PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

Fair enough. Can one of the parties present new evidence with leave of the appeals panel if some new evidence has "come to light"?

Only if they really couldn’t have found it before. Limited process for new evidence

 

[slbsn]

It probably isn't so simple one way or the other. The Open Skies document alleges that the AD government paid the sponsorship, which is where the ADEC thought comes from, I think.

But, at the end of the day, both can be true. 8 million could be paid out of the cash resources of Etihad and the remainder could have been forwarded from ADEC to Etihad specifically to fund the sponsorship. So Etihad would have paid all the sponsorship as Pearce said, but the vast majority would have had to be arranged from ADEC, as the emails said.

Context is everything.

Edit: And if the allegations are anything like UEFA, they aren't questioning that Etihad paid the full amount, anyway. The allegation is that the majority was funded into Etihad by ADUG/ Mansour for which, I expect, they will have no evidence at all.

The CAS witness evidence on this was broad and unequivocal:

Mr James Hogan, former President and CEO of Etihad: “The sponsorship obligations were paid out of Etihad’s own funds”

Mr Simon Pearce, Non-Executive Director of MCFC: "Neither ADUG nor [HHSM] funded any of Etihad’s sponsorship obligations”

Mr Ahmed Ali Al Sayegh, Board Member of Etihad Aviation Group and Chairman of the Board Finance and Investment Committee:

"[Etihad] did not receive any payments from ADUG or [HHSM] or any person or entity controlled or influenced by them, whether directly or indirectly in relation to any of the Sponsorship Agreements, whether by way of advance funding or subsequent reimbursement."



Mr Henning Zur Hausen, General Counsel and
Company Secretary of Etihad Aviation Group:

"All sponsorship fees payable by the Company under the Sponsorship Agreements have been and are being paid from the [Etihad’s] general funds and from sources available to the Company…[Etihad] did not receive any payments from [ADUG] or [HHSM] in relation to any of the Sponsorship Agreements.

Mr Tony Douglas, then Group Chief Executive Officer of Etihad, now CEO of Riyadh Air confirmed that Mr Zur Hausen's evidence was entirely correct and stated:

"For the avoidance of doubt, I also confirm that the sources available to the [Etihad] have never included (whether directly or indirectly) [ADUG], [HHSM], or any person or entity controlled or influenced by them.....I confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that [Etihad] has never received any money whatsoever from [ADUG] or [HHSM] or any person or entity controlled or influenced by them, whether directly or indirectly."

Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan in writing confirmed:

“I can confirm that I have not authorised ADUG to make any payments to Etihad, Etisalat or any of their affiliates in relation to their sponsorship of [MCFC], nor have I authorised or arranged or anyone else to make any such payments to them. I can also confirm that I have not made any such payments myself."

 

[Saddleworth2]

It was probably me but I'd ignored the Etihad/Etisalat sponsorships because there not a hope in hell of those being found in breach of the PL rules in my opinion. CAS made sure of that and the PL would have to have solid evidence that a load of people lied at CAS to overturn that.

Fordham was probably in the region of £12/13m a year for three years (2013/14 to 2015/16) and Mancini's contract was for £1.75m a year for the years 2009/10 to 2012/13.

So never more than £13m in any one year.

That’s around what I thought - a relatively small amount. Makes this nonsense even more unbelievable. I wonder if this view is agreed by our other experts?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

That wouldn't be a breach. The club's financial position was reasonably sound in the years covered by the allegations. So, even if they find in favour of the PL on everything except Etihad, including Etisalat, it's not a problem for FFP I don't think.

Thanks. What a farce this case has become

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks. Bloody hell relegated for breaching about £13m each year. Not much of a sporting advantage there. Masters and his pals have lost their minds. Imagine the legal costs to pursue all this.

Exactly. In the worst case scenario, if the Fordham charges were proven, I'd even question whether they could claim we'd had a sporting advantage from that. And let's not forget that they pursued this case, where the most financially advantageous alleged transactions, including the Etihad sponsorship, had already been knocked back by the world's pre-eminent sporting legal body.

It's like facing a trial for murder in the USA, where it was comprehensively proven that you were nowhere near the murder scene at the time and couldn't have done it, then being put on trial for exactly the same offence in the UK. You'd need compelling new evidence to pull that off.

Given that the sponsorship charges are by far the most serious (in terms of what we're alleged to have done and the numbers involved) you'd need pretty damning evidence to prove these in the light of what transpired at CAS. And if they did have that, I'm pretty sure this case would have been done and dusted a long time ago. The other two issues (Fordham & Mancini) largely appear to be window-dressing and if you had us bang to rights on the sponsorship/false accounting stuff, you'd not really need those would you?

 

[Delboy352]

Well…where else were we going to sit eh??

 

[WRicko]

That wouldn't be a breach. The club's financial position was reasonably sound in the years covered by the allegations. So, even if they find in favour of the PL on everything except Etihad, including Etisalat, it's not a problem for FFP I don't think.

It’s hard to remember exactly what our position was the allegations cover such a long period. Media narrative is probably making even me think that we had massive losses until like last year. I know allowable losses are very significant. Are you able to do a bit more of a deep dive and take out say the 13 ish million mentioned in other comments and see what our profits losses would be in the period in question and weather it would be a pass or fail on FFP.

Would there be an argument that even if no supporting advantage or FFP fail 13 million amounts to enough difference in accounts to be fraudulent / false accounting etc

 

[halfcenturyup]

The CAS witness evidence on this was broad and unequivocal:

Mr James Hogan, former President and CEO of Etihad: “The sponsorship obligations were paid out of Etihad’s own funds”

Mr Simon Pearce, Non-Executive Director of MCFC: "Neither ADUG nor [HHSM] funded any of Etihad’s sponsorship obligations”

Mr Ahmed Ali Al Sayegh, Board Member of Etihad Aviation Group and Chairman of the Board Finance and Investment Committee:

"[Etihad] did not receive any payments from ADUG or [HHSM] or any person or entity controlled or influenced by them, whether directly or indirectly in relation to any of the Sponsorship Agreements, whether by way of advance funding or subsequent reimbursement."



Mr Henning Zur Hausen, General Counsel and
Company Secretary of Etihad Aviation Group:

"All sponsorship fees payable by the Company under the Sponsorship Agreements have been and are being paid from the [Etihad’s] general funds and from sources available to the Company…[Etihad] did not receive any payments from [ADUG] or [HHSM] in relation to any of the Sponsorship Agreements.

Mr Tony Douglas, then Group Chief Executive Officer of Etihad, now CEO of Riyadh Air confirmed that Mr Zur Hausen's evidence was entirely correct and stated:

"For the avoidance of doubt, I also confirm that the sources available to the [Etihad] have never included (whether directly or indirectly) [ADUG], [HHSM], or any person or entity controlled or influenced by them.....I confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that [Etihad] has never received any money whatsoever from [ADUG] or [HHSM] or any person or entity controlled or influenced by them, whether directly or indirectly."

Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan in writing confirmed:

“I can confirm that I have not authorised ADUG to make any payments to Etihad, Etisalat or any of their affiliates in relation to their sponsorship of [MCFC], nor have I authorised or arranged or anyone else to make any such payments to them. I can also confirm that I have not made any such payments myself."

I know. None of that says the allegedly "indirect" payment to Etihad could have come from ADEC, which was my point.

 

[Super-Barwuah]

Well…where else were we going to sit eh??View attachment 129623

I'd name the new hotel
Hotel 115 or 115 stories high

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Exactly. In the worst case scenario, if the Fordham charges were proven, I'd even question whether they could claim we'd had a sporting advantage from that. And let's not forget that they pursued this case, where the most financially advantageous alleged transactions, including the Etihad sponsorship, had already been knocked back by the world's pre-eminent sporting legal body.

It's like facing a trial for murder in the USA, where it was comprehensively proven that you were nowhere near the murder scene at the time and couldn't have done it, then being put on trial for exactly the same offence in the UK. You'd need compelling new evidence to pull that off.

Given that the sponsorship charges are by far the most serious (in terms of what we're alleged to have done and the numbers involved) you'd need pretty damning evidence to prove these in the light of what transpired at CAS. And if they did have that, I'm pretty sure this case would have been done and dusted a long time ago. The other two issues (Fordham & Mancini) largely appear to be window-dressing and if you had us bang to rights on the sponsorship/false accounting stuff, you'd not really need those would you?

The club were fined £49 million in 2014 bu Uefa and £8.5 awarded to them as a result of non cooperation via CAS. What ever advantages they believed City gained from Etisalat and two payments of £15 million. Financially City have more than paid the advantage back which would have resulted in less investment in the playing squad as a result. What sporting advantage would have been gained from that?

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

I am convinced that every single action/non-action the club has taken since 115 day has been based entirely on expert legal advice. From my point of view when this shit show is concluded I hope we see some more pro-active legal action. Without doubt those journalists (Harris, Panja etc) who have have repeatedly accused Simon Pearce of committing perjury at CAS should be receiving some special letters via recorded delivery.

Then again, the legal advice maybe "What is your objective ?, if its just revenge forget it, it could be a PR disaster"

Personally I would absolutely pursue it 100%, but Simon Pearce may not give a flying fcuk.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

The media have to be extremely careful with how they report upon this because this goes beyond football.

They need to remember soon that they're not taking on Manchester City, they're taking on a country, a country with unlimited resources and fingers in pies beyond football. Our owners are not businessmen who need to submit to newspapers, they're more like rich kings who could quite honestly buy them out and close them down.

The Middle Eastern countries don't mess about with this sort of thing and the UK government will be watching this closely. Public embarassment of the UAE is not an option because the inevitable consequence is the loss of billions of future overseas investment in the UK and especially Manchester specifically.

If you pop over to the media thread you will see thousands of examples of the toxic media reporting on City over the past 14 or so years.

The media haven’t been ‘extremely careful’ over those 14 years so I’m pretty sure it ain’t gonna change now.

As for the UK Government getting involved, that ship sailed the day the 115 charges were announced last year.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

I am convinced that every single action/non-action the club has taken since 115 day has been based entirely on expert legal advice. From my point of view when this shit show is concluded I hope we see some more pro-active legal action. Without doubt those journalists (Harris, Panja etc) who have have repeatedly accused Simon Pearce of committing perjury at CAS should be receiving some special letters via recorded delivery.

Then again, the legal advice maybe "What is your objective ?, if its just revenge forget it, it could be a PR disaster"

Personally I would absolutely pursue it 100%, but Simon Pearce may not give a flying fcuk.

Panja has an interesting way in which be posts on Twitter. Always posts sarcastic innuendo - which opens the floodgates for his followers to post the more direct libellous accusations.

See him do it so many times in relation to our sponsorships, revenue or success.

 

[JASR]

So never more than £13m in any one year.

Only 6 years to take it up to United’s £40m+£35m ‘special’ single year allowances…
There’s ‘sportswashing’ then there’s united corruption at 500+% that level.

 

[Stoned Rose]

The media have to be extremely careful with how they report upon this because this goes beyond football.

They need to remember soon that they're not taking on Manchester City, they're taking on a country, a country with unlimited resources and fingers in pies beyond football. Our owners are not businessmen who need to submit to newspapers, they're more like rich kings who could quite honestly buy them out and close them down.

The Middle Eastern countries don't mess about with this sort of thing and the UK government will be watching this closely. Public embarassment of the UAE is not an option because the inevitable consequence is the loss of billions of future overseas investment in the UK and especially Manchester specifically.

These kinds of posts are utter bollocks.

None of the above will mean a thing if there is ample evidence of rules being breached.

There’s either ample evidence or there isn’t.

If there is we’ll be punished, regardless of the UAE or kings on camelback or any other such imaginary nonsense.

 

[slbsn]

I know. None of that says the allegedly "indirect" payment to Etihad could have come from ADEC, which was my point.

Not really. You suggest that between the evidence was a gap for remainder to have been forwarded from ADEC (I’ve no idea who ADEC are) to Etihad specifically to fund the sponsorship. Hogan said “The sponsorship obligations were paid out of Etihad’s own funds” and lots of people said no SM or ADUG entity directly or indirectly paid for the sponsorship. So maybe ADEC funded Etihad in some way but it would be irrelevant and the evidence is it was unconnected to the sponsorship.

 

[CC1]

The media have to be extremely careful with how they report upon this because this goes beyond football.

They need to remember soon that they're not taking on Manchester City, they're taking on a country, a country with unlimited resources and fingers in pies beyond football. Our owners are not businessmen who need to submit to newspapers, they're more like rich kings who could quite honestly buy them out and close them down.

The Middle Eastern countries don't mess about with this sort of thing and the UK government will be watching this closely. Public embarassment of the UAE is not an option because the inevitable consequence is the loss of billions of future overseas investment in the UK and especially Manchester specifically.

I think you’ll find that not only does it NOT go beyond football - it doesn’t even go beyond the PL. If we’re cleared of all charges it’s because we’re innocent - NOT because we have an owner who is related to royalty. And I say that on purpose because we are NOT state owned.

 

[bluekeith]

Not really. You suggest that between the evidence was a gap for remainder to have been forwarded from ADEC (I’ve no idea who ADEC are) to Etihad specifically to fund the sponsorship. Hogan said “The sponsorship obligations were paid out of Etihad’s own funds” and lots of people said no SM or ADUG entity directly or indirectly paid for the sponsorship. So maybe ADEC funded Etihad in some way but it would be irrelevant and the evidence is it was unconnected to the sponsorship.

I seem to remember that Etihad were given a cash boost to help them pay sponsorships
Etihad sponsor more than City there is the formula 1 and a Etihad stadium in Australia

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s hard to remember exactly what our position was the allegations cover such a long period. Media narrative is probably making even me think that we had massive losses until like last year. I know allowable losses are very significant. Are you able to do a bit more of a deep dive and take out say the 13 ish million mentioned in other comments and see what our profits losses would be in the period in question and weather it would be a pass or fail on FFP.

Would there be an argument that even if no supporting advantage or FFP fail 13 million amounts to enough difference in accounts to be fraudulent / false accounting etc

The most serious allegation as far as I know is that the company didn't file accounts that give a true and fair view. A combination of that and other allegations imply fraudulent behaviour but that isn't referred to in any of the rules breached specifically.

In terms of the accounts and true and fair, if they don't land Etihad (and I don't see how they can) then the rest (PB's 13 million plus maybe 1 more for Touré) isn't at all significant enough to change the view given by the accounts. All imho.

In terms of FFP, the first three year period included 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. The profits (losses) before tax for those three years were (23 million), 11 million and 20 million, so 8 million profit for the three years.

Later years were 2016/17 nil, 2017/18 10 million. So for the three year rolling periods 2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17 the total would be 31 million, and for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18 the total would be 30 million. These are three rolling periods referred to in the referral to the IP. Remembering to add back disallowable costs and then I can't see how anything will give the club FFP problems except for the IP finding for the PL on Etihad, which I would imagine is hugely unlikely based on what we think we know.

Hope that helps and, again, all imho.

 

[Grassland Blue]

Thanks. Bloody hell relegated for breaching about £13m each year. Not much of a sporting advantage there. Masters and his pals have lost their minds. Imagine the legal costs to pursue all this.

And yet the PL allow the rags a £75m overspend - no questions asked.
Oh, and what about the £50m hole in Stanley Park for the dippers new stadium?
Where is the inquisition over these issues?