PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[ChicagoBlue]

I’d hazard a guess Der Spiegel were provided the assignment as the original plan was to destroy us on the European stage.

Sadly, not out of the realm of possibilities.

The world is awash with filth but the media decides what the great unwashed should be angry about, behind that is someone deciding what the media should focus on.

Indeed! America is learning this more and more every day, but is asleep at the switch watching “Reality TV,” the latest “viral video” on Tik Tok, buying shit on Temu they don’t need because it’s cheaper today than it was yesterday, yet wondering why they’re not getting ahead in life and why China is such a threat?!

If anyone thinks the City emails were the biggest story on his hard drive, they weren’t even the biggest football story on his hard drive.

The worlds best footballer raped a woman & paid hush money, could no longer visit the USA & risk arrest meaning Madrid, Juve & the Rags couldn’t go there pre-season.

Messi? Rape? And, he never played for any of those teams?!

 

[bluestreak]

He can’t Handel the truth.

There should be some head Chopin happening in the near future.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

I'd say that statement is technically correct. The UEFA case centred on the fact that there were two separate payments; one of c£8m and another of c£52m. UEFA's assertion was that the £52m came from ADUG. The evidence presented at CAS was that it originated from "central marketing funds". The funds weee given to Etihad, who paid them to City.

So yes, technically speaking they came from Etihad.

I know what was said at CAS but that's not the point.


In August, based on the leaked Booz Allen document you said:

Anyone who's followed my postings on here will hopefully confirm that I already knew that, via a document that was in the public domain via a court in New York that was hearing a case under the 'Open Skies Agreement'. This was a presentation which was prepared for Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed and explicitly stated that the Etihad sponsorship was being paid by the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. That's why I was quite confident we would beat UEFA at CAS, and that we'll beat the main substantive PL charge.

So, how do you square that with the statement from the Etihad rebutal in the Open Skies exchanges? To repeat the statement, Eitihad responded to the claims by the 3 American airlines in a detailed 64 page document before the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State - Washington , DC with this included:

"The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English
Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester
City entered into a 10 year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester
City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity."

It is pretty clear to me that the 2nd statement trumps the first statement ie a legal document from Etihad over the leaked document from Booz Allen. Hence why I asked if you had seen the Etihad rebutal but you've not answered.


It is my opinion you contine to put too much weight on the Booz Allen document and you should just forget it!

 

[WRicko]

I know what was said at CAS but that's not the point.


In August, based on the leaked Booz Allen document you said:

Anyone who's followed my postings on here will hopefully confirm that I already knew that, via a document that was in the public domain via a court in New York that was hearing a case under the 'Open Skies Agreement'. This was a presentation which was prepared for Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed and explicitly stated that the Etihad sponsorship was being paid by the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. That's why I was quite confident we would beat UEFA at CAS, and that we'll beat the main substantive PL charge.

So, how do you square that with the statement from the Etihad rebutal in the Open Skies exchanges? To repeat the statement, Eitihad responded to the claims by the 3 American airlines in a detailed 64 page document before the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State - Washington , DC with this included:

"The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English
Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester
City entered into a 10 year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester
City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity."

It is pretty clear to me that the 2nd statement trumps the first statement ie a legal document from Etihad over the leaked document from Booz Allen. Hence why I asked if you had seen the Etihad rebutal but you've not answered.


It is my opinion you contine to put too much weight on the Booz Allen document and you should just forget it!

So City are guilty ?

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

So City are guilty ?

Not at all.

Just irritated that PB was was forcibly arguing Open Skies stuff again as a matter of fact when it's not imo for the reasons stated.

 

[lancs blue]

So City are guilty ?

Guilty of what, if Etihad provided the sponsorship monies from its own liquidity as stated above?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I know what was said at CAS but that's not the point.


In August, based on the leaked Booz Allen document you said:

Anyone who's followed my postings on here will hopefully confirm that I already knew that, via a document that was in the public domain via a court in New York that was hearing a case under the 'Open Skies Agreement'. This was a presentation which was prepared for Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed and explicitly stated that the Etihad sponsorship was being paid by the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. That's why I was quite confident we would beat UEFA at CAS, and that we'll beat the main substantive PL charge.

So, how do you square that with the statement from the Etihad rebutal in the Open Skies exchanges? To repeat the statement, Eitihad responded to the claims by the 3 American airlines in a detailed 64 page document before the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State - Washington , DC with this included:

"The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English
Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester
City entered into a 10 year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester
City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity."

It is pretty clear to me that the 2nd statement trumps the first statement ie a legal document from Etihad over the leaked document from Booz Allen. Hence why I asked if you had seen the Etihad rebutal but you've not answered.


It is my opinion you contine to put too much weight on the Booz Allen document and you should just forget it!

Isn't the relevant point that both of those statements and the evidence given at CAS can all be consistent? ADEC > Etihad (marketing budget / central funds) > City?

 

[KS55]

Isn't the relevant point that both of those statements and the evidence given at CAS can all be consistent? ADEC > Etihad (marketing budget / central funds) > City?

Yes and the emails from City made it clear that the funds had to come via Etihad, iirc. Every Russian club is funded in the same way, ie funds from the gov to a state owned company and on to the club. Emirates lost money for years but still managed to sponsor Arsenal with Dubai support.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Isn't the relevant point that both of those statements and the evidence given at CAS can all be consistent? ADEC > Etihad (marketing budget / central funds) > City?

Yes probably.

The open skies stuff triggers me now because it’s such old news and too much weight placed on it pre CAS imo.

Ignore and move on ;)

 

[give it to gordon]

Yes and the emails from City made it clear that the funds had to come via Etihad, iirc. Every Russian club is funded in the same way, ie funds from the gov to a state owned company and on to the club. Emirates lost money for years but still managed to sponsor Arsenal with Dubai support.

Hang on ! So Emirates Airways are state owned ?
But they sponsor gooners and the fa Cup