The Manchester City Thread

[Lee Brown]

Originally Posted by Rob

Must admit I can't find a sponsorship breakdown, but the £650M Nike deal makes them a bigger sponsor than Etihad.

I assume you mean your own £650m Puma deal, which replaced your previous Nike deal? The problem being that its sponsorship for the entire City Football Group, including your clubs in Australia, Spain, Uruguay and China. Is it really more than the £400m from Etihad then?

I assumed Adam was talking about this £100m:



when in a single year (albeit payment for 2 years) Etihad paid £8m, while ADUG paid £88.5m, of the Etihad sponsorship.

What's interesting about that email is that annual payment from Etihad is no longer £40m a year, but actually now £65m per year. Your £400m contract with Etihad is actually more like a £650m contract!

[Rob]

I was just going to correct myself and say yes, I actually meant City's shirt deal with Puma (not Nike).

That e-mail is the one that UEFA was basing it's case on. If it's that simple and straightforward, why do you think that CAS found in City's favour?

There's clearly more that we (you, me, Adam and a whole bunch or journalists) aren't aware of yet, otherwise CAS would have upheld UEFA's punishment. Can we at least agree on that?

I've been straight all along - if the City board were guilty, they've cheated the club, the fans and the rest of the league, and I for one would have been quite happy to accept any punishment. But I don't accept arguments and vitriol for the sake of it when there are no facts. It looks very much like the gutter press have been feeding people lies and rival fans have been lapping it up like it's the word of God.

There will be more detail to come out, of that, I'm sure.

[Lee Brown]

Originally Posted by Rob

That e-mail is the one that UEFA was basing it's case on. If it's that simple and straightforward, why do you think that CAS found in City's favour?

I'm assuming as it's from 2012/13/14 it's more than 5 years old, and therefore time-barred for investigation under FFP, and CAS therefore deemed it inadmissible.

I think UEFA's case was that City had deliberately mislead them during their former investigation under FFP, and the 'new' evidence revealed by Football Leaks could be admitted as it would have made a material impact on the punishment in that case, and demonstrated City's blatant disregard of the FFP rules. CAS evidently disagreed, suggesting the evidence was time-barred.

It will be interesting to see the final judgement, certainly the part for clearing them of "disguising equity funds as sponsorship contributions", and what evidence was time-barred and therefore ignored.

Nothing about this case presents City in a favourable light, despite the outcome today.

[Rob]

Like I said, I'll reserve judgement on "favourable lights" until the report is published.

[AdamBrunt]

Originally Posted by Lee Brown

I'm assuming as it's from 2012/13/14 it's more than 5 years old, and therefore time-barred for investigation under FFP, and CAS therefore deemed it inadmissible.



I think UEFA's case was that City had deliberately mislead them during their former investigation under FFP, and the 'new' evidence revealed by Football Leaks could be admitted as it would have made a material impact on the punishment in that case, and demonstrated City's blatant disregard of the FFP rules. CAS evidently disagreed, suggesting the evidence was time-barred.

Exactly. It is not really difficult to understand.

It just shows that as long as you lie, or keep something hidden, for long enough then you can do pretty much do what you want.

The Der Spiegel stuff was always about 13/14 and how City misled UEFA to get a more lenient punishment. How did UEFA not know that email existed 5/6 years ago ? And why is it time barred now ? It clearly would have impacted the result back then and was in the time frame. It is not as if UEFA have only tried to punish City for this offence now.

[Rob]

Some of the reaction from the managers is comedy gold.

Mourinho:-
"It's a disgraceful decision because if City are not guilty of it then you are not punished with 10 million (euros),"

"I don't know if Manchester City are guilty or not but either way it's a disgraceful decision."

On the face of it, he doesn't understand what the reduced fine is for, but I can't believe he's that thick. I think it's more that he's grandstanding for the plebby audience who will no doubt lap it up.

[AdamBrunt]

But as he says ... if you are as innocent as the club says, why are they paying £10M ?

Also - and I know its the Daily Fail but ... the Premier League apparently are still investigating and they have the same rules as UEFA with one tiny exception. Any Premier League investigation is NOT time barred

[Rob]

Are you taking the mick? You do understand what the reduced fine was for, right? Or are you playing dumb like Mourinho?

[The Bear]

Well, the fine is for obstruction of the investigation.

Whether they were guilty of the original charge or not (like most people I think they were), the two things are completely separate.

[Rob]

Of course they are separate, which is why I made the original comment about Mourinho. He seems confused as to why we can be fined if we're innocent. But like I said, I think he knows really, he's just playing fro the crowd.

I take my hat off to everybody who thinks City are guilty (or even innocent) because I honestly don't know at this stage - I've not seen any proper evidence one way or the other.

[nutter45]

Originally Posted by The Bear

Well, the fine is for obstruction of the investigation.

Whether they were guilty of the original charge or not (like most people I think they were), the two things are completely separate.

Unless by obstructing the investigation UEFA ran out of time to charge/prosecute, which seems plausible, but will reserve full judgment until the detail is published.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by nutter45

Unless by obstructing the investigation UEFA ran out of time to charge/prosecute, which seems plausible, but will reserve full judgment until the detail is published.

It's refreshing to see that some people are prepared to do this.

[AdamBrunt]

CAS ruling is out and .... surprise surprise .... it seems CAS has a totally different definition of "totally exonerated" to that of City fans

[Rob]

Not sure what you mean.

It's interesting that UEFA's only evidence was the emails published by Der Spiegel.
Furthermore, if you've read the report, you will note that:

1. The leaked email is an amalgamation of more than one email that has been edited by the newspaper.
2. CAS notes that even if the email supported the case that City hid equity funding, it is noted that the emails were sent before FFP rules were in place so it wouldn't have actually broken any rules.

The report does reject City's objections that UEFA had no right to investigate and didn't follow process. Furthermore they note City's refusal to cooperate, hence the fine.

[Lee Brown]

Originally Posted by Rob

Not sure what you mean.

It's interesting that UEFA's only evidence was the emails published by Der Spiegel.
Furthermore, if you've read the report, you will note that:

1. The leaked email is an amalgamation of more than one email that has been edited by the newspaper.
2. CAS notes that even if the email supported the case that City hid equity funding, it is noted that the emails were sent before FFP rules were in place so it wouldn't have actually broken any rules.

The report does reject City's objections that UEFA had no right to investigate and didn't follow process. Furthermore they note City's refusal to cooperate, hence the fine.

One of the six evidential leaked emails is an amalgamation of two, which CAS said made no difference to the content. City also refused to supply one of the six emails in full. One of the emails is from before FFP rules were in place.

The main thrust, insofar as I could be bothered to read, was that while the emails were damning evidence CAS ruled that UEFA needed to prove that the transactions therein had actually happened (from financial records), and it wasn't simply discussion between City staff. UEFA thought the emails were evidence enough.

City confirmed the emails were real. They also did not supply any witnesses at the original hearing, but some were found for the CAS hearing who were believed at their word (with no requirement to produce evidence).

[Rob]

Yes, pretty much everything you said is what I took from it.

Dear Spiegel don't cover themselves in glory by trying to sensationalise the whole thing. Why amalgamate ANY emails if it is cut and dried?

The bottom line is that you cant find a person/organisation guilty without proof beyond reasonable doubt. None of us know the truth which is why you have independent courts to decide these things. The press led us to believe that there was irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing and that clearly isn't the case - a fact that the UK media are deliberately misrepresenting tonight.

Any half-decent news organisation would either admit they were wrong or produce evidence to the contrary. I'm not holding my breath for either.

[cheeseypuffs]

I'll be honest and say I'm not actually bothered about reading it all, but from clip notes the main take seems to be that to get around FFP you simply have to not give UEFA access to any evidence of wrongdoing and they won't be able to prove it... and queue the usual suspects making massive expenditure in the next couple of windows with just a risk of getting a slap on the wrists

[The Bear]

The language that CAS used, who are a legal body, is pretty damning. Plus UEFA have indicated that City had no intention of complying with their investigation whatsoever, picking and choosing what evidence they wanted to give them.

[Rob]

We all know that the main thrust of this action was that City were supposedly hiding where equity came from and were funding through related parties.

I suggest anybody in any doubt of the outcome read the conclusion in paragraph 289 of the report. I know this doesn't fit the narrative, but there you go.

The media don't seem to be reporting the most significant part of the document (I don't know why) - anybody reading the BBC / Daily mail / Guardian headlines would think that UEFA won the case.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by The Bear

The language that CAS used, who are a legal body, is pretty damning. Plus UEFA have indicated that City had no intention of complying with their investigation whatsoever, picking and choosing what evidence they wanted to give them.

You don't think the fact that UEFA used doctored e-mails as their only "proof" of wrongdoing is pretty damning?