eastmanc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 6,925
- Team supported
- Manchester city
Wasn't this proven at CAS not to have been a problem?Mancini and Fordham will be time barred.
Wasn't this proven at CAS not to have been a problem?Mancini and Fordham will be time barred.
Iirc (not at my computer yet) Mancini was time barred at CAS and Fordham wasn't even mentioned by UEFA in 2019 presumably because it was part of the 2014 settlement, which rather blows the knowing concealment argument out of the water.Wasn't this proven at CAS not to have been a problem?
I thought that CAS said it was alright to have a different company deal with things like image rightsIirc (not at my computer yet) Mancini was time barred at CAS and Fordham wasn't even mentioned by UEFA in 2019 presumably because it was part of the 2014 settlement, which rather blows the knowing concealment argument out of the water.
Another great post from Super City From Maine Road. Text copied from Facebook.
NEWS:
Etihad Airways are preparing a stock market IPO (initial public offering) following a profitable performance in 2023.
This process would allow full disclosure of all financial accounts and transactions to potential investors.
This is very bad news for the Premier League, who have the Etihad sponsorship deal at City under scrutiny as part of their 115 charges.
If it came to light that Etihad executives were involved in manipulating the sponsorship deal with City, it could cause serious damage to the company’s reputation in the eyes of potential investors, if there are any skeletons in the closet, presenting the company accounts for IPO will uncover them.
Which begs the question… Why would Etihad Airways consider a move like this knowing it will have a negative impact on both Manchester City and themselves?
The answer is; they wouldn’t. Because they’ve done nothing wrong.
Etihad wouldn’t be willing to grant unfettered access into their financial affairs and corporate practices if it would uncover a smoking gun to prove fraud had been committed.
The Premier Leagues accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors, but also to UEFA and The Premier League. By extension, that also calls into question what information was disclosed by City’s owners to Silverlake before the American private equity firm bought a significant stake in the club in 2019. That’s why the Premier League’s allegations go way beyond accusing City of failing to meet Profit and Sustainability Rules.
Throw in the mix the stake purchased by a Chinese consortium and that makes five separate entities that City would have had to bare face lie to the entire time… How likely you think it is that our world class investment magnates would go to such deceptive lengths is entirely up to you.
I know where my money would be, and it wouldn’t be backing them to be frauds.
CAS have already ruled that any suggestion of a conspiracy involving executives of both City and Etihad, as well as high-ranking Abu Dhabi officials and even members of the country’s Royal Family was beyond the realms of possibility.
This is really really not going well for the Premier League, and all the millions of rival fans who are not privy to this information (by choice) are going to be a sight to see. Stock up on popcorn blues, it’s going to be BIBLICAL.
Ave itttttt hahaAnother great post from Super City From Maine Road. Text copied from Facebook.
NEWS:
Etihad Airways are preparing a stock market IPO (initial public offering) following a profitable performance in 2023.
This process would allow full disclosure of all financial accounts and transactions to potential investors.
This is very bad news for the Premier League, who have the Etihad sponsorship deal at City under scrutiny as part of their 115 charges.
If it came to light that Etihad executives were involved in manipulating the sponsorship deal with City, it could cause serious damage to the company’s reputation in the eyes of potential investors, if there are any skeletons in the closet, presenting the company accounts for IPO will uncover them.
Which begs the question… Why would Etihad Airways consider a move like this knowing it will have a negative impact on both Manchester City and themselves?
The answer is; they wouldn’t. Because they’ve done nothing wrong.
Etihad wouldn’t be willing to grant unfettered access into their financial affairs and corporate practices if it would uncover a smoking gun to prove fraud had been committed.
The Premier Leagues accusation is that City executives have colluded with officials from Etihad and have lied not only to the club’s independent auditors, but also to UEFA and The Premier League. By extension, that also calls into question what information was disclosed by City’s owners to Silverlake before the American private equity firm bought a significant stake in the club in 2019. That’s why the Premier League’s allegations go way beyond accusing City of failing to meet Profit and Sustainability Rules.
Throw in the mix the stake purchased by a Chinese consortium and that makes five separate entities that City would have had to bare face lie to the entire time… How likely you think it is that our world class investment magnates would go to such deceptive lengths is entirely up to you.
I know where my money would be, and it wouldn’t be backing them to be frauds.
CAS have already ruled that any suggestion of a conspiracy involving executives of both City and Etihad, as well as high-ranking Abu Dhabi officials and even members of the country’s Royal Family was beyond the realms of possibility.
This is really really not going well for the Premier League, and all the millions of rival fans who are not privy to this information (by choice) are going to be a sight to see. Stock up on popcorn blues, it’s going to be BIBLICAL.
I thought that CAS said it was alright to have a different company deal with things like image rights
Wasn't this proven at CAS not to have been a problem?
Most modern sectors of business embrace change rather than resist it.Well united’s plainly have as they’ve had a change in their ownership model and there’s definitely been an attempt at a detente by Ratcliffe.
They may (individually or collectively) have concerns about meeting P&S and want tbe system completely overhauled and see our charges as a hinderance to that. They may have come to the realisation that the fishing expedition is going to bear no fruit. They may be of the view that the charges have reached the limit of their effectiveness.
Could be loads of possible reasons. Things change, priorities can change all the time. It’s just a fact of life.
Not sure mate.Mancini and Fordham will be time barred.
Only if they were knowingly concealed, I think.Not sure mate.
Isn't it six years from when the allegations became known about ( as opposed to when the allegations occurred) ?
I wish I knew the answer to that question. One would think not, but who knows? How old are these gents? Is there an amount sufficient enough to send someone off into the sunset?I should be worried RE our 115 case if the UEFA appointed person was the equivelant of a KC yet still was partisan in his verdict.
Would the PL appointed panelists really risk their careers to find us guilty if our evidence was clearly contrary to that verdict,?