comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
CAS decided that some of the charges were time-barred during their hearing and it was their decision that no further action was necessary.
This doesn't automatically mean there wasn't evidence to prove City were innocent of the charges, neither was it a legal mechinism that City hid behind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If City wanted to clear their name they could produce documented evidence of the flow of money from sponsors to City. This would also be in the sponsors best interest to prove that they had not been complicit in a ruse to boost City's revenues.
As these sponsors are state owned and the City owner is a Emirati royal and politician, the links are very close and you'd except the ability to provide the water tight counter evidence (if it actually exists) would be right there....seems like the willingness isn't, which makes you wonder why...oh yeah, commercial confidentiality
I could show you this unequivocal counter evidence, but then i'd have to kill you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They did show that. The issue Uefa had is the accusation wasn’t concerning sponsors to city directly, those transactions weren’t in question (well, one from Etisalat was but that’s a different allegation to the main ones).
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
CAS decided that some of the charges were time-barred during their hearing and it was their decision that no further action was necessary.
This doesn't automatically mean there wasn't evidence to prove City were innocent of the charges, neither was it a legal mechinism that City hid behind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If City wanted to clear their name they could produce documented evidence of the flow of money from sponsors to City. This would also be in the sponsors best interest to prove that they had not been complicit in a ruse to boost City's revenues.
As these sponsors are state owned and the City owner is a Emirati royal and politician, the links are very close and you'd except the ability to provide the water tight counter evidence (if it actually exists) would be right there....seems like the willingness isn't, which makes you wonder why...oh yeah, commercial confidentiality
I could show you this unequivocal counter evidence, but then i'd have to kill you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From Etihad to City is easy - that would be shown in both sets of accounts. Also, the contracts signed by both parties would also be presented.
The main challenge for the PL is that apart from the hacked emails, they will need to prove that the Sheikh actually funded a huge percentage of the sponsorship deal as alleged. To prove this, they'll need evidence like financial records or at best, a whistleblower. UEFA could not prove the allegation. That was why CAS concluded that there was no evidence to support the serious allegation.
Let's see what the PL produces next month.
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
CAS decided that some of the charges were time-barred during their hearing and it was their decision that no further action was necessary.
This doesn't automatically mean there wasn't evidence to prove City were innocent of the charges, neither was it a legal mechinism that City hid behind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If City wanted to clear their name they could produce documented evidence of the flow of money from sponsors to City. This would also be in the sponsors best interest to prove that they had not been complicit in a ruse to boost City's revenues.
As these sponsors are state owned and the City owner is a Emirati royal and politician, the links are very close and you'd except the ability to provide the water tight counter evidence (if it actually exists) would be right there....seems like the willingness isn't, which makes you wonder why...oh yeah, commercial confidentiality
I could show you this unequivocal counter evidence, but then i'd have to kill you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From Etihad to City is easy - that would be shown in both sets of accounts. Also, the contracts signed by both parties would also be presented.
The main challenge for the PL is that apart from the hacked emails, they will need to prove that the Sheikh actually funded a huge percentage of the sponsorship deal as alleged. To prove this, they'll need evidence like financial records or at best, a whistleblower. UEFA could not prove the allegation. That was why CAS concluded that there was no evidence to support the serious allegation.
Let's see what the PL produces next month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounts don't show sources of revenues.
The main issue is to prove that those involved executed the payments in the emails.
I think those emails are alone very damming, even if not sufficient proof. UEFA seemed to reach an 'on balance' judgement, basically where there's smoke there's fire, while CAS disagreed and that there is no proof of fire, despite the smoke.
I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.
That is why so many impartial folk will make statements like "we all know City are guilty" because the whole thing stinks and those emails describe the very behaviour most suspected City of.
I hold a fairly cynical view of these middle east nations and how their untold wealth allows them to operate and cover their tracks. The NUFC case (which i have no idea why the PL have not investigated further) where they made statements about connections to the state in their PL owners and directors test, and then contradictory statements about certain persons involved in their LIV golf case in the US. The Qatar WC is also shrouded in corruption yet no one has ever really been done for this and certainly no one at Qatar official level.
They have such power and influence that they can make anything happen, including making problems go away. They are almost untouchable.
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
Even then though, I find it implausible that of such a magnitude of leak, those emails were the best that could be found.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly )
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 34 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
How about a change of pace,
Please tell.us what you know that makes you so adamant City have done no wrong/it's all a conspiracy by the 'red cartel'.
You're quick to deflect, engage in whataboutery and tell us of City's innocence yet you never back it up with anything substantial.
----------------------------------------------------------
It's a personal judgement made by pitching what Khaldoon Mubarak MBA, CEO of City said v Some gossip on football forums, gleaned from clickbait websites, written by equally clueless people trying to increase web traffic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if Mubarak said it take it as gospel. Not like he's got a motive to lie or be disingenuous.
You really did swallow all the sky blue pills they fed you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I should take the words of Nickey Numbnuts on Twitter as gospel but not believe a highly respected, international businessman who has basically put his integrity on the line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy PM and senior member ruling of Oligarch oil state family with numerous human rights complaints is a highly respected businessman according to Boris
Is there anything you won't swallow from the Sheikh? Although that is illegal in.Abu Dhabi no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I take it you have no idea who Khaldoon Mubarak is?
Priceless
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 34 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
How about a change of pace,
Please tell.us what you know that makes you so adamant City have done no wrong/it's all a conspiracy by the 'red cartel'.
You're quick to deflect, engage in whataboutery and tell us of City's innocence yet you never back it up with anything substantial.
----------------------------------------------------------
It's a personal judgement made by pitching what Khaldoon Mubarak MBA, CEO of City said v Some gossip on football forums, gleaned from clickbait websites, written by equally clueless people trying to increase web traffic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if Mubarak said it take it as gospel. Not like he's got a motive to lie or be disingenuous.
You really did swallow all the sky blue pills they fed you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I should take the words of Nickey Numbnuts on Twitter as gospel but not believe a highly respected, international businessman who has basically put his integrity on the line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy PM and senior member ruling of Oligarch oil state family with numerous human rights complaints is a highly respected businessman according to Boris
Is there anything you won't swallow from the Sheikh? Although that is illegal in.Abu Dhabi no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I take it you have no idea who Khaldoon Mubarak is?
Priceless
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is a sportwashin money launderin oil n human trafficker with blood on hus hands
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
I completely agree with CAS there was a case to answer for them btw, just that they weren’t the smoking gun everyone thought they were.
The Mancini contract leak I find more damning, but there’s not enough in the public domain to reach a conclusion on that either.
Anyone saying it’s absolutes on either side, be it city fans saying they’re definitely innocent or other fans saying they’re definitely guilty are both blinded by partisan bias.
They're definitely obviously guilty. Whether it's provable at this point is doubtful. Especially with the resources City have to defend themselves.
comment by Bãleș left boot knees tremble (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
They're definitely obviously guilty. Whether it's provable at this point is doubtful. Especially with the resources City have to defend themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup
Whutever the comeout is we all no they r gilty as heck
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleș left boot knees tremble (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
They're definitely obviously guilty. Whether it's provable at this point is doubtful. Especially with the resources City have to defend themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup
Whutever the comeout is we all no they r gilty as heck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. At this time the outcome is about as meaningful at the verdicts at the Nuremberg trials.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boils down to whether you believe the testimonies of City paid execs. etc CAS concludes that for the UEFA case to be right, these high ranking officials would have to be lying. They concluded that "This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence available to the panel"
They even state that if Hogan and Pearce were lying they would be subject to criminal sanctions for their alleged actions.
So the cynic in me says, they are never going to admit to something that they would be criminally prosecuted for.
A lack of evidence alongside accepted testimonies from City execs.
This will need to change for the PL case to be successful.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 16 minutes ago
I completely agree with CAS there was a case to answer for them btw, just that they weren’t the smoking gun everyone thought they were.
The Mancini contract leak I find more damning, but there’s not enough in the public domain to reach a conclusion on that either.
Anyone saying it’s absolutes on either side, be it city fans saying they’re definitely innocent or other fans saying they’re definitely guilty are both blinded by partisan bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, agreed.
The earth is flat and anybody who disagrees with me is just plain guilty.
Man Cheaty fans remind me of that fella who fell off a ten-story building.
As he was falling, people on each floor kept hearing him say, 'So far, so good.' Heh, so far, so good”
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boils down to whether you believe the testimonies of City paid execs. etc CAS concludes that for the UEFA case to be right, these high ranking officials would have to be lying. They concluded that "This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence available to the panel"
They even state that if Hogan and Pearce were lying they would be subject to criminal sanctions for their alleged actions.
So the cynic in me says, they are never going to admit to something that they would be criminally prosecuted for.
A lack of evidence alongside accepted testimonies from City execs.
This will need to change for the PL case to be successful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re the first non City fan that I have seen on here who has objectively looked at the case.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boils down to whether you believe the testimonies of City paid execs. etc CAS concludes that for the UEFA case to be right, these high ranking officials would have to be lying. They concluded that "This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence available to the panel"
They even state that if Hogan and Pearce were lying they would be subject to criminal sanctions for their alleged actions.
So the cynic in me says, they are never going to admit to something that they would be criminally prosecuted for.
A lack of evidence alongside accepted testimonies from City execs.
This will need to change for the PL case to be successful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it’s also whether you believe the auditors too were given the full picture as well given they testified as well.
I’ve never thought the rewards were ever worth the risk people are suggesting were took. There just wasn’t the need for it that I can see.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boils down to whether you believe the testimonies of City paid execs. etc CAS concludes that for the UEFA case to be right, these high ranking officials would have to be lying. They concluded that "This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence available to the panel"
They even state that if Hogan and Pearce were lying they would be subject to criminal sanctions for their alleged actions.
So the cynic in me says, they are never going to admit to something that they would be criminally prosecuted for.
A lack of evidence alongside accepted testimonies from City execs.
This will need to change for the PL case to be successful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it’s also whether you believe the auditors too were given the full picture as well given they testified as well.
I’ve never thought the rewards were ever worth the risk people are suggesting were took. There just wasn’t the need for it that I can see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There were 2 audits. One of City's accounts and those naturally show money coming in against invoices sent, and such sponsorship money being from Etihad. As far as an audit goes, that's all it needs to show, so this can be provided without incriminating oneself in any way.
There was another audit of the ADUG account, but this was not independent and carried out on a basis agreed with ADUG. UEFA claimed the terms of that Audit should have also included their input, to ensure all relevant facts are reported. The UEFA counsel said that as they were not involved and the scope of the audit agreed the data would be incomplete and unreliable - "rubbish in, rubbish out" (a phrase that I like and apply to the use of VAR). The Panel agreed it would not be as reliable as an independent audit, but that such is not required by the FFP regulations anyway - the audit did not show any major sums from ADUG to Etihad so accepted the conclusions that no funding/reimbursements were made by ADUG.
The thing with all of this is that the burden of proof is on UEFA / PL . City don't even need to prove they haven't done something they just have to undermine the evidence against them, which so far has been easily done as it is incomplete.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boils down to whether you believe the testimonies of City paid execs. etc CAS concludes that for the UEFA case to be right, these high ranking officials would have to be lying. They concluded that "This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence available to the panel"
They even state that if Hogan and Pearce were lying they would be subject to criminal sanctions for their alleged actions.
So the cynic in me says, they are never going to admit to something that they would be criminally prosecuted for.
A lack of evidence alongside accepted testimonies from City execs.
This will need to change for the PL case to be successful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it’s also whether you believe the auditors too were given the full picture as well given they testified as well.
I’ve never thought the rewards were ever worth the risk people are suggesting were took. There just wasn’t the need for it that I can see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There were 2 audits. One of City's accounts and those naturally show money coming in against invoices sent, and such sponsorship money being from Etihad. As far as an audit goes, that's all it needs to show, so this can be provided without incriminating oneself in any way.
There was another audit of the ADUG account, but this was not independent and carried out on a basis agreed with ADUG. UEFA claimed the terms of that Audit should have also included their input, to ensure all relevant facts are reported. The UEFA counsel said that as they were not involved and the scope of the audit agreed the data would be incomplete and unreliable - "rubbish in, rubbish out" (a phrase that I like and apply to the use of VAR). The Panel agreed it would not be as reliable as an independent audit, but that such is not required by the FFP regulations anyway - the audit did not show any major sums from ADUG to Etihad so accepted the conclusions that no funding/reimbursements were made by ADUG.
The thing with all of this is that the burden of proof is on UEFA / PL . City don't even need to prove they haven't done something they just have to undermine the evidence against them, which so far has been easily done as it is incomplete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Three audits. There also those of Etihad that didn’t show any high volume incoming from ADUG too. CAS did find that if the actions were to take place as Uefa were alleging, then several key auditors would have been deliberately misled too.
For very little benefit aside from to Etihad.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
Three audits. There also those of Etihad that didn’t show any high volume incoming from ADUG too. CAS did find that if the actions were to take place as Uefa were alleging, then several key auditors would have been deliberately misled too.
For very little benefit aside from to Etihad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would contest there's no benefit.
Etihad getting £60m's worth of sponsorship costing them just £8m, or whatever.
Man City FC getting their revenues boosted by a mega sponsorship deal, ensuring their compliance and competitiveness
ADUG seeing their Man City investment grow.
With the ADUG audit, you could argue that no one was mislead but the scope of the audit ensured they only got what info. they were willing to release, similarly Etihad as both were not independent.
The City audit would be clean because it doesn't look behind the source of revenue from third parties.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
Three audits. There also those of Etihad that didn’t show any high volume incoming from ADUG too. CAS did find that if the actions were to take place as Uefa were alleging, then several key auditors would have been deliberately misled too.
For very little benefit aside from to Etihad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would contest there's no benefit.
Etihad getting £60m's worth of sponsorship costing them just £8m, or whatever.
Man City FC getting their revenues boosted by a mega sponsorship deal, ensuring their compliance and competitiveness
ADUG seeing their Man City investment grow.
With the ADUG audit, you could argue that no one was mislead but the scope of the audit ensured they only got what info. they were willing to release, similarly Etihad as both were not independent.
The City audit would be clean because it doesn't look behind the source of revenue from third parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely you’re contesting there was benefit to everyone there? The benefit to Etihad couldn’t have been properly realised anyway had it happened as sucggested which is why I said of little benefit.
The Etihad audit was done by their main auditors, it was independent, as was ours, which is who CAS was referring to when they said that several auditors would have been mislead.
Think you’re missing the point though, saying auditors would have been misled isn’t saying they should or could have found anything, it’s a statement on the strength of the accusation.
Were Etihad audited, was it part of the evidence?
I don't recall any reference to it and surely if there was no money in from ADUG to match the claims of UEFA then it would have been an open and shut case...which it wasnt.
Sign in if you want to comment
115 Hearings scheduled
Page 5 of 6
6
posted on 14/8/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
CAS decided that some of the charges were time-barred during their hearing and it was their decision that no further action was necessary.
This doesn't automatically mean there wasn't evidence to prove City were innocent of the charges, neither was it a legal mechinism that City hid behind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If City wanted to clear their name they could produce documented evidence of the flow of money from sponsors to City. This would also be in the sponsors best interest to prove that they had not been complicit in a ruse to boost City's revenues.
As these sponsors are state owned and the City owner is a Emirati royal and politician, the links are very close and you'd except the ability to provide the water tight counter evidence (if it actually exists) would be right there....seems like the willingness isn't, which makes you wonder why...oh yeah, commercial confidentiality
I could show you this unequivocal counter evidence, but then i'd have to kill you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They did show that. The issue Uefa had is the accusation wasn’t concerning sponsors to city directly, those transactions weren’t in question (well, one from Etisalat was but that’s a different allegation to the main ones).
posted on 14/8/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
CAS decided that some of the charges were time-barred during their hearing and it was their decision that no further action was necessary.
This doesn't automatically mean there wasn't evidence to prove City were innocent of the charges, neither was it a legal mechinism that City hid behind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If City wanted to clear their name they could produce documented evidence of the flow of money from sponsors to City. This would also be in the sponsors best interest to prove that they had not been complicit in a ruse to boost City's revenues.
As these sponsors are state owned and the City owner is a Emirati royal and politician, the links are very close and you'd except the ability to provide the water tight counter evidence (if it actually exists) would be right there....seems like the willingness isn't, which makes you wonder why...oh yeah, commercial confidentiality
I could show you this unequivocal counter evidence, but then i'd have to kill you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From Etihad to City is easy - that would be shown in both sets of accounts. Also, the contracts signed by both parties would also be presented.
The main challenge for the PL is that apart from the hacked emails, they will need to prove that the Sheikh actually funded a huge percentage of the sponsorship deal as alleged. To prove this, they'll need evidence like financial records or at best, a whistleblower. UEFA could not prove the allegation. That was why CAS concluded that there was no evidence to support the serious allegation.
Let's see what the PL produces next month.
posted on 14/8/24
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
CAS decided that some of the charges were time-barred during their hearing and it was their decision that no further action was necessary.
This doesn't automatically mean there wasn't evidence to prove City were innocent of the charges, neither was it a legal mechinism that City hid behind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If City wanted to clear their name they could produce documented evidence of the flow of money from sponsors to City. This would also be in the sponsors best interest to prove that they had not been complicit in a ruse to boost City's revenues.
As these sponsors are state owned and the City owner is a Emirati royal and politician, the links are very close and you'd except the ability to provide the water tight counter evidence (if it actually exists) would be right there....seems like the willingness isn't, which makes you wonder why...oh yeah, commercial confidentiality
I could show you this unequivocal counter evidence, but then i'd have to kill you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From Etihad to City is easy - that would be shown in both sets of accounts. Also, the contracts signed by both parties would also be presented.
The main challenge for the PL is that apart from the hacked emails, they will need to prove that the Sheikh actually funded a huge percentage of the sponsorship deal as alleged. To prove this, they'll need evidence like financial records or at best, a whistleblower. UEFA could not prove the allegation. That was why CAS concluded that there was no evidence to support the serious allegation.
Let's see what the PL produces next month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounts don't show sources of revenues.
The main issue is to prove that those involved executed the payments in the emails.
I think those emails are alone very damming, even if not sufficient proof. UEFA seemed to reach an 'on balance' judgement, basically where there's smoke there's fire, while CAS disagreed and that there is no proof of fire, despite the smoke.
I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.
That is why so many impartial folk will make statements like "we all know City are guilty" because the whole thing stinks and those emails describe the very behaviour most suspected City of.
I hold a fairly cynical view of these middle east nations and how their untold wealth allows them to operate and cover their tracks. The NUFC case (which i have no idea why the PL have not investigated further) where they made statements about connections to the state in their PL owners and directors test, and then contradictory statements about certain persons involved in their LIV golf case in the US. The Qatar WC is also shrouded in corruption yet no one has ever really been done for this and certainly no one at Qatar official level.
They have such power and influence that they can make anything happen, including making problems go away. They are almost untouchable.
posted on 14/8/24
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
posted on 14/8/24
Even then though, I find it implausible that of such a magnitude of leak, those emails were the best that could be found.
posted on 14/8/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly )
posted on 14/8/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 34 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
How about a change of pace,
Please tell.us what you know that makes you so adamant City have done no wrong/it's all a conspiracy by the 'red cartel'.
You're quick to deflect, engage in whataboutery and tell us of City's innocence yet you never back it up with anything substantial.
----------------------------------------------------------
It's a personal judgement made by pitching what Khaldoon Mubarak MBA, CEO of City said v Some gossip on football forums, gleaned from clickbait websites, written by equally clueless people trying to increase web traffic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if Mubarak said it take it as gospel. Not like he's got a motive to lie or be disingenuous.
You really did swallow all the sky blue pills they fed you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I should take the words of Nickey Numbnuts on Twitter as gospel but not believe a highly respected, international businessman who has basically put his integrity on the line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy PM and senior member ruling of Oligarch oil state family with numerous human rights complaints is a highly respected businessman according to Boris
Is there anything you won't swallow from the Sheikh? Although that is illegal in.Abu Dhabi no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I take it you have no idea who Khaldoon Mubarak is?
Priceless
posted on 14/8/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 34 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
How about a change of pace,
Please tell.us what you know that makes you so adamant City have done no wrong/it's all a conspiracy by the 'red cartel'.
You're quick to deflect, engage in whataboutery and tell us of City's innocence yet you never back it up with anything substantial.
----------------------------------------------------------
It's a personal judgement made by pitching what Khaldoon Mubarak MBA, CEO of City said v Some gossip on football forums, gleaned from clickbait websites, written by equally clueless people trying to increase web traffic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if Mubarak said it take it as gospel. Not like he's got a motive to lie or be disingenuous.
You really did swallow all the sky blue pills they fed you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I should take the words of Nickey Numbnuts on Twitter as gospel but not believe a highly respected, international businessman who has basically put his integrity on the line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy PM and senior member ruling of Oligarch oil state family with numerous human rights complaints is a highly respected businessman according to Boris
Is there anything you won't swallow from the Sheikh? Although that is illegal in.Abu Dhabi no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I take it you have no idea who Khaldoon Mubarak is?
Priceless
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is a sportwashin money launderin oil n human trafficker with blood on hus hands
posted on 14/8/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
posted on 14/8/24
I completely agree with CAS there was a case to answer for them btw, just that they weren’t the smoking gun everyone thought they were.
The Mancini contract leak I find more damning, but there’s not enough in the public domain to reach a conclusion on that either.
Anyone saying it’s absolutes on either side, be it city fans saying they’re definitely innocent or other fans saying they’re definitely guilty are both blinded by partisan bias.
posted on 14/8/24
They're definitely obviously guilty. Whether it's provable at this point is doubtful. Especially with the resources City have to defend themselves.
posted on 14/8/24
comment by Bãleș left boot knees tremble (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
They're definitely obviously guilty. Whether it's provable at this point is doubtful. Especially with the resources City have to defend themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup
Whutever the comeout is we all no they r gilty as heck
posted on 14/8/24
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãleș left boot knees tremble (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
They're definitely obviously guilty. Whether it's provable at this point is doubtful. Especially with the resources City have to defend themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup
Whutever the comeout is we all no they r gilty as heck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. At this time the outcome is about as meaningful at the verdicts at the Nuremberg trials.
posted on 14/8/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boils down to whether you believe the testimonies of City paid execs. etc CAS concludes that for the UEFA case to be right, these high ranking officials would have to be lying. They concluded that "This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence available to the panel"
They even state that if Hogan and Pearce were lying they would be subject to criminal sanctions for their alleged actions.
So the cynic in me says, they are never going to admit to something that they would be criminally prosecuted for.
A lack of evidence alongside accepted testimonies from City execs.
This will need to change for the PL case to be successful.
posted on 14/8/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 16 minutes ago
I completely agree with CAS there was a case to answer for them btw, just that they weren’t the smoking gun everyone thought they were.
The Mancini contract leak I find more damning, but there’s not enough in the public domain to reach a conclusion on that either.
Anyone saying it’s absolutes on either side, be it city fans saying they’re definitely innocent or other fans saying they’re definitely guilty are both blinded by partisan bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, agreed.
posted on 14/8/24
The earth is flat and anybody who disagrees with me is just plain guilty.
posted on 14/8/24
Man Cheaty fans remind me of that fella who fell off a ten-story building.
As he was falling, people on each floor kept hearing him say, 'So far, so good.' Heh, so far, so good”
posted on 14/8/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boils down to whether you believe the testimonies of City paid execs. etc CAS concludes that for the UEFA case to be right, these high ranking officials would have to be lying. They concluded that "This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence available to the panel"
They even state that if Hogan and Pearce were lying they would be subject to criminal sanctions for their alleged actions.
So the cynic in me says, they are never going to admit to something that they would be criminally prosecuted for.
A lack of evidence alongside accepted testimonies from City execs.
This will need to change for the PL case to be successful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re the first non City fan that I have seen on here who has objectively looked at the case.
posted on 14/8/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boils down to whether you believe the testimonies of City paid execs. etc CAS concludes that for the UEFA case to be right, these high ranking officials would have to be lying. They concluded that "This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence available to the panel"
They even state that if Hogan and Pearce were lying they would be subject to criminal sanctions for their alleged actions.
So the cynic in me says, they are never going to admit to something that they would be criminally prosecuted for.
A lack of evidence alongside accepted testimonies from City execs.
This will need to change for the PL case to be successful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it’s also whether you believe the auditors too were given the full picture as well given they testified as well.
I’ve never thought the rewards were ever worth the risk people are suggesting were took. There just wasn’t the need for it that I can see.
posted on 15/8/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boils down to whether you believe the testimonies of City paid execs. etc CAS concludes that for the UEFA case to be right, these high ranking officials would have to be lying. They concluded that "This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence available to the panel"
They even state that if Hogan and Pearce were lying they would be subject to criminal sanctions for their alleged actions.
So the cynic in me says, they are never going to admit to something that they would be criminally prosecuted for.
A lack of evidence alongside accepted testimonies from City execs.
This will need to change for the PL case to be successful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it’s also whether you believe the auditors too were given the full picture as well given they testified as well.
I’ve never thought the rewards were ever worth the risk people are suggesting were took. There just wasn’t the need for it that I can see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There were 2 audits. One of City's accounts and those naturally show money coming in against invoices sent, and such sponsorship money being from Etihad. As far as an audit goes, that's all it needs to show, so this can be provided without incriminating oneself in any way.
There was another audit of the ADUG account, but this was not independent and carried out on a basis agreed with ADUG. UEFA claimed the terms of that Audit should have also included their input, to ensure all relevant facts are reported. The UEFA counsel said that as they were not involved and the scope of the audit agreed the data would be incomplete and unreliable - "rubbish in, rubbish out" (a phrase that I like and apply to the use of VAR). The Panel agreed it would not be as reliable as an independent audit, but that such is not required by the FFP regulations anyway - the audit did not show any major sums from ADUG to Etihad so accepted the conclusions that no funding/reimbursements were made by ADUG.
The thing with all of this is that the burden of proof is on UEFA / PL . City don't even need to prove they haven't done something they just have to undermine the evidence against them, which so far has been easily done as it is incomplete.
posted on 15/8/24
"undermine"
posted on 15/8/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 minutes ago
“I cannot get away from the fact that the content of those emails is damming. Whether proven or not, whether stolen or not, they read very very badly.“
For who? I don’t think they read particularly badly for City, I never have done. The sponsors I’d agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of course. Not sure how you reach your judgement.
The CAS judgement states that the Panel "... found that, based on the leaked emails, MCFC clearly had a case to answer as the emails exchanged at Exec and Board level of MCFC describe an arrangement by means of which equity funding from S.Mansour and/or ADUG would be disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etihad." That's a direct quote from the decision.
They make this statement in concluding that UEFA were left with no other option but to investigate City.
It's right there, a clear stated intent to disguise payments....so whether there is proof that payments were executed in this manner or not, those emails describe how such 'fraud' could be achieved and that it's clearly to City's benefit but also reflects badly on sponsors as well, as they would be complicit in making it happen (allegedly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they were explained at CAS with the interpretation I had of them all along.
It wasn’t to city’s benefit aside from potentially a cash flow issue, the numbers were already in the public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boils down to whether you believe the testimonies of City paid execs. etc CAS concludes that for the UEFA case to be right, these high ranking officials would have to be lying. They concluded that "This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence available to the panel"
They even state that if Hogan and Pearce were lying they would be subject to criminal sanctions for their alleged actions.
So the cynic in me says, they are never going to admit to something that they would be criminally prosecuted for.
A lack of evidence alongside accepted testimonies from City execs.
This will need to change for the PL case to be successful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it’s also whether you believe the auditors too were given the full picture as well given they testified as well.
I’ve never thought the rewards were ever worth the risk people are suggesting were took. There just wasn’t the need for it that I can see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There were 2 audits. One of City's accounts and those naturally show money coming in against invoices sent, and such sponsorship money being from Etihad. As far as an audit goes, that's all it needs to show, so this can be provided without incriminating oneself in any way.
There was another audit of the ADUG account, but this was not independent and carried out on a basis agreed with ADUG. UEFA claimed the terms of that Audit should have also included their input, to ensure all relevant facts are reported. The UEFA counsel said that as they were not involved and the scope of the audit agreed the data would be incomplete and unreliable - "rubbish in, rubbish out" (a phrase that I like and apply to the use of VAR). The Panel agreed it would not be as reliable as an independent audit, but that such is not required by the FFP regulations anyway - the audit did not show any major sums from ADUG to Etihad so accepted the conclusions that no funding/reimbursements were made by ADUG.
The thing with all of this is that the burden of proof is on UEFA / PL . City don't even need to prove they haven't done something they just have to undermine the evidence against them, which so far has been easily done as it is incomplete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Three audits. There also those of Etihad that didn’t show any high volume incoming from ADUG too. CAS did find that if the actions were to take place as Uefa were alleging, then several key auditors would have been deliberately misled too.
For very little benefit aside from to Etihad.
posted on 15/8/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
Three audits. There also those of Etihad that didn’t show any high volume incoming from ADUG too. CAS did find that if the actions were to take place as Uefa were alleging, then several key auditors would have been deliberately misled too.
For very little benefit aside from to Etihad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would contest there's no benefit.
Etihad getting £60m's worth of sponsorship costing them just £8m, or whatever.
Man City FC getting their revenues boosted by a mega sponsorship deal, ensuring their compliance and competitiveness
ADUG seeing their Man City investment grow.
With the ADUG audit, you could argue that no one was mislead but the scope of the audit ensured they only got what info. they were willing to release, similarly Etihad as both were not independent.
The City audit would be clean because it doesn't look behind the source of revenue from third parties.
posted on 15/8/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
Three audits. There also those of Etihad that didn’t show any high volume incoming from ADUG too. CAS did find that if the actions were to take place as Uefa were alleging, then several key auditors would have been deliberately misled too.
For very little benefit aside from to Etihad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would contest there's no benefit.
Etihad getting £60m's worth of sponsorship costing them just £8m, or whatever.
Man City FC getting their revenues boosted by a mega sponsorship deal, ensuring their compliance and competitiveness
ADUG seeing their Man City investment grow.
With the ADUG audit, you could argue that no one was mislead but the scope of the audit ensured they only got what info. they were willing to release, similarly Etihad as both were not independent.
The City audit would be clean because it doesn't look behind the source of revenue from third parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely you’re contesting there was benefit to everyone there? The benefit to Etihad couldn’t have been properly realised anyway had it happened as sucggested which is why I said of little benefit.
The Etihad audit was done by their main auditors, it was independent, as was ours, which is who CAS was referring to when they said that several auditors would have been mislead.
Think you’re missing the point though, saying auditors would have been misled isn’t saying they should or could have found anything, it’s a statement on the strength of the accusation.
posted on 15/8/24
Were Etihad audited, was it part of the evidence?
I don't recall any reference to it and surely if there was no money in from ADUG to match the claims of UEFA then it would have been an open and shut case...which it wasnt.
Page 5 of 6
6