence either. The difference being I can accept that neither of us were involved with this process, so we're both trying to piece it together, so it makes sense to worrying Blues.

I see you didn't address the point that an audit requires the accounts & banks statements in order to reconcile one against the other?

I also note you've not addressed that bank transactions show the date, the payee, a payment reference (usually an invoice number in business) & an amount?

Who the payee is on the relevant bank statement alone, exonerates City. The two £15m payments apparently came from Jaber Mohammed. If UEFA believe they were originally sourced from ADUG to Mohammed, then they should take it up with them, but under what jurisdiction? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

So back to your original laboured point. This 2014 FFP investigation alone would have uncovered who paid the £30m for Etisalat' sponsorship of Manchester City. It's called connecting the dots & trying to make sense out of nonsense.

You're seriously calling this into question because you can't find anyone who actually stood up & publicly said this? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
 
Dribble said:
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.
Click to expand...
And what happens when one of the formerly elite G14 clubs becomes a global laughing stock and needs to challenge the new elite clubs that they used to mock?
 
Dribble said:
To be honest you've offered zero empirical evidence either. The difference being I can accept that neither of us were involved with this process, so we're both trying to piece it together, so it makes sense to worrying Blues.

I see you didn't address the point that an audit requires the accounts & banks statements in order to reconcile one against the other?

I also note you've not addressed that bank transactions show the date, the payee, a payment reference (usually an invoice number in business) & an amount?

Who the payee is on the relevant bank statement alone, exonerates City. The two £15m payments apparently came from Jaber Mohammed. If UEFA believe they were originally sourced from ADUG to Mohammed, then they should take it up with them, but under what jurisdiction? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

So back to your original laboured point. This 2014 FFP investigation alone would have uncovered who paid the £30m for Etisalat' sponsorship of Manchester City. It's called connecting the dots & trying to make sense out of nonsense.

You're seriously calling this into question because you can't find anyone who actually stood up & publicly said this? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
Click to expand...

*** Shakes head and gives up ***
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
And what happens when one of the formerly elite G14 clubs becomes a global laughing stock and needs to challenge the new elite clubs that they used to mock?
Click to expand...
It's amusing to hear the FFP woes of Barça & those who must not be mentioned on this festive day.

Aside from City being in constant FFP grief, it was never meant to be like this. :-)
 
Last edited:
WRicko said:
I don’t believe that the panel will have a problem finding us guilty I don’t trust them but leaving that aside.

You haven’t explained the problem with my argument just said the court does not agree but I don’t think that’s what the court ruling was about. I thought it was about remaining private and technical points about the changes in how the panel is set up and it’s bias not it’s actual ability to rule on the matter I bet we will challenge the panels rights at some point be it at the start or in another court if found guilty
Click to expand...
As already said, there were 2 points City took to commercial court.

1. The PL did not have jurisdiction to try these charges
2. Even if they did, they were too inherently biased to do so fairly.

Both points were struck down in commercial court.

The issue of privacy was separate - both the club and PL were acting under NDA but the Daily Mail fought (and won) that there was legitimate public interest in knowing this was going on in the background.

As to the viability of a guilty verdict - one of the only ways the club can challenge any guilt verdict is if the findings are legally unsound - ie the ‘irrefutable proof’ is presented to the tribunal, they acknowledge it but decide to ignore it without sound justification. In that case, the club could appeal to a new tribunal with 3 ‘fresh’ members and if the finding were the same, potentially a slim chance of being able to advance to a commercial court.

It’s for this reason the fears of a kangaroo court can be discarded - any guilty verdict that is not soundly supported and subsequently stuck down would leave the door open to a catastrophic lawsuit in City’s favour.

TLDR - net is any upheld finding of guilt will require something explosive be presented by the PL.
 
Dribble said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn’t communicate what I was meaning very well.

Has any media organisation explained that the emails used by Der Spiegel were spliced & out of context as clearly explained in the CAS judgement?
 
cheekybids said:
Sorry I didn’t communicate what I was meaning very well.

Has any media organisation explained that the emails used by Der Spiegel were spliced & out of context as clearly explained in the CAS judgement?
Click to expand...
Not that I know of.

That's why we City fans need to be educated so we can fight the fight for our club.
 
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