- This topic has 223 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I just read the article, nothing new to rattle, just the same anti City clan trying to stoke the fire a little bit more. Nothing will come from it my gullible people.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
We shall fight them on the fields, we shall fight them in the courts, we shall fight them in the media, we will never surrender until victory is achieved.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Lucky, from the Independent article if the claims are true that the sponsors weren’t paying the sponsorship money which is what the e mails say and it was paid by the owners there will be a money trail to follow and if that is the case there’s a significant case to answer.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Blueson,
do you believe that the unprecedented growth of commercial revenue that took city above real and utd was legitimate? ie did the companies involved truly value the deals at this level and fund them themselves out of their own budgets, or, do you think they were actually artificially inflated and in fact funded by city owners with funds routed via these affiliated companies?
Don’t you dare answer it is legit while calling others gullible. You know it came from owner whether it can be proven 100% or not.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Nine it seems all money came direct from sponsors but the sponsors received money from owner to subsidise majority of it. The only way to prove will be access to those third party accounts? Will the emails alone stand up?
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
That rule only came in 2021 when Newcastle were taken over, you can even check for yourself. Premier League clubs passed a temporary rule to stop teams from agreeing sponsorship deals with companies linked to their owners, a move that could restrict Newcastle United’s new Saudi owners, newspapers reported.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Blueson, it’s not about that rule it’s about the deception regards the actual source of money.
But I respect that you don’t argue it was legit.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Blueson, read the Independent article again it’s not that that the Sponsorship came from a related party it’s that the Sponsorship money didn’t come from the Sponsor but came directly from your owner and City falsified their accounts to make out it came from the Sponsors.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Actually nine, yeah I see the distinction now. One of the examples was the city owner paying the sponsorship direct for one of the sponsors only to have it paid back at later date, incredibly suspect and not how these things usually go.
The one regards Etihad is different in which the sponsor paid the money direct but the emails indicate only 8m of the 40m per year was actually paid from etihad budget and the rest was subsidised with money received by etihad from the city owner whose group also owns etihad.
While having an affiliated company as a sponsor was not against rules at that time, lying by declaring them as the source of all the money is very serious if it can be demonstrated.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
The fact remains no actual rules were broken at the time and that’s the essence of these trumped up charges, deception is a moral illegality and has no chance of winning a proper legal case. All the autocratic FA is going to achieve is a huge waste of time, finance and resources particularly on their side. So many clubs from top to bottom have been involved in immorality cases in the past and none have ever been charged except I think for Chelsea and they won their case easily enough.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Just out of curiosity who are the individual board members of the premier league that make all these decisions, it will be very interesting to know?
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
The issue is the burden of proof. If the PL have the same level of burden of proof as the courts (they don’t) it will be on them to prove the money cam from their owner. If they have a lower level of burden of proof (which they do) they just have to convince the panel that in all likelihood the money came from where the emails say it does.
This is why UEFA found them guilty and CAS said some of the charges were not proven, UEFA didn’t have the full money trail (how could they?). PL do not need to worry about CAS this time.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Also Alfie, the most blatant of the examples was time barred last time to, the esilat deal where owner paid sponsorship monies up front.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Blueson, if no actual rules were broken why did UEFA find City guilty and ban them from Europe for 2 years which was only overturned by CAS on a technicality as it was timed out which it won’t be by the PL because the timed out rule doesn’t exist.
The charge that the sponsorship money was not paid by the sponsors but by the owners and signed off in the accounts as it was paid by the sponsors is a very serious charge if proven.
Nobody has a clue how all this is going to work out but you’re kidding yourself if you think this whole thing is a waste of time and just for the sake of accuracy it’s the PL that have charged City not the FA.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Ok 9 sorry, you clearly have more legal knowledge than the whole City board and Lord Pannick too. I withdrew my case.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
So what is the City Boards and Lord Pannick’s “defense” for Mancini “double dipping” with his salary?
Oh, and credit due where credit’s due, the “Pannick on the streets of London” banner was quite clever and highly amusing!!
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
As I said Blueson nobody knows how this is all going to turn out not even Lord Pannick.
What is frustrating is you and other City fans suggesting on here there’s no case to answer when all the current available evidence suggests there is a case to answer. Time will tell.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
That’s exactly it nine, no city fan has to answer for any of this or defend it. We can sympathise as fans.
What is frustrating is the gaslighting and sophistry of some of the fans.
CAS even stated the initial charges were not frivolous, for any city fan to pretend there isn’t any grounds for investigation is ridiculous.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Not sure about the “We can sympathise as fans” comment… we all know they did it, we all know they’re going to get away with it, we all know the Innocnet fans will be yelling “told you we didn’t do it”, and we all know the club will never get the respect it will claim to “deserve”…
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.