PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[ballbag]

15 years of distraction and unsettling tactics.
We still battered them all and won the lot. God help them when this is all put to bed. What can we achieve when we're just focusing on football? Looking forward to it.

 

[malg]

Pay no attention mate. We've a problem on this forum with ManUre fans joining & posing as City fans, so there's a unhinged level of paranoia with some around here. I take people as I find until they give me a reason to believe otherwise.

It's not cut & dried pal. In 2018/19, we faced the same charges with UEFA as we do now, were found guilty, fined £30m & given a 2 year Champions League ban, which was suspended, pending our appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

On appeal, CAS found us not guilty on all charges, aside from non-cooperation for which we were fined £10m.

Because of our 2014 experience with UEFA/G14, City decided it was pointless showing our hand to them during their investigation stage again, as they would use our evidence to amend their accusations & rules to nail us, exactly as they did in 2014. Yup! That's exactly what they did, hence the zero trust between City & UEFA/G14.

UEFA made their accusations against us based on 6 emails, from over 5 million stolen from us by the notorious Portuguese hacker Rui Pinto.

Of the six emails revealed by the German rag Der Spiegel, two were spliced together from various emails sent a couple of years apart, which gave an out of context view of a sponsorship deal we had with Etisalat.

Once the original emails were viewed with an explanation from City, CAS quickly realised UEFA/G14 had zero actual evidence to backup their claims that our owner injected equity funding into City, disguised as sponsorship.

Essentially what happened was the telecommunications giant Etisalat had a sponsorship agreement with City worth £15m per season over its duration. In 2012/13, we needed to show that money in our account to comply with FFP, so asked Etisalat if they could pay it ahead of schedule.

They couldn’t, but agreed if it could be paid by a bridging loan, they'd be fine with that as they could settle that loan when the original payment schedule ended.

One of the internal City emails between two executives discussed this & it was stated if HRH could source the bridging loan on Etisalat's behalf. Enter UAE financier Jaber Mohammed, who struck a bridging loan deal with Etisalat.

Mohammed paid £15m in 2012 & £15m in 2013 to City which helped us meet FFP. In 2015 when Etisalat's deal ended, they paid Jaber Mohammed back & satisfied the terms of the bridging loan agreement.

Hopefully you're still following me up to this point? :-)

HOWEVER, when this stolen email came to the attention of UEFA/G14, they accused City of getting our owner Sheikh Mansour to pay Jaber Mohammed, who paid City which they claim essentially meant Sheikh Mansour injected money into Manchester City, but disguised it as sponsorship funds from Etisalat.

When asked for evidence of this by CAS, UEFA/G14 didn't have any. They merely connected the dots & made the accusation on their balance of probabilities, based on zero physical evidence, hence why CAS threw their claim out & totally exonerated City.

There was also a claim that City paid part of Roberto Mancini's wages off the books again to circumnavigate FFP. Mancini had an consultancy agreement with ADUG (the company who own City Football Group) to act as a consultant to the Abu Dhabi Football Club - Al Jazira Club worth £1.7m per season.

This was all above board, but UEFA/G14 opined this was done to keep the £1.7m off the books to help City meet FFP requirements. Mancini was on £2m per season basic at City, plus generous bonuses, which pushed his wages closer to £5m per season, but UEFA/G14 still stuck by their claim & added this to City's list of breaches, but again offered zero actual evidence.

Essentially, UEFA/G14 were accusing the Abu Dhabi Royal Family, Roberto Mancini, Etisalat, Etihad Airways & several other high profile multinational companies & huge conglomerates of organised fraud on an industrial scale, BUT without using the word fraud, which would turn their FFP rule "breaches" into a criminal matter, therefore taking it out of their hands & into the hands of the law.

They've inferred all sorts, but never once dared use the word fraud, realising the ramifications if they did. They offered zero actual evidence either, which perfectly highlights the difference between their FFP "Rules" & UK Law.

Their FFP rules are essentially no different to the rules of a private members club. It's like them wanting to sanction a private club member for not washing up their teacup after use. That maybe their club rule, but not washing up your teacup isn't against UK Law.

This is why City are in favour of IREF, the Independent Regulator for English Football, & the Premiere League are dead set against it. Once FFP is looked at through the eyes of UK Law, it doesn't stand a chance. In what other sphere of business isn't a wealthy owner not allowed to invest what he likes into his business?

There's a lot more to our situation, but I've tried to give you the most concise answer I can without explaining chapter & verse, going back to the beginning of our charges in 2009.

We just want to play football, but our fans have been forced to become lay-accountants merely to understand our situation. Hopefully this helps. )(

 

[TheMagicDragon]

15 years of distraction and unsettling tactics.
We still battered them all and won the lot. God help them when this is all put to bed. What can we achieve when we're just focusing on football? Looking forward to it.

If a guilty verdict comes in (NOT SAYING IT WILL), most fans of Liverpool, Arsenal etc are saying that stripping of titles etc is an absolute must. That'd be absolutely devastating, wouldn't it? Can't see it myself.

 

[Gingers Dad]

Pay no attention mate. We've a problem on this forum with ManUre fans joining & posing as City fans, so there's a unhinged level of paranoia with some around here. I take people as I find until they give me a reason to believe otherwise.

It's not cut & dried pal. In 2018/19, we faced the same charges with UEFA as we do now, were found guilty, fined £30m & given a 2 year Champions League ban, which was suspended, pending our appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

On appeal, CAS found us not guilty on all charges, aside from non-cooperation for which we were fined £10m.

Because of our 2014 experience with UEFA/G14, City decided it was pointless showing our hand to them during their investigation stage again, as they would use our evidence to amend their accusations & rules to nail us, exactly as they did in 2014. Yup! That's exactly what they did, hence the zero trust between City & UEFA/G14.

UEFA made their accusations against us based on 6 emails, from over 5 million stolen from us by the notorious Portuguese hacker Rui Pinto.

Of the six emails revealed by the German rag Der Spiegel, two were spliced together from various emails sent a couple of years apart, which gave an out of context view of a sponsorship deal we had with Etisalat.

Once the original emails were viewed with an explanation from City, CAS quickly realised UEFA/G14 had zero actual evidence to backup their claims that our owner injected equity funding into City, disguised as sponsorship.

Essentially what happened was the telecommunications giant Etisalat had a sponsorship agreement with City worth £15m per season over its duration. In 2012/13, we needed to show that money in our account to comply with FFP, so asked Etisalat if they could pay it ahead of schedule.

They couldn’t, but agreed if it could be paid by a bridging loan, they'd be fine with that as they could settle that loan when the original payment schedule ended.

One of the internal City emails between two executives discussed this & it was stated if HRH could source the bridging loan on Etisalat's behalf. Enter UAE financier Jaber Mohammed, who struck a bridging loan deal with Etisalat.

Mohammed paid £15m in 2012 & £15m in 2013 to City which helped us meet FFP. In 2015 when Etisalat's deal ended, they paid Jaber Mohammed back & satisfied the terms of the bridging loan agreement.

Hopefully you're still following me up to this point? :-)

HOWEVER, when this stolen email came to the attention of UEFA/G14, they accused City of getting our owner Sheikh Mansour to pay Jaber Mohammed, who paid City which they claim essentially meant Sheikh Mansour injected money into Manchester City, but disguised it as sponsorship funds from Etisalat.

When asked for evidence of this by CAS, UEFA/G14 didn't have any. They merely connected the dots & made the accusation on their balance of probabilities, based on zero physical evidence, hence why CAS threw their claim out & totally exonerated City.

There was also a claim that City paid part of Roberto Mancini's wages off the books again to circumnavigate FFP. Mancini had an consultancy agreement with ADUG (the company who own City Football Group) to act as a consultant to the Abu Dhabi Football Club - Al Jazira Club worth £1.7m per season.

This was all above board, but UEFA/G14 opined this was done to keep the £1.7m off the books to help City meet FFP requirements. Mancini was on £2m per season basic at City, plus generous bonuses, which pushed his wages closer to £5m per season, but UEFA/G14 still stuck by their claim & added this to City's list of breaches, but again offered zero actual evidence.

Essentially, UEFA/G14 were accusing the Abu Dhabi Royal Family, Roberto Mancini, Etisalat, Etihad Airways & several other high profile multinational companies & huge conglomerates of organised fraud on an industrial scale, BUT without using the word fraud, which would turn their FFP rule "breaches" into a criminal matter, therefore taking it out of their hands & into the hands of the law.

They've inferred all sorts, but never once dared use the word fraud, realising the ramifications if they did. They offered zero actual evidence either, which perfectly highlights the difference between their FFP "Rules" & UK Law.

Their FFP rules are essentially no different to the rules of a private members club. It's like them wanting to sanction a private club member for not washing up their teacup after use. That maybe their club rule, but not washing up your teacup isn't against UK Law.

This is why City are in favour of IREF, the Independent Regulator for English Football, & the Premiere League are dead set against it. Once FFP is looked at through the eyes of UK Law, it doesn't stand a chance. In what other sphere of business isn't a wealthy owner not allowed to invest what he likes into his business?

There's a lot more to our situation, but I've tried to give you the most concise answer I can without explaining chapter & verse, going back to the beginning of our charges in 2009.

We just want to play football, but our fans have been forced to become lay-accountants merely to understand our situation. Hopefully this helps. )(

Great summary but I think the Welsh Rag has hooked you

 

[malg]

15 years of distraction and unsettling tactics.
We still battered them all and won the lot. God help them when this is all put to bed. What can we achieve when we're just focusing on football? Looking forward to it.

I still go back to the the takeover and the start to all the bullshit. All the nonsense around 'you can't buy success' then the second we won the FA Cup 'fucking bought'.

They should have known these very, very astute businessmen had a long term plan - the issue appears to be the region of the world they are from. I'm still stunned that some of the more Liberal press in the country haven't questioned some of the comments about our owners and the overtly critical references to which part of the world they come from.

 

[meltonblue]

If they can't establish fraud, then they can't win in the long term

If they find us guilty under the balance of probabilities, with the overriding inference of fraud, than City are able to take this to a proper Court.

Prem are caught between pulling the guillotine but also putting their own head in with ours.

Would have thought it more likely Etihad and Etisalat would be taking them to court tbh. If they find us guilty of the allegations around the sponsorships, then it’s more them they’re accusing of fraud and also saying their chief execs are guilty of perjury given what they said at CAS.

 

[cheekybids]

The charging of Everton and Forest means our case now has to go through to it's full conclusion. Imagine the uproar if it's not

The full conclusion can be that’s it’s been reviewed & theres fuck all evidence to answer.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

The charging of Everton and Forest means our case now has to go through to it's full conclusion. Imagine the uproar if it's not

It’ll be interesting to see. You may well be right but I do think there is a narrative being established (slowly) that our case is completely different. Masters would have to go if our case was dropped or the charges diluted.

 

[Ducado]

Pay no attention mate. We've a problem on this forum with ManUre fans joining & posing as City fans, so there's a unhinged level of paranoia with some around here. I take people as I find until they give me a reason to believe otherwise.

It's not cut & dried pal. In 2018/19, we faced the same charges with UEFA as we do now, were found guilty, fined £30m & given a 2 year Champions League ban, which was suspended, pending our appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

On appeal, CAS found us not guilty on all charges, aside from non-cooperation for which we were fined £10m.

Because of our 2014 experience with UEFA/G14, City decided it was pointless showing our hand to them during their investigation stage again, as they would use our evidence to amend their accusations & rules to nail us, exactly as they did in 2014. Yup! That's exactly what they did, hence the zero trust between City & UEFA/G14.

UEFA made their accusations against us based on 6 emails, from over 5 million stolen from us by the notorious Portuguese hacker Rui Pinto.

Of the six emails revealed by the German rag Der Spiegel, two were spliced together from various emails sent a couple of years apart, which gave an out of context view of a sponsorship deal we had with Etisalat.

Once the original emails were viewed with an explanation from City, CAS quickly realised UEFA/G14 had zero actual evidence to backup their claims that our owner injected equity funding into City, disguised as sponsorship.

Essentially what happened was the telecommunications giant Etisalat had a sponsorship agreement with City worth £15m per season over its duration. In 2012/13, we needed to show that money in our account to comply with FFP, so asked Etisalat if they could pay it ahead of schedule.

They couldn’t, but agreed if it could be paid by a bridging loan, they'd be fine with that as they could settle that loan when the original payment schedule ended.

One of the internal City emails between two executives discussed this & it was stated if HRH could source the bridging loan on Etisalat's behalf. Enter UAE financier Jaber Mohammed, who struck a bridging loan deal with Etisalat.

Mohammed paid £15m in 2012 & £15m in 2013 to City which helped us meet FFP. In 2015 when Etisalat's deal ended, they paid Jaber Mohammed back & satisfied the terms of the bridging loan agreement.

Hopefully you're still following me up to this point? :-)

HOWEVER, when this stolen email came to the attention of UEFA/G14, they accused City of getting our owner Sheikh Mansour to pay Jaber Mohammed, who paid City which they claim essentially meant Sheikh Mansour injected money into Manchester City, but disguised it as sponsorship funds from Etisalat.

When asked for evidence of this by CAS, UEFA/G14 didn't have any. They merely connected the dots & made the accusation on their balance of probabilities, based on zero physical evidence, hence why CAS threw their claim out & totally exonerated City.

There was also a claim that City paid part of Roberto Mancini's wages off the books again to circumnavigate FFP. Mancini had an consultancy agreement with ADUG (the company who own City Football Group) to act as a consultant to the Abu Dhabi Football Club - Al Jazira Club worth £1.7m per season.

This was all above board, but UEFA/G14 opined this was done to keep the £1.7m off the books to help City meet FFP requirements. Mancini was on £2m per season basic at City, plus generous bonuses, which pushed his wages closer to £5m per season, but UEFA/G14 still stuck by their claim & added this to City's list of breaches, but again offered zero actual evidence.

Essentially, UEFA/G14 were accusing the Abu Dhabi Royal Family, Roberto Mancini, Etisalat, Etihad Airways & several other high profile multinational companies & huge conglomerates of organised fraud on an industrial scale, BUT without using the word fraud, which would turn their FFP rule "breaches" into a criminal matter, therefore taking it out of their hands & into the hands of the law.

They've inferred all sorts, but never once dared use the word fraud, realising the ramifications if they did. They offered zero actual evidence either, which perfectly highlights the difference between their FFP "Rules" & UK Law.

Their FFP rules are essentially no different to the rules of a private members club. It's like them wanting to sanction a private club member for not washing up their teacup after use. That maybe their club rule, but not washing up your teacup isn't against UK Law.

This is why City are in favour of IREF, the Independent Regulator for English Football, & the Premiere League are dead set against it. Once FFP is looked at through the eyes of UK Law, it doesn't stand a chance. In what other sphere of business isn't a wealthy owner not allowed to invest what he likes into his business?

There's a lot more to our situation, but I've tried to give you the most concise answer I can without explaining chapter & verse, going back to the beginning of our charges in 2009.

We just want to play football, but our fans have been forced to become lay-accountants merely to understand our situation. Hopefully this helps. )(

Should be made a sticky at the top of the forum thanks for that

 

[Gordyola]

Do you think Khaldoon will ‘have his say’ as promised.

The context of "his say" will be entirely dependent upon the outcome of the IC

No case to answer he will say we have been vindicated in our stance that we did nothing wrong we now move on its the end of the matter and we now for the benefit of all

If the IC load punitive damages on the club then it will be all out war with City not having anything to loose in destroying the PL as we know it Pending an appeal