I thought the claim was that CIty had effectively lied about the source of the money, not the amounts involved?
We're even getting the piss taken out of us on the f*cking Brits. No escape. Only had it on to avoid the diapers game
That doc isn't really important.
The important thing is City being able to prove the funding didn't come from Mansour.
That doc is merely evidence that we have the ability to do so.
Didn’t I read somewhere on here recently with the Liverpool hacking issue, that we felt we had to rush through the Fernandinho and Navas deals in Summer 2013 and for more money than we wanted because we thought Liverpool may come in for the same players, or something to that effect?
So their hacking actually had ramifications regarding this particular issue?
So, are you saying that if someone appeals to CAS and UEFA had correctly applied their procedures, CAS would not be able to review anything in support of the clubs claim that UEFA were wrong about anything?As PB has already stated CAS are not a court as such. They will only rule on procedural violations and make sure the punishments UEFA sanctioned fit the crime as such.
The best we can hope for at CAS is the case is thrown out due to UEFA not following its own process.
That is the reason City mentioned “CAS in the first instance” The fight to clear our name and show the irrefutable evidence will happen in the Swiss Courts
That’s your wurst pun yet.
I thought the claim was that CIty had effectively lied about the source of the money, not the amounts involved?
We will gain weight after eating loads of jelly and ice cream if uefa dies.If we get this overturned at CAS, and destroy UEFA and their shitty cartel in the process, it could gain us an army of new fans!
He is a strange,not that great recently,he is firmly on the dipper bandwagonAdd in Henry Winter.
But that would be unprovable, surely? Regardless of any amount of crass and unprofessional emails?
City’s bank statement would say £X received from Etihad not split down into different payers - I can’t imagine it’s in UEFA’s gift to open the Etihad books and check?
Right.It isn’t though, that’s what I mean. All that doc says is that the executive council were going to cover our 2011 sponsorship costs (6.1m at the time).
As far as I'm aware they've reopened the 2014 settlement agreement. There's two potential issues with that. One is do they have the legal right to do that. The other is, did they do it in time. In other words they're not allowed to revisit a settled case more than 5 years after the original breach. Now they've taken the start of that period to be from when they published the sanctions, which was 16 May 2014. But that may be wrong as the date of the breach could have been as early as our 2013 year end, the day we submitted our return showing we were in breach or when they formally informed us of the breach. All of those would have pre-dated 16 May.@Prestwich_Blue I’ve just had a look at the initial Settlement Agreement(SA) and as I’m sure you know it covers the seasons from 2013/2014 up to and including 2015/2016
I’m UEFA’s statement on Friday they specify the penalty is for breaches from 2012-2016. Now given the Settlement Agreement and UEFA’s own 5 year limitation UEFA seem only able to investigate about 6 months worth of accounts(at best). Do I understand this correctly?
If so, how would UEFA go about reopening the 2014 SA? It would surely require a gross breach to even entertain the idea of reopening and overinflating sponsorship which allegedly happened during a period they already looked at seems pretty weak. But even if that is true, the punishment doesn’t really fit the ‘crime’. Unless they are accusing City of cooking the books for the best part of 5 years which, if true, then we would have bigger things to worry about than Sterling or Sane leaving - that would be an issue for the U.K. courts not UEFA’s imaginary one, surely?
Thanks in advance. But don’t be shy in calling me an idiot who’s got it all wrong....
Right.
And the hacked emails say that ADUG were going to cover them.
So if we can prove the Executive Council paid them, that destroy's the main allegation we face?
Send me the linkYou're a real chipolata off the old block.
It was more than that but if Etihad weren't fully funding it themselves, why weren't ADUG funding the rest from the start? If the EC were funding it from Day 1, why would they suddenly change to ADUG funding it?It isn’t though, that’s what I mean. All that doc says is that the executive council were going to cover our 2011 sponsorship costs (6.1m at the time).