Loving that statement. Robust and assured.
I'm a bit unsure on it. You're a legal man, so I'd be interested on your take on this.
Our initial statement made reference to "materials
purported to be hacked or stolen from Manchester City... ".
Initially we weren't even acknowledging that the emails were genuine.
The latest statement makes reference to the "publication of City emails". We're essentially accepting that the emails are genuine.
Our defence is now following the line that they were published "out of context".
Having read the emails published in Der Speigel, I'm struggling to see what the context could possibly be other than the obvious?
I accept the "His Highness" comment could be taken out of context.
But the emails from Simon Pearce referring to ADUG paying certain sums on sponsors behalf. The spreadsheets with ADUG's contribution listed. I'm struggling to see what the context of that could possibly be, other than what it initially appears.
Our statement goes on to say "the club's published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record".
This essentially says to me - City's accounts are legitimate, they've been independently audited. Which I'm sure is true.
The leaked emails clearly suggest ADUG (City's parent company at the time) was funding the sponsorship deals of Etihad, Aarbar etc.
I assume going off the IAS for Related Party Transactions, there is no issue with that, so City's accounts are still legitimate.
PBs assertion that the Etihad deal was judged fair value and so is fireproof seems to make sense.
But the other deals that were seemingly propped up - Aarbar, Etisalat etc were not judged as fair value.
But by the IAS definition, they are not considered Related Parties to Manchester City.
So the club's assertion that "the accusation of financial irregularities is entirely false" is again probably true in a legal sense.
It seems to me, the crux of this investigation is going to rest on whether UEFA can prove Aarbar, Etisalat etc are related parties.
City's defence will be, by IAS they are not.
UEFA's may well be that they have a different interpretation.
The tone of the statement to me seems to be suggesting that City have done what is being reported - essentially sponsoring ourselves. But that from a legal stand point we are confident we have done nothing wrong.
I would assume UEFA are unlikely to challenge that in a court. But they will probably have their nose put out of joint that we have not followed the "spirit" of the rules.
My concern is they will not want to be made a fool of and will want to take some kind of action against City in order to save face. I wouldn't put it past them to invent yet more bullshit arbitrary rules like a "failure to uphold the spirit of FFP and fully respect the superiority of UEFA 'Legacy' Clubs" Annex.
Just to clarify, I think FFP is an absolute joke and is anti-competitive and should be thrown out.
But it does appear to me that City have walked a very precarious tightrope to try to get around them. My concern is that UEFA, the ECA, and seemingly 12 vested interest PL clubs will be baying for blood for some action to be taken.
City may well be in the clear from a legal standpoint. But if the last 10 years has taught us anything, it's that UEFA are not averse to making up their own rules as they go along.
