I believe G14 clubs have cooperated (not conspired!) in attempts to derail City and, of course, G14 have largely captured Uefa. It is a small step logically to suspect that corridor conversations have influenced Uefa's actions. For example, Yves Leterme probably visited Bayern on a regular basis as a member of their 'Sustainability Board' and Bayern have kept up a campaign suggesting that City have caused transfer fee inflation. Surely those parties talked about these matters?
But this cooperation is almost impossible to prove. Unless, unless...... Khaldoon said: "When people say things, we know". Khaldoon has access to a very smart intelligence service. Do we know something?
I've gone worst case, 2 year ban upheld.
Genuinely think we are up against a mafia here that will not stop until they have completely fucked us over.
CAS wouldn't prove anything on the accounts but I agree, having a smell around sets of UK accounts is a serious serious issue for directors, owners and auditors. Multiple regulators could be involved and, critically, fraudulent accounts are a matter of CRIMINAL law and could end in jail for executives. So yes I think its very doubtful those people would risk adverse findings of any sort. Likewise the chances that Silverlake did not do due diligence on them is very slim (incidentally a very interesting article just posted on Silverlake on FT - they are serious players https://www.ft.com/content/cb4f8b5a-07c9-4880-a220-f4f5c56d4735). In short I agree with your assessment.
This was a point which occurred to me just after posting - if UEFA's evidence led to suspicions that the club had misled the auditors and presented fraudulent accounts wouldn't this be far too serious to be handled by the IC and AC and then CAS? Wouldn't this call for prosecutions in the riminal courts for fraud etc? Wouldn't UEFA be a little arrogant to think they could deal with it even in the first instance?
If they somehow had that, we wouldn't be going to CAS
CAS wouldn't prove anything on the accounts but I agree, having a smell around sets of UK accounts is a serious serious issue for directors, owners and auditors. Multiple regulators could be involved and, critically, fraudulent accounts are a matter of CRIMINAL law and could end in jail for executives. .
Those who have voted "Other"
What have you in mind?
Not if there's money involved, and it's going their way. If there is any potential of fines being paid, UEFA are first in the queue. They're not going to pass up the opportunity to take the first slice of the winnings here.This was a point which occurred to me just after posting - if UEFA's evidence led to suspicions that the club had misled the auditors and presented fraudulent accounts wouldn't this be far too serious to be handled by the IC and AC and then CAS? Wouldn't this call for prosecutions in the riminal courts for fraud etc? Wouldn't UEFA be a little arrogant to think they could deal with it even in the first instance?
Totally get that but a crushing defeat for UEFA would see the members of the AC under huge pressure... would they survive?
I've gone worst case, 2 year ban upheld.
Genuinely think we are up against a mafia here that will not stop until they have completely fucked us over.
Interesting!
I wonder if you or any other contributor to this fine thread knows of any persistent and convicted money launderers who may be associating themselves with any high profile football clubs in England by, for example, having their company logos splashed all over club shirts and stadium.
Surely this kind of thing would not be allowed.
If it is , we should be told!
Those who have voted "Other"
What have you in mind?
Likewise, and I note the number of other Blues thinking we will get a 1 or 2 year ban in the poll, has risen from about 32% when it was launched, to nearly 42% now. It’s that fucking email I can’t get past, asking whether sponsorship funds for Etihad should first be routed via the club or the airline, with the source being the ADUG shareholder (ie Sheikh Mansour). If we had additional email evidence that this didn’t then happen, then surely we would have produced it already and the AC would not have proceeded further. And what irks of course is that in terms of gaining a financial advantage, it was ultimately inconsequential where that money was sourced, because UEFA had already deemed the deal to be of fair market value. That in itself might ordinarily offer mitigation, I don’t know, but unlike other clubs who’ve been up before the beak, we’ve already been tried and found guilty by the media and the screaming red hordes, and I cannot believe that won’t be a factor against us. I hope to Christ that Khaldoon’s confidence isn’t just good old fashioned ‘front’!
This is exactly the point, which I've made before, about context. If Pearce's reply implicated ADUG in any way. Der Spiegel would have printed it, assuming they had it. If Pearce's reply said something like "This is nothing to do with ADUG. Etihad will be providing all the money" then that doesn't exactly help the picture that Der Spiegel were clearly trying to paint. So either they didn't have the reply (which seems unlikely) or else they did, and deliberately failed to print it.There's also an email referred to in the Der Spiegel materials and sent from City's CFO to Simon Pearce asking which model applies out of two the sender cites for the flow of the Etihad sponsorship funds. Both of these involve an entity or individual the sender names 'ADUG Shareholder', and given that the sole shareholder of ADUG is Sheikh Mansour then this does make it sound as though Mansour is routing money into City via the Etihad sponsorship.
But this email gives rise to plenty of questions, not least how Pearce replied. Der Spiegel doesn't quote it and yet, without seeing what it says, it's impossible to offer a proper interpretation of the original email.
It's like the contract with that Danish side that suggested we might have third party control over players.This is exactly the point, which I've made before, about context. If Pearce's reply implicated ADUG in any way. Der Spiegel would have printed it, assuming they had it. If Pearce's reply said something like "This is nothing to do with ADUG. Etihad will be providing all the money" then that doesn't exactly help the picture that Der Spiegel were clearly trying to paint. So either they didn't have the reply (which seems unlikely) or else they did, and deliberately failed to print it.
This is exactly the point, which I've made before, about context. If Pearce's reply implicated ADUG in any way. Der Spiegel would have printed it, assuming they had it. If Pearce's reply said something like "This is nothing to do with ADUG. Etihad will be providing all the money" then that doesn't exactly help the picture that Der Spiegel were clearly trying to paint. So either they didn't have the reply (which seems unlikely) or else they did, and deliberately failed to print it.
Wasn't it the case that the IC did not look at Citys irrefutable evidence and if that is the case they did not pass that evidence onto the AC to consider. My view remains the same as it has always been, that City are playing the long game and if they get cleared at CAS its a bonus,If we had additional email evidence that this didn’t then happen, then surely we would have produced it already and the AC would not have proceeded further. And
Just something I don't know which maybe you can answer, who blacked out parts of the emails and who would have the complete emails other than City.This is exactly the point, which I've made before, about context. If Pearce's reply implicated ADUG in any way. Der Spiegel would have printed it, assuming they had it. If Pearce's reply said something like "This is nothing to do with ADUG. Etihad will be providing all the money" then that doesn't exactly help the picture that Der Spiegel were clearly trying to paint. So either they didn't have the reply (which seems unlikely) or else they did, and deliberately failed to print it.