From what you've said I as I understand it Etihad received money from the Abu Dhabi executive to cover it's sponsorship commitments, is that just our sponsorship or all Etihad sponsorship commitments? If it's more than just ours then surely we can point to it being how Etihad were operating with state backing, and wasn't unique to just City.
I was watching Prestwich Blue on a You Tube video yesterday and he repeated a point I had heard before, but made it a lot stronger...
(1 min 35 secs) PB reports that Omar Berrada, City's chief operating officer told him that Ceferin was trying to negotiate with City hoping to get City to accept a small fine. City refused.
PB went on to ask where that puts the primacy of UEFA's so called evidence based Adjudicatory Chamber? How can an organisation lurch from one sentence to another. They should follow their own dispute resolution rules. That does not appear to have been the case.
I think it's obvious why City rejected Ceferin's offer. They are confident that the CAS will throw out UEFA's case. PB was not so forthright.
Clearly though if City were made an offer by Ceferin and turned it down the implication is that we are very confident in the strength of our argument.
That's my understanding. If you read the emails one way (as Der Spiegel undoubtedly intended) you'd get the impression of money being shovelled around to disguise the fact that ADUG were directly paying the majority of the Etihad deal.
But when you understand that the ADEC was finding that deal, that 'HH' is not Sheikh Mansour and that City were asking for ADUG money to be kept separate from Etihad remittances then you could read thst in a very different light, namely that ADEC were sending money direct to ADUG but that City demanded ADUG split that up and send the appropriate funds via the sponsoring parties.
So on one hand there's an impression that City are breaking the rules while on the other that City are desperate to be seen not to be breaking the rules. And that's from the same emails but with a bit of context about who funded the Etihad deal.
Oh Christ, can we please keep the Executive Council abbrieviation to just EC, things are complicated enough without needing to pick apart ADUGs and ADECs!
The most important thing about the source of the Eithad money discussion is that there must be an irrefutable record of it, from the bank records. Money going from account A to account B. This should have been easy to disprove so either UEFA genuinely ignored the evidence as City say, or there's more to it.
Think in some way,he related/or had the same maths teacher as Dianna Abbott..
Both thick fkets..
I was watching Prestwich Blue on a You Tube video yesterday and he repeated a point I had heard before, but made it a lot stronger...
(1 min 35 secs) PB reports that Omar Berrada, City's chief operating officer told him that Ceferin was trying to negotiate with City hoping to get City to accept a small fine. City refused.
PB went on to ask where that puts the primacy of UEFA's so called evidence based Adjudicatory Chamber? How can an organisation lurch from one sentence to another. They should follow their own dispute resolution rules. That does not appear to have been the case.
I think it's obvious why City rejected Ceferin's offer. They are confident that the CAS will throw out UEFA's case. PB was not so forthright.
Clearly though if City were made an offer by Ceferin and turned it down the implication is that we are very confident in the strength of our argument.
If the stuff on Twitter is true... I assume you mean the information being discussed by City fans rather than the drivel been spouted by the KFA journos?If the stuff on Twitter is true this looks increasingly like a repeat of the PSG case with UEFA saying that our sponsorship values are overstated. I thought our sponsorships were broadly in line with those of the other large clubs in the PL and certainly far behind where PSGs ended up. This increasingly looks like a charge brought in anger rather than on the basis of facts. Can’t see how PSG can get waved through and we don’t. The Rags get far more from Chevrolet than we do from Etihad. You can’t buy a Chevrolet car in Europe and the Rags are not in the CL so how can theirs be justified as more valuable than ours? I’m assuming City will have had a number of consultants objectively valuing our sponsorship deals.
The CAS appeal hearing convened on 15th October 2019 so it took little more than a month to issue its verdict.I still can't work out why it took 6 months before CAS decided City's complaint should be rejected because it could be addressed by the Adjudicatory Chamber after all. The damage was already done, the probity of the Investigatory stage was destroyed by fundamental confidentiality requirements being repeatedly breached by Leterme. In such circumstances UEFA's entire sanction process was openly undermined and exposed as a wholly corrupt and racist attack on us.
So, what you're saying is we have done the very worst thing in the history of UEFA and deserve the biggest punishment and a fine, but if we give them a bit of money it'll go away and it'll be forgotten? Isn't that attempted extortion?
extortion
/ɪkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n,ɛkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n/
noun
- the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
Isn't this the problem? That we were not cooperative, that should be pretty easy to prove?
That's my understanding. If you read the emails one way (as Der Spiegel undoubtedly intended) you'd get the impression of money being shovelled around to disguise the fact that ADUG were directly paying the majority of the Etihad deal.
But when you understand that the ADEC was finding that deal, that 'HH' is not Sheikh Mansour and that City were asking for ADUG money to be kept separate from Etihad remittances then you could read thst in a very different light, namely that ADEC were sending money direct to ADUG but that City demanded ADUG split that up and send the appropriate funds via the sponsoring parties.
So on one hand there's an impression that City are breaking the rules while on the other that City are desperate to be seen not to be breaking the rules. And that's from the same emails but with a bit of context about who funded the Etihad deal.
Calm down flower - what's a couple of extra letters between friends? ;)
+ 1Hold nearly a 40 year grudge against Spurs
And probably our accountants.That's my point. If £60m of Etihad funding really did go from the EC to ADUG and then to City (as some are suggesting), UEFA would have noticed it at the time.
My reply to David' Conn's recent piece attacking our reasoning for suggesting FFP was designed to stop City and similar clubs:
https://twitter.com/IsaacBasker/status/1229775889677848576
That is what I intended to say but you say it clearly. PB says Barada personally told him, or a group he was with, that Ceferin had made such an offer. This does not surprise me because some months ago there were several reports of compromise, and hawks like Tebas were grumbling.Perhaps more pertinent?
Uefa go to great lengths to dismiss any Executive influences on its control body and the AC.
Cerefin acting as a supposed broker (As did previously, Infantino) shows the two chambers are certainly open to coercion from the very people who are lobbied by our rivals.
City can show CAS that the entire review process is flawed and subject to manipulation.
Previously, City allowed that manipulation process to 'take our pinch' believing that was the end such matters.
However, we now have nothing to lose and must surely bring up Cerefin's attempt to broker a compromise, if he did indeed make that approach?
Trying to follow a twitter conversation is like trying to read Hebrew backwards with a blindfold on!