The problem is that the rules we've been charged under are very vague and subjective. How do you know when you've done something you believe is legitimate if you've failed to act in good faith?
I'm certain we didn't enter into any arrangement covered by the charges with the intent to deceive or mislead anyone.
- The Mancini contract wasn't done to hide expenses or otherwise improve our financial reports.
- The Fordham arrangement was to get revenue in. You could argue it was a dubious arrangement to sell IP to a seemingly connected third-party but Chelsea and others have sold tangible assets to connected parties without problems, so there was nothing intrinsically wrong with it. It wasn't done to hide expenses.
- We really aren't sure about the sponsorship charges but CAS determined the Etihad sponsorship wasn't disguised equity investment. And if we genuinely believed it (or any other Abu Dhabi-based sponsorship) wasn't a related party then we clearly haven't attempted to deceive anyone by not declaring it as such.
There have been many instances of people believing they've done something "in good faith" where subsequent events have meant they didn't. Tax law is one such area as are the many contract and commercial disputes that have ended up in court.
