I done a comment recently just talking about how ridiculous it is that city had higher revenue than some of the other clubs.

You have utd:
Biggest team in the world, commercial giant, ridiculous fanbase across socials and the world.
Chelsea:
Second biggest following on social media in the uk, most succesful team of last 20 years, had perfect timing with the success coming in with roman as the internet exploded, huge income from loans and sales.
Liverpool: another giant, CL wins and Pl win recently and huge global following.

Then you have city...who's sponsors and revenue trumps all the above...It was just ridiculous.

comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.

Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?

It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.

If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That makes absolutely no sense either.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 30 minutes ago
I will go on record here by saying nothing will happen with City here. They will appeal whatever decision is made against them and win it.

So long as the decision isn’t made at Spurs Stadium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wouldn’t be surprised if it takes a few years before it’s all fully resolved.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.

Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?

It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.

If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That makes absolutely no sense either.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing about your club's released figures do either

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 30 minutes ago
I will go on record here by saying nothing will happen with City here. They will appeal whatever decision is made against them and win it.

So long as the decision isn’t made at Spurs Stadium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wouldn’t be surprised if it takes a few years before it’s all fully resolved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

By which point the ESL will be up and running...

comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 23 minutes ago
I’m amazed the title of the OP has been allowed

Utter filth
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes me laugh about all this is City fans still think it's a sham investigation and a conspiracy against them.

I have never known a more deluded fanbase blinded by success.

comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.

Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?

It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.

If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That makes absolutely no sense either.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing about your club's released figures do either
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well that’s a remain to be seen now isn’t it! It’s clearly not the tip of the iceberg though, they’ve charged for everything they possibly could have done.

comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 33 seconds ago
What makes me laugh about all this is City fans still think it's a sham investigation and a conspiracy against them.

I have never known a more deluded fanbase blinded by success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t know many that think it’s a sham at all.

comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.

Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?

It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.

If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you bothered reading the breaches, or just the headline. Many of them are 8 instances of same thing.

100 is a lot, of course. But try to see past the Talksport headline

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 33 seconds ago
What makes me laugh about all this is City fans still think it's a sham investigation and a conspiracy against them.

I have never known a more deluded fanbase blinded by success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t know many that think it’s a sham at all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been reading bluemoon as have many reds today. Seen your name a few times today on there too as it happens so don't talk utter crap Melts.

That article has over 250 pages since lunch time.

comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.

Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?

It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.

If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you bothered reading the breaches, or just the headline. Many of them are 8 instances of same thing.

100 is a lot, of course. But try to see past the Talksport headline
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It will all end in tears for Chelsea too. Don't you worry about that.

Tinpot clubs is all you'll both ever be.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
I’d suggest reading the CAS doc properly Toor, rather than just copying a journalist interpretation (I bet I can guess who wrote that in three attempts btw!)

The charge of disguised owner investment spanned into the reporting period, CAS themselves said time barring the years didn’t have any material impact given there were years it was still applicable for. Those charges then weren’t proven.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd suggest reading the report properly rather than relying on journalist interpretation.

Extracts from the report below confirming offences were time barred.

F. The alleged breaches of the CLFFPR are in any event settled and time barred
40. All of the alleged breaches in these proceedings were, in any event, the subject of the [Settlement Agreement]. Those breaches cannot, therefore, lawfully be pursued by the CFCB.

43(a) The Adjudicat01y Chamber erred in concluding that the 5-year limitation period under A1iicle 37 CFCB Procedural Rules ended on 7 March 2019, because it should have concluded that it ended on the date of the sanction issued for a violation of the CLFFPR, i.e. on 14 February 2020, and that, accordingly, any alleged breaches committed prior to 14 February 2015 are time barred.

163. MCFC submits that the Adjudicatory Chamber erred in the Appealed Decision by concluding that the 5-year limitation period under Article 37 CFCB Procedmal Rules ended on 7 March 2019, because it should have concluded that it ended on the date of the sanction issued for a violation of the CLFFPR, i.e. on 14 February 2020, and that, accordingly, any alleged breaches committed prior to 14 February 2015 are time-barred.

164. In this respect, UEFA maintains that the "prosecution" referred to in Article 37 CFCB Procedural Rules commenced when the Investigatory Chamber opened an investigation, i.e. on 7 March 2019, and that, accordingly, any alleged breached committed prior to 7 March 2014 are time-barred.
165. In other words, MCFC's position is that a five-year limitation period applies running from 14 February 2015 to 14 February 2020, while UEFA's position is that a five-year limitation period applies running from 7 March 2014 to 7 March 2019. Thus, the Parties are eleven months and one week apart in te1ms of how far back the Panel is entitled to go in considering alleged breaches. MCFC argues that the Panel can go back to 14 February 2015, while UEFA argues that the Panel can go back as far as 7 March 2014.

166. Article 37 CFCB Procedural Rules provides as follows:

"Statute of limitations
Prosecution is barred qfter five years for all breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations."
167. The relevant issue is to dete1mine when the "prosecution" in the present matter started. Once this date is established, one can calculate five years back to see whether any potential breaches were committed within or outside that five-year limitation period provided for in Article 37 CFCB Procedural Rules.
168. The Panel finds that MCFC's position that the date of the ''prosecution" is the date of the sanction, i.e. the date of issuance of the Appealed Decision, cannot be right. If this had been the intention of the draftspeople of the CFCB Procedural Rules, this would have been explicitly indicated in Article 37 CFCB Procedural Rules by referring to "sanctioning". The Panel simply finds that the word ''prosecution" cannot be considered to be an equivalent of the word "sanction". Someone being prosecuted is not yet sanctioned. The "sanction stage" should not be included in the calculation of the limitation period, in order to avoid potential dilatory defence tactics that could unjustifiably bar the CFCB's power to impose penalties.


169. The majority of the Panel, however, also finds that UEFA's position that the date of the "prosecution" is the date of the opening of the investigation cannot be right either. If this had been the intention of the draftspeople of the CFCB Procedural Rules, this would have been explicitly indicated in Article 37 CFCB Procedural Rules by referring to "investigations". Someone being investigated is not yet being prosecuted. The purpose of a limitation period is ultimately to create legal certainty after a period of time has passed. The "investigatory stage" should count in the calculation of the 5-year limitation period, in order to prevent "uncertainty" or "suspicion" of any potential breaches from extending beyond that period. Othe1wise, the Investigatory Chamber could open an investigation, preserving the Investigatory Chamber's ability to bring charges for matters going five years back from the opening of the investigation and wait before charging a club under the rules for as long as the Investigatory Chamber wants. If the draftspeople had intended such a framework, it would have stated so expressly. The majority of the Panel finds that it is more a reasonable interpretation that the "Statute of/imitations" in Article 37 CFCB Procedural Rules is meant to protect both the CFCB and the clubs, on the one hand allowing the Investigatory Chamber to bring charges on matters going back five years while on the other hand preventing investigations from being commenced and held open without any mandatory end.

170. Rather, the majority of the Panel finds that "prosecution" starts with the filing of charges, i.e. when the suspect is formally informed of the case he needs to answer, which is considered to be consistent with the definition of "prosecution" in the online Oxford dictionary: "the process of trying to prove in court that somebody is guilty of a crime" and "the process of being officially charged with a crime in courf'.

171. For present purposes, the majority of the Panel finds that this moment is the moment of issuance of the Referral Decision, because it was this document that explicitly and formally served MCFC with the charges filed against it. With the issuance of the Referral Decision the Investigatory Chamber concludes its investigations and the matter is put in the hands of the Adjudicatory Chamber, which body is then required adjudicate and decide the case.
172. In the matter at hand, the scope of the investigations was broader than the scope of the Referral Decision. For example, the related party issue was investigated by the Investigatory Chamber, but the Investigatory Chamber did not rely on this aspect in the Referral Decision. MCFC is therefore not prosecuted or indicted or charged for such
ISSUe.

173. The Panel further notes that the Settlement Agreement was concluded on 16 May 2014 and that the Referral Decision was issued five years less one day later, on 15 May 2019. The majority of the Panel finds that the date of the Referral Decision may well have been carefully chosen so as to avoid a potential issue with the Settlement Agreement falling outside of the limitation period.
174. Consequently, the majority of the Panel finds that the limitation period ended with the Referral Decision on 15 May 2019, so that the limitation period for the charges brought in the Referral Decision started to run on 15 May 2014. Consequently, breaches committed as from 15 May 2014 therefore fall within the limitation period and may be prosecuted, while prosecution of breaches committed prior to such date is batTed by application of Article 37 CFCB Procedural Rules.


b. What are the practical conseqnences of such conclusion?

175. The practical consequence of this conclusion is that any breach related to the financial statements submitted by MCFC for licensing purposes before 15 May 2014 is barred from being prosecuted.
176. Likewise, any breach related to the break-even infonnation submitted by MCFC for monitoring purposes before 15 May 2014 may not be prosecuted.
177. The Adjudicatory Chamber concluded in the Appealed Decision that any breach related to MCFC's financial statements for the years ended May 2012 and May 2013 fall outside or must be assumed to fall outside the limitation period. These alleged breaches therefore fall outside the scope of the present proceedings.

178. Although it is apparently unclear when the financial statements for the year ended May 2014 were filed, these statements were approved by the Board ofMCFC on 9 October 2014 and could therefore only have been submitted to The FA or to UEFA after such date. Accordingly, the financial statements for the year ended May 2014 were filed after
15 May 2014. The Panel therefore finds that the Adjudicatory Chamber rightly concluded that any alleged breach related to such financial statements fell within the limitation period and may be prosecuted.
179. As to the alleged breaches of the break-even info1mation submitted by MCFC for monitoring purposes, the Adjudicatory Chamber concluded in the Appealed Decision that information concerning T (the year ended May 2013) for the 2013/14 monitoring process must be assumed to fall outside the limitation period. Any alleged breach related to the filing of this break-even info1mation therefore falls outside the scope of the present proceedings.
180. The alleged breach of the break-even info1mation submitted for the 2014/15 monitoring process (comprising T (the year ended May 2014), T-1 (the year ended May 2013) and T-2 (the year ended May 2012)) fall within the limitation period, as BE.2014.06 and BE.2014.09 were requested to be submitted by 15 July and 15 October 2014, respectively, i.e. this financial infmmation was filed after 15 May 2014 and, therefore, fall within the limitation period.
181. Accordingly, even though the Panel finds that the limitation period did not commence on 7 March 2014, but on 15 May 2014, this does not result in any particular differences with the findings of the Adjudicatory Chamber in the Appealed Decision with respect to the alleged breaches related to the financial info1mation being considered time­ ban·ed.
182. Consequently, the Panel finds that the alleged breaches related to the financial statements for the years ended May 2012 and May 2013 are time-baned, but the alleged breaches related to the financial statement for the year ended May 2014 are not. Furthe1more, the alleged breaches related to the break-even info1mation submitted for the 2013/2014 monitoring process are time-ban·ed, but the alleged breaches related to the break-even info1mation submitted for the 2014/15 monitoring process are not.


c. Can the comparative information from the previous year in financial statements submitted for licensing purposes and break-even information regarding T-1 and T-2 submitted for monitoring purposes form a basis for prosecution if this information was originally filed outside the limitation period but is resubmitted within the limitation period?

183. Having determined which alleged breaches related to the financial statements and which alleged breaches related to the break-even information are time-barred, the Panel now turns its attention to the content of the financial information submitted within the limitation period to assess whether MCFC can be prosecuted for "actions" related to the resubmission of financial information originally reported the year before or two years before.
184. The relevance of this issue is most clearly demonstrated by looking at the alleged disguised equity funding received by MCFC through Etisalat.
185. The amounts at issue were transferred to MCFC on 13 June 2012 and 10 January 2013,
i.e. outside the five-year limitation period. If it were trne that these amounts did not comprise sponsorship payments but were in fact disguised equity funding, the financial information provided by MCFC in its financial statement for the year ended May 2013 and the break-even information for the 2013/14 monitoring process was incorrect and could have subjected MCFC to prosecution on this basis.
186. As concluded supra, the alleged breaches related to the filing of the financial statement for the year ended May 2013 and the filing of the break-even information for the 2013/14 monitoring process fall outside the limitation period, so no prosecution can take place on the basis of such information.
187. However, the financial statement for the year ended May 2014 and the break-even information for the 2014/15 monitoring process fall within the limitation period and are also based on the information that was first submitted for licensing and monitoring purposes the year before.
188. The Pmiies have divergent views on whether MCFC can be prosecuted on the basis of such "historic" information in "new" financial statements and break-even information. MCFC maintains that it cannot be prosecuted on such basis because this information falls outside the limitation period. UEFA submits that MCFC can be prosecuted on the basis of this info1mation because it is submitted again within the limitation period.
189. The majority of the Panel finds that MCFC cannot be prosecuted on the basis of financial inf01mation that was first submitted at a point in time that lies outside the limitation period, because this would artificially extend the 5-year limitation period to a limitation period of 6 or even 7 years without a clear legal basis to do so. Indeed, if the reasoning of UEFA were followed, the limitation period could be open-ended, because if it were considered appropriate to prosecute a club on the basis of inf01mation concerning reporting period T-2, this information would in tum contain financial information of the rep01iing period T-2 in such year, i.e. T-4.


190. The Panel finds that there must be a clear cut-off date and that this is 5 years before prosecution, not 5+2 as argued by UEFA. The principle oflegal certainty shall apply. Accordingly, the majority of the Panel finds that a breach is committed when infonnation is submitted for the first time, not when such information is repeated or resubmitted in subsequent rep01iing periods.
191. The majority of the Panel finds that this may potentially be different for violations of Article 63 CLFFPR ("Fulfilment of the break-even requirement", because the potential violation of this provision is based on the overall results of the past three rep01iing periods, but this is not in issue in the present proceedings, because MCFC has not been charged for such violation. MCFC is accused of having contravened a number of provisions of the CLFFPR, but all related to providing inconect information for CLFFPR purposes and such violations are to be considered committed the first time such inconect information is submitted.
192. Consequently, the majority of the Panel finds that the comparative information from previous years in financial statements submitted for licensing purposes and break-even information regarding T-1 and T-2 submitted for monitoring putposes do not fonn a basis for prosecution; any such prosecution must be based on the first time such financial information is submitted for licensing and/or monitoring purposes.

d. What are the practical consequences of such conclusion?

193. The above interpretation has as a consequence that, although the financial statements for the year ended May 2014 were filed within the limitation period, the comparative information contained in such statements concerning the year ended May 2013, according to the majority of the Panel, cannot form a basis for prosecution, as this inf01mation was originally filed outside the limitation period, and is, as such, time­ baned.
194. Likewise, although the break-even information for the 2014/15 monitoring process was filed within the limitation period, the break-even information regarding T-1 and T-2, according to the majority of the Panel, cannot form a basis for prosecution, as this inf0rmation was originally filed outside the limitation period, and is, as such, time­ barred.
195. This conclusion has important practical implications for the scope of the charges at stake in these proceedings.
196. For the alleged disguised equity funding by HHMS and/or ADUG through Etisalat, this has as a consequence that UEFA is banned from prosecuting MCFC on this basis, because any such alleged breach falls outside the limitation period. MCFC received these payments on 13 June 2012 and 10 January 2013 and was therefore firstly reported in the financial statements of the year ended May 2013 and for the 2013/14 monitoring process. The alleged breaches related to these financial statements and break-even information are time-barred and the references to such information in financial information submitted to UEFA in subsequent years is time-barrd as well.


197. Accordingly, the majority of the Panel finds that no other conclusion is possible than determining that the charges based on alleged disguised equity funding by HHMS and/or ADUG through Etisalat are time-barred.
198. As for the alleged disguised equity funding through Etihad, it is alleged that this took place in the seasons 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2015/16. The above analysis has as a consequence that UEFA is barred from prosecuting MCFC for the payments received in the season 2012/13, but that any alleged wrongdoing of MCFC with respect to payments received from Etihad in the seasons 2013/14 and 2015/16 may be prosecuted.


I'll put this one again in case you can't be bothered to read it again and instead rely on journalist interpretation.

185. The amounts at issue were transferred to MCFC on 13 June 2012 and 10 January 2013,
i.e. outside the five-year limitation period. If it were true that these amounts did not comprise sponsorship payments but were in fact disguised equity funding, the financial information provided by MCFC in its financial statement for the year ended May 2013 and the break-even information for the 2013/14 monitoring process was incorrect and could have subjected MCFC to prosecution on this basis.

comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 33 seconds ago
What makes me laugh about all this is City fans still think it's a sham investigation and a conspiracy against them.

I have never known a more deluded fanbase blinded by success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t know many that think it’s a sham at all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been reading bluemoon as have many reds today. Seen your name a few times today on there too as it happens so don't talk utter crap Melts.

That article has over 250 pages since lunch time.Ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well that’s clearly a lie in itself, I haven’t commented several times on it.

I was referring to real life people rather than on a forum though. You have the usual split between “we’re completely done for” and “it’s a witch hunt and we’ll take everyone down instead of us” on threads like that.

If you did read what I put on there though, you’ll know I said it was a good thing, which is pretty much the opposite of thinking it’s a sham….

Somebody using your username then? Definitely saw your name on there.

I was right all along. You didn't want to accept it. MASSSIVE cheating gits should go a form their own league with PSG.

comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.

Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?

It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.

If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you bothered reading the breaches, or just the headline. Many of them are 8 instances of same thing.

100 is a lot, of course. But try to see past the Talksport headline
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It will all end in tears for Chelsea too. Don't you worry about that.

Tinpot clubs is all you'll both ever be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes when Roman leaves us, we'll be ducked

Not sure why Stretty is excited. Lest we forget an independent chair found John Yems to be 'not a conscious racist'

Different matter but the burden of proof is a high bar and difficult to breach

Now couple that with the rest of the judgment Toor and you’ll realise that that’s exactly my point.

The same charge was still applied and judged upon due to Etihad still being in the 2015/16 accounts which were assessed using the exact same evidence, hence why you have the whole section in the CAS document assessing the leaked emails. The Etisalat ones are literally on the same emails, it’s the same evidence that’s being used as a basis for it.

I’m not sure how and why you’d think they’d have found differently for them purely by increasing the timeframe? The exact same finding would apply.

Government White Paper on football delayed. Cue City to be used as a political football.

Just like CHelsea and Roman over sanctions. But we survived and so will City too

Sorry haters

comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 9 minutes ago
Somebody using your username then? Definitely saw your name on there.

I was right all along. You didn't want to accept it. MASSSIVE cheating gits should go a form their own league with PSG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If they find us guilty of all of it, ill completely accept it and we should have to face whatever punishment they deem appropriate. I’ve never said any different in the last decade.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
Now couple that with the rest of the judgment Toor and you’ll realise that that’s exactly my point.

The same charge was still applied and judged upon due to Etihad still being in the 2015/16 accounts which were assessed using the exact same evidence, hence why you have the whole section in the CAS document assessing the leaked emails. The Etisalat ones are literally on the same emails, it’s the same evidence that’s being used as a basis for it.

I’m not sure how and why you’d think they’d have found differently for them purely by increasing the timeframe? The exact same finding would apply.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say they'd have found differently. I said they were time barred. You stated the CAS said there was no material impact. That was only in relation to one part of the allegations.

They did not investigate parts that were time barred and stated if they had they could have subjected the club to prosecution.

It's there in black and white.

185. The amounts at issue were transferred to MCFC on 13 June 2012 and 10 January 2013,
i.e. outside the five-year limitation period. If it were true that these amounts did not comprise sponsorship payments but were in fact disguised equity funding, the financial information provided by MCFC in its financial statement for the year ended May 2013 and the break-even information for the 2013/14 monitoring process was incorrect and could have subjected MCFC to prosecution on this basis.

I’ve supported City forever. Through four relegations. So whatever happens I’ll still support them. Now I really don’t understand fully what’s going on here. But I have one certainty. Neither do any of the other feckers posting here.

comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.

Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?

It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.

If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you bothered reading the breaches, or just the headline. Many of them are 8 instances of same thing.

100 is a lot, of course. But try to see past the Talksport headline
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It will all end in tears for Chelsea too. Don't you worry about that.

Tinpot clubs is all you'll both ever be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes when Roman leaves us, we'll be ducked
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting to look that way. 9th in the league and clueless owners.

comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.

Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?

It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.

If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you bothered reading the breaches, or just the headline. Many of them are 8 instances of same thing.

100 is a lot, of course. But try to see past the Talksport headline
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It will all end in tears for Chelsea too. Don't you worry about that.

Tinpot clubs is all you'll both ever be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes when Roman leaves us, we'll be ducked
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting to look that way. 9th in the league and clueless owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

6 months into their tenure: turn off SSN and Talksport. Evaluate the yanks in 2 or 3 years

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
Now couple that with the rest of the judgment Toor and you’ll realise that that’s exactly my point.

The same charge was still applied and judged upon due to Etihad still being in the 2015/16 accounts which were assessed using the exact same evidence, hence why you have the whole section in the CAS document assessing the leaked emails. The Etisalat ones are literally on the same emails, it’s the same evidence that’s being used as a basis for it.

I’m not sure how and why you’d think they’d have found differently for them purely by increasing the timeframe? The exact same finding would apply.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say they'd have found differently. I said they were time barred. You stated the CAS said there was no material impact. That was only in relation to one part of the allegations.

They did not investigate parts that were time barred and stated if they had they could have subjected the club to prosecution.

It's there in black and white.

185. The amounts at issue were transferred to MCFC on 13 June 2012 and 10 January 2013,
i.e. outside the five-year limitation period. If it were true that these amounts did not comprise sponsorship payments but were in fact disguised equity funding, the financial information provided by MCFC in its financial statement for the year ended May 2013 and the break-even information for the 2013/14 monitoring process was incorrect and could have subjected MCFC to prosecution on this basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You actually said the charges were proven didn’t you?

The bit you have quoted is specifically for the Etisalat deal. What they found for Etihad is that it did go over into the eligible period and wasnt time barred. It wasn’t just the same charge, it was the exact same evidence that would have been used for both.

Hence why I said the bits that were time-barred were still adjudicated upon. It’s that the prosecution of it was limited. They could find us guilty of doing it for the Etihad deal, not the Etisalat one. I doubt it would have changed the punishment had they found us guilty though, the Etihad one was quite clearly the potentially worse of the two anyway.