This is a valid question.Does he actually mention anywhere in his piece the (very high) possibility that we will be cleared … and what will happen then
The CAS hearing was scheduled for 3 days, 5 days or a week, I cant remember which. But really once the panel had seen UEFA'S evidence it lasted 15 minutes and most of that was trying to read the spliced emails from Der Speigal as the sellotape had smudged the words. Dont worry, support City and if we get to see new grounds next season look on it as an adventure;-)I just can't see that we're going to come out of a 10-week hearing smelling of roses. They'll get us for something, question is what exactly?
Given the severity of the charges, and the potential penalties,I would say beyond reasonable doubt.I have just googled this:
“Matters requiring proof must be established to the appropriate standard, namely either on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt.
In civil cases, the appropriate standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (or, in other words, whether the tribunal of fact is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the relevant facts occurred). In criminal cases, the appropriate standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (or, in other words, whether the tribunal of fact can be sure that the relevant facts have been proved).”
So, does anyone know where the standard of proof lies here? To me this sounds like a civil case, criminal sentencing is not on the line here, just the application of internal rules between a ruling body and its members. Of course our owners have clearly said they have irrefutable evidence proving our innocence and I have no reason to disbelieve that hence the answer to the question is immaterial, but it is important to understand.
An appalling 3rd kit.I just can't see that we're going to come out of a 10-week hearing smelling of roses. They'll get us for something, question is what exactly?
Also the mantra of City being a state owned/funded club seems to have been kicked into the long grass......It is rather interesting that there's absolutely no media discussing the case as to why City maybe aren't guilty
It’s understandable as every media outlet does this, but reading other far more knowledgeable posters these are rule breaches. A charge is a legal term for common or crown laws? If the most serious of the rule breaches are upheld then surely criminal proceedings would follow resulting in charges. That’s the reason behind my optimism. If they had smoking gun evidence they would have dicked us over by now.Given the severity of the charges, and the potential penalties,I would say beyond reasonable doubt.
The charges are effectively saying we have committed fraud along with the auditors and several CEOs of global companies.
But I’m not the only oneI’ve been thinking for some time that a counter claim would make life very interesting. Under the PL rules, the PL and all clubs must act in good faith to all clubs in the PL.
Right at the beginning of this saga, I suggested that our legal team should ask some pointed questions on how much the PL consulted the redshirts before preferring the charges. (Any emails available?)
Hands up all those who think the redshirts and the PL have acted in good faith towards us.
A failure to show good faith would not only weaken the PL case, but would also open the door to an appeal to the high court and such a finding would make a great introduction to the IC’s ratio when they find us innocent.
You may say that I’m a dreamer…..
hi Khaldoon, are you looking forward to the new 5easonMy feelings on this are exactly the same as they were before the latest round of media hit job pieces in the Athletic by the buck toothed rag and other outlets.
1. Etihad
I believe they have nothing but the emails and all of those (including the full run, so some not used by UEFA referred to by "Magic Twat" on X as some kind of silver bullet) are insufficient on their own to prove the actual conduct they partly infer took place. City and Etihad Bank statements, accounts and documents with additional testimony from senior management involved in the transactions of both parties, acting as rebuttal evidence, sufficiently prove the monies came from Etihad central funds and ADEC - NOT ADUG.
54 of the charges fail if the PL cannot prove this.
2. Etisalat
The subject of Piers Morgans' wet dream youtube programme and supposed mystery man and the loaned 30 million is a red herring. The monies are properly accounted for in everyone's expense and receivables (incoming and outgoing accounts) as a loan from an intermediary as a method of up front sponsorship payment when only pre contract agreements were in place. In any event without proof of fraud these will AGAIN be outside any limitation period. This time by the 6 year limitation applied by UK law, not 5 year UEFA rule.
3. Aabar / AD Tourist Board
Prior to the 2014 UEFA NDA sanction agreement (the pinch) these 2nd tier two sponsorships were alleged by UEFA to be above FMV. i believe also alleged by UEFA to be related parties. Whilst City are on record dissenting those UEFA opinions the sponsorship values were adjusted down and accepted going forward. Nothing to see here and no indication the PL are interested in either sponsorship value.
4. Fordham Ltd (image rights)
A temporary company vehicle created to generate approx 25 million income by the centralisation and purchase of player image rights from City when we desperately needed supplementary revenue. Like selling a hotel to yourself, it was creative accounting to generate income. There was no skullduggary it was a loophole we used to boost the coffers so as not to fail the 3 year deficit allowance. It was shut down subsequently and image rights given / sold back to club or players. HMRC seemed happy it wasn't used to evade tax as was the case at other clubs, so again, seemingly nothing to see here.
5. Mancini / Toure - remuneration
The PL have to prove that City did not declare the money paid to Mancini, 1.75 mill per annum, by the Abu Dhabi football club Al Jazeera Sports Cultural Club through Sparkleglow Ltd (a Mancini owned company) arranged by ADUG was part of his City remuneration package. If there are separate employment contracts whose obligations are agreed and met by both parties it is difficult to see how it can be proved by the PL. There also seems some confusion as to if the PL are trying to a) include this remuneration money as part of the charge of "failing to submit accurate fincial information" for those years it was paid up to 2013. Clearly it would appear these annual amounts, if proven to be such as alleged, would likely be insufficient to create a "false financial picture" of the accounts on their own.
Or b) simply imply it was omitted from Mancinis full salary declarations by City which is a breach of a current rule in the PL handbook but unsure if it breaches such a rule, if proven, from 2011- 2013.
The inclusion of Toure seems somewhat of an anomaly here and I'm unsure where the link to him comes from the list of PL charges. It seems to come from the media in the wake of the allegations however not all media outlets include Toure in any overview of the charges. Where he does appear it seems a generic inclusion in accusations of image rights payments although his agent, Seluk, like Mancini, deny both any wrongdoing or that they have been approached by the PL for either a statement or comments.
The whole thing seems a stretch by the PL and considering the sums involved in comparison to the main charges a spaghetti against the wall overreach.
6. None co-operation
Due to the seriousness of these charges City have quite rightly argued every point of law where doubt has arisen. For one, City appealed that the Independant Panel was not the appropriate venue for such serious matters to be decided. Although the courts have ruled against City in most, if not all our appeals, City have clearly laid a marker that they will not take any adverse decision lightly. However no appeal for court decisions can be deemed to be none co-operation. There are other Internet myths propagated by the likes of Simon Jordan that City appealed the inclusion of Murray Rosen on the panel as he is an Arsenal supporter and Season Ticket holder. Made all the more ridiculous by the fact that Citys primary advocate KC, Lord Pannick is also an Arsenal fan and supporter.
City say they have co-operated by the sheer volume of material supplied to the PL that rebutts their allegations but the details of alleged none co-operation by the PL are not listed and each (35 at least) will be argued out in front of the panel and it will be for them to decide such matters.
In any event if in some matters City have been none co-operative it will have been on legal advice for good reason and we would have to face the financial penalty for so doing. There is no sporting advantage from such breaches therefore no sporting sanction (points reduction etc) can be attributed to those charges.
So in summing up I am unmoved from my original position which I took some time ago that I am confident that the serious charges are unlikely to be proven and the other matters seem wishy washy at best. We'll all have to wait and see.
I believe our Chairman and Chief Exec when they say we've done nothing wrong.
If we come out of this relatively unscathed as I suspect, I want some fucking heads on sticks, starting with that **** Masters.
We should be relentless in going after media wankers who want to continue the no smoke without fire narrative. I'd like to see us make an example of a gobshite like Collymore or Aldridge even Goldbridge (yes you Brent) who can't keep their traps shut and think they are beyond reach.
This whole fiasco has been a media witchunt, an enormous smear campaign against the club and its fans over 10 years. Let's not get mad, let's get even!
My feelings on this are exactly the same as they were before the latest round of media hit job pieces in the Athletic by the buck toothed rag and other outlets.
1. Etihad
I believe they have nothing but the emails and all of those (including the full run, so some not used by UEFA referred to by "Magic Twat" on X as some kind of silver bullet) are insufficient on their own to prove the actual conduct they partly infer took place. City and Etihad Bank statements, accounts and documents with additional testimony from senior management involved in the transactions of both parties, acting as rebuttal evidence, sufficiently prove the monies came from Etihad central funds and ADEC - NOT ADUG.
54 of the charges fail if the PL cannot prove this.
2. Etisalat
The subject of Piers Morgans' wet dream youtube programme and supposed mystery man and the loaned 30 million is a red herring. The monies are properly accounted for in everyone's expense and receivables (incoming and outgoing accounts) as a loan from an intermediary as a method of up front sponsorship payment when only pre contract agreements were in place. In any event without proof of fraud these will AGAIN be outside any limitation period. This time by the 6 year limitation applied by UK law, not 5 year UEFA rule.
3. Aabar / AD Tourist Board
Prior to the 2014 UEFA NDA sanction agreement (the pinch) these 2nd tier two sponsorships were alleged by UEFA to be above FMV. i believe also alleged by UEFA to be related parties. Whilst City are on record dissenting those UEFA opinions the sponsorship values were adjusted down and accepted going forward. Nothing to see here and no indication the PL are interested in either sponsorship value.
4. Fordham Ltd (image rights)
A temporary company vehicle created to generate approx 25 million income by the centralisation and purchase of player image rights from City when we desperately needed supplementary revenue. Like selling a hotel to yourself, it was creative accounting to generate income. There was no skullduggary it was a loophole we used to boost the coffers so as not to fail the 3 year deficit allowance. It was shut down subsequently and image rights given / sold back to club or players. HMRC seemed happy it wasn't used to evade tax as was the case at other clubs, so again, seemingly nothing to see here.
5. Mancini / Toure - remuneration
The PL have to prove that City did not declare the money paid to Mancini, 1.75 mill per annum, by the Abu Dhabi football club Al Jazeera Sports Cultural Club through Sparkleglow Ltd (a Mancini owned company) arranged by ADUG was part of his City remuneration package. If there are separate employment contracts whose obligations are agreed and met by both parties it is difficult to see how it can be proved by the PL. There also seems some confusion as to if the PL are trying to a) include this remuneration money as part of the charge of "failing to submit accurate fincial information" for those years it was paid up to 2013. Clearly it would appear these annual amounts, if proven to be such as alleged, would likely be insufficient to create a "false financial picture" of the accounts on their own.
Or b) simply imply it was omitted from Mancinis full salary declarations by City which is a breach of a current rule in the PL handbook but unsure if it breaches such a rule, if proven, from 2011- 2013.
The inclusion of Toure seems somewhat of an anomaly here and I'm unsure where the link to him comes from the list of PL charges. It seems to come from the media in the wake of the allegations however not all media outlets include Toure in any overview of the charges. Where he does appear it seems a generic inclusion in accusations of image rights payments although his agent, Seluk, like Mancini, deny both any wrongdoing or that they have been approached by the PL for either a statement or comments.
The whole thing seems a stretch by the PL and considering the sums involved in comparison to the main charges a spaghetti against the wall overreach.
6. None co-operation
Due to the seriousness of these charges City have quite rightly argued every point of law where doubt has arisen. For one, City appealed that the Independant Panel was not the appropriate venue for such serious matters to be decided. Although the courts have ruled against City in most, if not all our appeals, City have clearly laid a marker that they will not take any adverse decision lightly. However no appeal for court decisions can be deemed to be none co-operation. There are other Internet myths propagated by the likes of Simon Jordan that City appealed the inclusion of Murray Rosen on the panel as he is an Arsenal supporter and Season Ticket holder. Made all the more ridiculous by the fact that Citys primary advocate KC, Lord Pannick is also an Arsenal fan and supporter.
City say they have co-operated by the sheer volume of material supplied to the PL that rebutts their allegations but the details of alleged none co-operation by the PL are not listed and each (35 at least) will be argued out in front of the panel and it will be for them to decide such matters.
In any event if in some matters City have been none co-operative it will have been on legal advice for good reason and we would have to face the financial penalty for so doing. There is no sporting advantage from such breaches therefore no sporting sanction (points reduction etc) can be attributed to those charges.
So in summing up I am unmoved from my original position which I took some time ago that I am confident that the serious charges are unlikely to be proven and the other matters seem wishy washy at best. We'll all have to wait and see.
I believe our Chairman and Chief Exec when they say we've done nothing wrong.
If we come out of this relatively unscathed as I suspect, I want some fucking heads on sticks, starting with that **** Masters.
We should be relentless in going after media wankers who want to continue the no smoke without fire narrative. I'd like to see us make an example of a gobshite like Collymore or Aldridge even Goldbridge (yes you Brent) who can't keep their traps shut and think they are beyond reach.
This whole fiasco has been a media witchunt, an enormous smear campaign against the club and its fans over 10 years. Let's not get mad, let's get even!
Running out of chips.I just can't see that we're going to come out of a 10-week hearing smelling of roses. They'll get us for something, question is what exactly?
Yep, the lot. Hard to imagine the unbridled excitement at Premier League HQ when that envelope dropped on the matt … or the look of realisation when they opened it!Surely not all of the A4 one side print out?
Allegedly;-)Running out of chips.
Just reinforces my causes for concern!!At CAS, the tradition is that the judges do not vote against the party that selected them. Seems bonkers but the German judge voted in favour of UEFA who selected him from the panel. Afterwards, a junior in that judges law firm wrote an article ‘proving’ we were guilty. They claimed there was no collusion between them. The article appeared in Der Spiegel.
Clear now? Ha.
At CAS, the tradition is that the judges do not vote against the party that selected them. Seems bonkers but the German judge voted in favour of UEFA who selected him from the panel. Afterwards, a junior in that judges law firm wrote an article ‘proving’ we were guilty. They claimed there was no collusion between them. The article appeared in Der Spiegel.
Clear now? Ha.
City have beaten everyone on the pitch and are close to beating everyone off it as well.Part of me says the game is dead anyway.
Once outcomes are decided by lawyers and accountants, what's the fucking point? The whole financial control side of football is utter bollocks.
It's 'Matt' I feel sorry for.Yep, the lot. Hard to imagine the unbridled excitement at Premier League HQ when that envelope dropped on the matt … or the look of realisation when they opened it!
Just reinforces my causes for concern!!
Why all this confidence that the same tradition does not apply here??
Yeah, I know ..... KCs etc, but....