Man City appeal

[ewanrob]

Nine Premier League clubs opposed Manchester City appealing their initial UEFA ban. https://t.co/uGWdGYOrDv

I'm wondering why our club would feel the need to oppose Citys appeal.

[MRG]

Suppose we were thinking at that stage that the extra place could open up a Europe place for us. Shame we didn’t put up this much of a fight when we were in Europe

[Rileybobs]

Suppose we were thinking at that stage that the extra place could open up a Europe place for us. Shame we didn’t put up this much of a fight when we were in Europe

How didn’t we put up a fight, out of curiosity?

[taio]

Perhaps they support the principles of transparency, sustainability and financial fair play.

[Bosscat]

Perhaps if City (and others) didn't push the envelope on Spending v Income people wouldn't complain

[Chester Perry]

full report from CAS

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_ ... rnet__.pdf

[evensteadiereddie]

Perhaps we are one of the few clubs who know cheats when they see them and are prepared to do something about it.

[MRG]

How didn’t we put up a fight, out of curiosity?

By having Walters on the pitch

[claretblue]

no they don't!

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

Mourinho raised the most relevant point regarding City.
If they are not guilty why were they fined £9m?
It’s guilty or not guilty surely?

[jrgbfc]

How didn’t we put up a fight, out of curiosity?

By playing a weakened team out in Athens?

[Chester Perry]

Mourinho raised the most relevant point regarding City.
If they are not guilty why were they fined £9m?
It’s guilty or not guilty surely?

The fine was for City's deliberate obstruction of the investigation - CAS found that to be true and upheld the decision and punishment

“The majority of the panel finds that MCFC’s failure to cooperate with the CFCB’s investigation is a severe breach and that MCFC is to be seriously reproached for obstructing the CFCB’s investigations,”

[Blackburn_Claret]

How didn’t we put up a fight, out of curiosity?

Playing Lingard against Aberdeen

[ChrisG]

Playing Lingard against Aberdeen

Pope started the first match and went off injured after 15 minutes, and Heaton was also injured wasn't he?

[Leisure]

The fine was for City's deliberate obstruction of the investigation - CAS found that to be true and upheld the decision and punishment

“The majority of the panel finds that MCFC’s failure to cooperate with the CFCB’s investigation is a severe breach and that MCFC is to be seriously reproached for obstructing the CFCB’s investigations,”

And I wonder why they would feel the need to obstruct the investigation if they felt that they were innocent and had nothing to hide???

[Leisure]

Pope started the first match and went off injured after 15 minutes, and Heaton was also injured wasn't he?

Don't let facts get in the way of a good moan!

[Blackburn_Claret]

Don't let facts get in the way of a good moan!

What about Istanbul away? Did we even have a shot?

[Leisure]

What about Istanbul away? Did we even have a shot?

Yes, 2. They had 18 but still couldn't score!

[Ashingtonclaret46]

What about Istanbul away? Did we even have a shot?

Yes we did.

[TVC15]

Playing Lingard against Aberdeen

If you are going to have a good moan about something that happened years ago the least you could do is get his name correct.

[Blackburn_Claret]

Hart was booked for wasting time. We weren't interested at all

[Ashingtonclaret46]

We had 12 points from 19 games last season and that was without getting any further in Europe.
The club who had 12 points after 19 games this season ended up relegated, in fact, one who had 20 points also went down.
The season before the two bottom teams after 19 games had 13 and 14 points respectively and were relegated,
The season before the three bottom clubs had 12, 13 and 14 points respectively and were all relegated.

I think that with further European involvement we could well have been enjoying life in the Championship this season.

[Leisure]

Hart was booked for wasting time. We weren't interested at all

Why would we bother wasting time then if we weren't interested?

[ten bellies]

What about Istanbul away? Did we even have a shot?

I'm not so sure about shots, but there were many beers consumed as far as I could tell.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Complaining about not trying and which players were picked in cup ties we progressed in takes the level of stupid on here to a new level

[jrgbfc]

We had 12 points from 19 games last season and that was without getting any further in Europe.
The club who had 12 points after 19 games this season ended up relegated, in fact, one who had 20 points also went down.
The season before the two bottom teams after 19 games had 13 and 14 points respectively and were relegated,
The season before the three bottom clubs had 12, 13 and 14 points respectively and were all relegated.

I think that with further European involvement we could well have been enjoying life in the Championship this season.

Or alternatively we were so poor the first half of that season getting to the group stage couldn't possibly have made it any worse. The buzz/feel good factor of getting to the group stage would have probably improved our form, rather than the horrible dark cloud that seemed to be hanging over us.

[Petersa]

And I wonder why they would feel the need to obstruct the investigation if they felt that they were innocent and had nothing to hide???

I have to say that I am with City and Mourinho on this one....blimey that has to be a first!
In terms of common law and natural justice you are innocent until proven guilty. UEFA couldn't prove guilt and City did not need to prove their innocence. Therefore why should they need to be fined?

Would it be controversial to ask where the money goes?

[Chester Perry]

I have to say that I am with City and Mourinho on this one....blimey that has to be a first!
In terms of common law and natural justice you are innocent until proven guilty. UEFA couldn't prove guilt and City did not need to prove their innocence. Therefore why should they need to be fined?

Would it be controversial to ask where the money goes?

you really need to read the judgement - UEFA made idiots of themselves in the initial investigation, the original hearing and in preparation for the appeal, of that there is no doubt. Man City are most definitely not exonerated, even though judgement said that the case was essentially "not proven" to use a Scottish term, the final outcome was a split decision and there were some curious elements including:

- the chair of the panel who was City's nominated member (who is supposed to be independent) coming from a firm with a long history of work for State owned Abu Dhabi companies.
- Appeals are supposed to be accepted only when the process is proved to be flawed - it was, UEFA broke their own rules which is plain stupid (As was allowing appeals for non-procedural elements).
- Appeals are not supposed to be a rerun of the initial case (UEFA FFP statutes currently allow this and that probably needs to change, allowing super rich clubs two bites of the FFP legal cherry is only likely to give one winner) with new evidence, that was withheld by the appellant in the original hearing, city won.
- City's new evidence (which UEFA did not want before hand as was their right - so the decision could be made before the new season) which was essentially yes the emails contained our plans (which City agreed were in breach of UEFA FFP) but we are telling you now that that is not what we actually did - this was accepted by 2 of the panel members without any substantive evidence to back it up.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

you really need to read the judgement - UEFA made idiots of themselves in the initial investigation, the original hearing and in preparation for the appeal, of that there is no doubt. Man City are most definitely not exonerated, even though judgement said that the case was essentially "not proven" to use a Scottish term, the final outcome was a split decision and there were some curious elements including:

- the chair of the panel who was City's nominated member (who is supposed to be independent) coming from a firm with a long history of work for State owned Abu Dhabi companies.
- Appeals are supposed to be accepted only when the process is proved to be flawed - it was, UEFA broke their own rules which is plain stupid (As was allowing appeals for non-procedural elements).
- Appeals are not supposed to be a rerun of the initial case (UEFA FFP statutes currently allow this and that probably needs to change, allowing super rich clubs two bites of the FFP legal cherry is only likely to give one winner) with new evidence, that was withheld by the appellant in the original hearing, city won.
- City's new evidence (which UEFA did not want before hand as was their right - so the decision could be made before the new season) which was essentially yes the emails contained our plans (which City agreed were in breach of UEFA FFP) but we are telling you now that that is not what we actually did - this was accepted by 2 of the panel members without any substantive evidence to back it up.

Chester ---so it boils down to UEFA, for whatever reason, not adhering to their own rules and regulations and City having someone in place to ensure that they won their appeal. Same old ---it's not what you know ---it's who you know. Plus ca change!

[Chester Perry]

Chester ---so it boils down to UEFA, for whatever reason, not adhering to their own rules and regulations and City having someone in place to ensure that they won their appeal. Same old ---it's not what you know ---it's who you know. Plus ca change!

actually the time elements did not play as importantly as first suggested on the 14th of July


It is more down to UEFA:

- not having a set of regulations tight enough (not following your own procedures is bad enough, but having rules that allow the case itself to be appealed is shocking given the wealth and aggression of the biggest clubs)
- not pursuing the evidence and details they could and should have (even the CAS Adjudicating panel was surprised by this)
- not challenging the City nomination to the panel (the independence of the nomination is questionable, but UEFA appear not to have wanted to upset City or CAS)
- prioritising a final judgement before next season (possibly out of a desire to avoid potential financially decimating lawsuits) which led to some of the questionable decisions re City's nomination and new evidence.

It has to be said that UEFA won quite a few of the judgements, City won the key ones for them and the public understanding at large, but even then they were split decisions.

[AlargeClaret]

None to shabby at all imo for a midweek game in Greece
10 men most of game and corruption all over
Heaton
Taylor
Bards
Long
Ward
Gibson ( sent off 1st)
Gudmonson
Jeff
Cork
Wood
Barnes

Bench
Hart
Tarky
Lennon
Vydra
Vokes

[Rileybobs]

By having Walters on the pitch

Can’t remember when Walters played but it wasn’t against Olympiakos which means we won the tie - so I don’t get your point.

[Rileybobs]

By playing a weakened team out in Athens?

We didn’t play a particularly weakened team in Athens.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Can’t remember when Walters played but it wasn’t against Olympiakos which means we won the tie - so I don’t get your point.

He played the full game in Istanbul and then he went on loan to Ipswich where he sustained his injury. That was the only game that he actually started apart from the League Cup game at Blackburn the previous season when he got 'done'

[Chester Perry]

Chester ---so it boils down to UEFA, for whatever reason, not adhering to their own rules and regulations and City having someone in place to ensure that they won their appeal. Same old ---it's not what you know ---it's who you know. Plus ca change!

This is David Conn's interpretation of the CAS judgement in the Guardian - he is a lifelong city fan but not a fan of CFG

Mansour's payments and a U-turn by Uefa: key Manchester City findings
Court of arbitration for sport judgment also finds no Uefa bias and shows why an alleged FFP breach was unsubstantiated

David Conn - Wed 29 Jul 2020 20.42 BST Last modified on Wed 29 Jul 2020 22.36 BST

Manchester City themselves acknowledged that the club’s owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan of the Abu Dhabi ruling family, did arrange payments, understood to be a total £30m, for sponsorship in 2012 and 2013, on behalf of the Abu Dhabi telecoms company Etisalat.

That was key to Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber (AC )finding City guilty of overstating sponsorships. Its members, senior European lawyers, considered the two payments to be straightforward funding of City by Sheikh Mansour via his company, ADUG. The chamber found on that basis that City’s financial statements, provided to the English FA for Uefa’s financial fair play process, “overstated MCFC’s true sponsorship revenue” by recording ADUG’s 2012 and 2013 payments as sponsorship from Etisalat.

City themselves accepted that no actual contract was concluded with Etisalat until 2015, although one had been agreed in principle. In 2015 Etisalat reimbursed Mansour’s company the £30m that ADUG had arranged to be paid for 2012 and 2013. City’s case at the court of arbitration for sport (Cas) was that the 2012 and 2013 payments were properly accounted for, because they were credited against invoices to Etisalat, “ie MCFC recognised in its accounts that these payments [by ADUG] were made on behalf of Etisalat”.

The chamber had clearly rejected that argument, but City presented it again at Cas. Ultimately the Cas panel did not consider the issue because it decided by 2-1 that any alleged breach was time-barred anyway. Although the 2012 and 2013 accounts were submitted in 2014 as part of the three-year period for FFP consideration, the panel said the relevant dates were when the ADUG payments were made. They were more than five years before the charges were prosecuted by the CFCB investigatory chamber in May 2019, so timed out.

Disguised equity funding unsubstantiated
Cas rejected the AC’s finding that ADUG mostly funded the sponsorship from the Abu Dhabi airline Etihad.

That charge originated in the internal City emails published by the German magazine Der Spiegel in November 2018. Three of the emails were from the club’s then financial officers, setting out that for the 2012‑13, 2013-14 and 2015-16 seasons, Etihad was paying only £8m of sponsorships worth £35m, £65m and £67.5m respectively, with the rest coming from Mansour’s company vehicle ADUG.

The CFCB proceedings found the emails more credible because for the 2015-16 £67.5m sponsorship, Etihad had made two separate payments, tallying with the amounts set out in the email: £8m and £59.5m. Together with City’s failure to cooperate, by declining requests for key people to give evidence, and refusing to provide the emails themselves, replies to them and other documents, the AC found that the Etihad sponsorship had indeed been subsidised as set out in the emails.

City cooperated much more fully with Cas, providing further documentation and presenting as witnesses senior Etihad figures including the former chief executive James Hogan, Samer Abdelhaq, an Abu Dhabi government legal adviser who gave evidence about governing structures within Abu Dhabi and the wider United Arab Emirates, and Simon Pearce, a senior City director and special adviser in Abu Dhabi to the club chairman, Khaldoon al-Mubarak. Pearce said of the finance officers’ emails that there had been “some confusion among individuals at the club” and “a misunderstanding that ADUG was making funds available to Etihad”.

Pearce, Hogan and all the witnesses, including Sheikh Mansour in a letter, denied that ADUG had funded the sponsorship, contrary to the emails. Based on that fuller evidence, the panel decided by 2-1 that there was “not sufficient evidence” that ADUG funded the Etihad sponsorships and found “Uefa’s theory on disguised equity funding remains unsubstantiated”.

City’s obstruction
The club “obstructed the investigations of the CFCB” and their failure to cooperate was “a severe breach” for which City should be “seriously reproached”.

The Cas panel noted that the “entire FFP system” depends on clubs truthfully providing complete and accurate information on their finances. The panel also said for context that when in 2014 City agreed a settlement with the CFCB, they had in effect not provided a “complete and accurate picture” of two payments, received in 2012 and 2013.

At Cas, Uefa dropped the request the CFCB had made from the start, always refused by City, for the “run” of emails, which would show the replies given to City’s financial officers.

The judgment says Uefa finally dropped that request principally because it did not want to delay the Cas hearing, as it needed the issue of any City ban decided before the start of next season.

No bias in the investigation
Despite City’s repeated public allegations of bias at Uefa and the CFCB, Cas found the CFCB followed “due process”.

The panel found the IC had investigated with “impartiality” and that there were “no reports … that the [AC’s] members … lacked the required impartiality”. The judgment noted: “As also acknowledged by MCFC, there was a legitimate basis to prosecute MCFC.”

[Sproggy]

Der Spiegel have released more Man City emails that undermine their testimony to CAS.

https://www.spiegel.de/sport/cas-urteil ... 855f04c0c7

[Chester Perry]

Der Spiegel have released more Man City emails that undermine their testimony to CAS.

https://www.spiegel.de/sport/cas-urteil ... 855f04c0c7

I have been trying to get a translation of this for the last 4 hours - they block google translate

[FactualFrank]

I have been trying to get a translation of this for the last 4 hours - they block google translate

Just copy it, go to google, type in google translate - 2 boxes will pop up, paste it in.

There's a limit of characters, so you'll need to do it in chunks.

It begins with...

Internal emails question testimony
Uefa lost the Manchester City case because of insufficient evidence. New findings show that the defense of the club was shaky.
By Rafael Buschmann and Christoph Winterbach
30.07.2020, 2.31 p.m.

On the one hand: Manchester City, present with twelve lawyers. On the other hand: the European football association Uefa, represented by two financial experts and four lawyers.

There was a great deal at stake for both parties in the Cas Sports Court trial. For City, it was about participating in the Champions League and receiving bonuses. For Uefa "the most serious, sophisticated, best thought-out and most fundamental attempt to circumvent or violate the Financial Fair Play rules", as the European Football Association called it in its judgment.

[Chester Perry]

The Guardian are now running a story with the Der Spiegel claims

Der Spiegel claims new Manchester City emails cast doubt on Cas verdict
New ‘leaked’ emails relate to City’s sponsorship by Etihad
Club refuse to comment on emails but have denied wrongdoing

David Conn - Thu 30 Jul 2020 20.02 BST - Last modified on Thu 30 Jul 2020 20.03 BST

The German magazine Der Spiegel has published new “leaked” emails relating to Manchester City’s past sponsorships by Abu Dhabi state companies, which it claims cast doubt on the court of arbitration for sport judgment that overturned City’s ban by Uefa.

In one of the emails, a City director, Simon Pearce, who was also a senior executive in an Abu Dhabi government authority, set out that he was “forwarding” the airline £91m of £99m that Etihad owed to the club for its sponsorship, with Etihad providing only £8m.

City refused to comment on the substance of the new emails, maintaining as the club has since the first “leaks” in November 2018 that their emails were “criminally obtained”. Spiegel’s source, Rui Pinto, who is charged with computer hacking in his native Portugal, which he denies, has denied that he obtained the City emails by criminal means.

City have vehemently denied that the Etihad sponsorship was subsidised by the club’s owner, Sheikh Mansour of the Abu Dhabi ruling family, or any other Abu Dhabi entity, since Spiegel first published the emails, and throughout the subsequent investigation and ultimate guilty finding by Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber (AC). Pearce and senior Etihad executives gave evidence at the Cas hearing, categorically denying the finding, largely based on the published emails, that the airline did not pay the sponsorships in full.

The emails considered by the CFCB and Cas included three from City’s then financial officers to Pearce, a City board member and senior adviser on the Executive Affairs Authority (EAA), a strategic Abu Dhabi government authority. The finance officers set out that in 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16 Etihad paid only £8m of sponsorship deals City stated to be £35m, £65m and £67.5m respectively. The rest, they wrote, was being paid by Mansour’s company ownership vehicle, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG).

City had refused requests from the CFCB for Pearce and other senior people to give evidence, and Cas severely criticised the club and imposed a €10m fine for their failure to cooperate and obstruction of the investigation. Pearce did appear before Cas, as did James Hogan, the former Etihad chief executive, and other senior figures, and based largely on their evidence, the Cas panel overturned by a 2-1 majority the CFCB conclusion that Mansour “disguised” his own funding as Etihad sponsorship.

One of the new emails was sent by Pearce in December 2013, from his Executive Affairs Authority address to Peter Baumgartner, then Etihad’s chief commercial officer, with the subject “payments”. Pearce set out that under its sponsorship agreement, Etihad had owed City £31.5m for the 2012-13 season, and £67.5m for the £2013-14 season, a total of £99m.

“So we should be receiving a total of £99m – of which you will provide £8m,” he wrote to Baumgartner. ”I therefore should have forwarded £91m and instead have sent you only £88.5m. I effectively owe you £2.5m.”

Pearce offered Baumgartner two options to reconcile the missing £2.5m. The first was for Etihad to pay only £65m of the £67.5m sponsorship for 2013-14 and pay the £2.5m the following year. The second option, Pearce wrote, was: “You pay the £65m now and I will forward the £2.5m in a couple of months – at which point you can forward it on.”

Pearce apologised to Baumgartner for the missing £2.5m he had not sent, writing: “As I am sure you knew, embarrassingly it would seem that rather than overpaying you I have underpaid you!”

The figure of £88.5m Pearce apparently sent to Etihad for forwarding to City tallies with the same figure, £88.5m, set out to Pearce in one of the previously published emails. That was sent five days earlier by Jorge Chumillas, City’s then chief financial officer, who said the breakdown of Etihad’s sponsorship of City was £88.5m from ADUG, while Etihad were paying £8m.

Pearce’s evidence to Cas about the City’s finance officers writing in their emails that only £8m was coming from Etihad, was that the arrangements had caused “some confusion among individuals at the club” and “a misunderstanding that ADUG was making funds available to Etihad”.

City declined to provide a response to the contents of the new emails, as they did publicly in 2018, so they did not explain why or in what capacity Pearce was apparently sending £91m to the chief commercial officer of Etihad for its sponsorship of City.

The club said in a statement: “The questions and matters raised by Der Spiegel appear to be a cynical attempt to publicly re-litigate and undermine a case that has been fully adjudicated, after detailed proceedings and due process, by the court of arbitration for sport.

“Manchester City’s policy remains not to comment on out of context materials purported to have been criminally obtained from City Football Group and Manchester City personnel.”

[Chester Perry]

you hear a lot that Man City refuse to talk about such things as football leaks - they don't do it directly or officially - but they do do it - one mouthpiece of choice is the Manchester Evening News - here is their take on the Ser Speigel piece from today

New Man City Der Spiegel email allegations contain huge glaring error
The German newspaper has published new hacked materials

By Stuart Brennan - 17:01, 30 JUL 2020

Fresh allegations made by Der Spiegel contain one glaring error which calls into question the balance of their investigation.

The German newspaper has published a fresh batch of hacked emails which it says show that Manchester City misled the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

City have already refuted the claims in a statement and are examining their options on the matter.

The original emails, which were rejected by CAS as evidence that City had channelled owner investment disguised as sponsorship payments, contained basic mistakes.

Both Der Spiegel and Uefa made the assumption that “His Highness” - referred to in one email – had to mean City owner Sheikh Mansour.

City explained to CAS that this was in fact a reference to Sheikh Tahnoon, then head of the Abu Dhabi Tourist Authority.

They had also included, as evidence of wrongdoing, an email from City board member Simon Pearce dated 2010 – which was before the financial fair play rules in question were even enforced.

Now it seems the fresh batch of emails also make big assumptions, the most glaring surrounding an email to Pearce from an individual whose name is redacted, concerning a corporate box at the Etihad Stadium.

Der Spiegel claimed: “In 2016, Pearce wrote that the Aabar investment company would soon become part of the Mubadala sovereign wealth fund and that he would then have it under his control.”

That claim was based on an email, published on the newspaper’s website, which shows Pearce - who was City’s star witness at the CAS hearing and was also a key figure in the Abu Dhabi government’s investment vehicle Mubidala – responding to an email requesting that Aabar have a corporate box at the Etihad Stadium reinstated the following season.

Pearce’s brief reply to that email reads: “Fine with me given the practicalities are that it doesn’t get used. Aabar will be part of Mubidala in the coming months so I can control its use.”

That has been interpreted by Der Spiegel as an indication that Pearce was talking about being able to control Aabar, when the more obvious explanation is that he was talking about controlling the use of the corporate box.

The other emails are also open to interpretation, in the same way that those rejected by CAS as providing proof.