Usmanov

Status
Not open for further replies.
UEFA didn't just lose on a technicality mate.
There is actually a very good analysis on the BBC News website.

From the actual judgement.


But on the funding from an Abu Dhabi communications firm that sponsors City, Cas said in the full verdict that the “charges with respect to equity funding being disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etisalat are time-barred”.

Cas said that alleged breaches fell outside their statute of limitations because the payments were received in June 2012 and January 2013.


Uefa’s adjudicatory chamber had been “comfortably satisfied” that there was “compelling evidence” based on leaked emails published in 2018 that “payments were made or caused to be made by [club owners] ADUG but attributed to the sponsorship obligations of Etisalat so as to disguise the true purpose of providing equity funding”, according to details released by Cas.






The club was “well aware” that the payments were made as equity funding, not as payments for the sponsor on account of genuine sponsorship liabilities.
 
From the actual judgement.


But on the funding from an Abu Dhabi communications firm that sponsors City, Cas said in the full verdict that the “charges with respect to equity funding being disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etisalat are time-barred”.

Cas said that alleged breaches fell outside their statute of limitations because the payments were received in June 2012 and January 2013.


Uefa’s adjudicatory chamber had been “comfortably satisfied” that there was “compelling evidence” based on leaked emails published in 2018 that “payments were made or caused to be made by [club owners] ADUG but attributed to the sponsorship obligations of Etisalat so as to disguise the true purpose of providing equity funding”, according to details released by Cas.






The club was “well aware” that the payments were made as equity funding, not as payments for the sponsor on account of genuine sponsorship liabilities.

Uefa adjudcatory chamber was overruled by CAS mate, no point quoting Uefa overruled original judgement. CAS have overruled Uefa and found "no conclusive evidence that MCFC disguised funding from their owner as sponsorship".

This is from the conclusion of the report.

1478F96B-C45A-4C1E-81FB-04598670E6BF.png
 
Last edited:
This is from the conclusion of the report.

View attachment 95905

I have read it.

The thing is that the conclusion was based upon the permissible evidence. Even then it was only a majority of the 3 man panel. It wasn't a unanimous decision. So even without the time barred evidence one of the panel still thought City were guilty of disguising equity as sponsorship.

Worse still is that City were still found guilty of breaching FFP and fined £10m.
 

I have read it.

The thing is that the conclusion was based upon the permissible evidence. Even then it was only a majority of the 3 man panel. It wasn't a unanimous decision. So even without the time barred evidence one of the panel still thought City were guilty of disguising equity as sponsorship.

Worse still is that City were still found guilty of breaching FFP and fined £10m.

The time barred evidence wasn’t investigated though because it fell outside of the statute of limitations, so you are presuming guilt, Cas, nor Uefa for that matter had a remit to investigate it, Uefa broke their own rule. Given that CAS have exnorated City within the time period under their remit and overruled Uefa, you would presume innocence as opposed to guilt. As they state the burden of proof is on the accuser and Uefa didn’t meet the threshold or their own rules for that matter.

The panels individual opinion is irrelevant, the law is the law, it’s proven with evidence under due process to a threshold that wasn’t met. I think City are as guilty as sin, but Uefa didn’t prove their case, apply their rules properly and thus FFP is now a fudge.

City have been found guilty of not cooperating with the investigation and fined 10 milllion. That’s not found guilty of breaching FFP.
 
Last edited:
The time barred evidence wasn’t investigated though because it fell outside of the statute of limitations, so you are presuming guilt, Cas, nor Uefa for that matter had a remit to investigate it, Uefa broke their own rule. Given that CAS have exnorated City within the time period under their remit and overruled Uefa, you would presume innocence as opposed to guilt. As they state the burden of proof is on the accuser and Uefa didn’t meet the threshold.

No the whole technicality regards when the evidence became time-barred. Let's be honest the actual evidence is a smoking gun. There were actual emails detailing City breaking the rules.

To put this into perspective City didn't even deny the emails were legitimate. Their defence was all about when the 5 year period was triggered.

The panels individual opinion is irrelevant, the law is the law, it’s proven with evidence under due process to a threshold that wasn’t met. I think City are as guilty as sin, but Uefa didn’t prove their case, apply their rules properly and FFP is now a fudge.

City have been found guilty of not cooperating with the investigation and fined 10 milllion. That’s not found guilty of breaching FFP.

Not co-operating is a breach of FFP.

UEFA did not prove their case because City found loopholes and played for time by not co-operating. The likelihood is that UEFA will just tighten up their regulations.
 
No the whole technicality regards when the evidence became time-barred. Let's be honest the actual evidence is a smoking gun. There were actual emails detailing City breaking the rules.

To put this into perspective City didn't even deny the emails were legitimate. Their defence was all about when the 5 year period was triggered.



Not co-operating is a breach of FFP.

UEFA did not prove their case because City found loopholes and played for time by not co-operating. The likelihood is that UEFA will just tighten up their regulations.
The Guardian has published a report on this too.
 
The Guardian has published a report on this too.

The panel overturned the guilty finding relating to Etisalat because two of their members decided that any breach of rules had not happened in 2014 when, the AC and IC found, City’s financial information provided for the settlement was false. Instead, presumably to the bemusement of the IC, AC and Uefa’s lawyers, the Cas majority decided any breach happened in 2012 and 2013, when the payments were made. CFCB rules require breaches to be prosecuted within five years – even if the evidence only emerged in November 2018 when the German magazine Der Spiegel published “leaks” of City’s emails. So, the Cas panel decided the Etisalat charges were “time-barred” when the IC prosecuted them in May 2019.
 
The docks are important for sure.

It's diffcult for me to say to much, as none of us want a legal case, so this is purely hypothetical. However, if you had lots of money that is made illicitly, and also a portion of your legitimate money is also made dubiously then real estate projects are a brillaint way to "launder" your cash. The assets will grow in value (unlike with msot things such as cars) and there are all sorts of tax implications that are beneficial if you do that. To me it's no surprise, that almost from day 1 the focus was buiolding a stadium, and building a stadium in an area of a city that with investment could grow in value massively.

I watched a Mafia show recently on Netflix, and they essentially charged a % on any building in that area once it was done. Again I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that could happen here, but if it happens in New York for decades, it could happen here.You may not have your name on any of the documents, but any future buildings in and around that area could pay you a fee to help with planning permission etc.

What we know, is that Russian money fits the criteria above, according to the British state in almost all cases. So the hat fits a bit.

I don't think they care about turning a conventional profit at all. They are trying to gain influence and potentially recycle money, which football and buildings are great for (potentially/allegedly).

I've said a few times, I remember sitting in a casino(s) whenI was younger. I was a decent poker player and could count cards with Blackjack. I'd go in with say 400-500 and hopefully double it. Nothing major, it would take a few hours, but when you're a student or just started work it's good money. Eastern European (and often Russian) guys would come and play at the table. They would at times bet hundreds of pounds per hand. Ive seen them go through 5-10k in an hour, and just go back to the ATM in the casino and go and withdraw another 5-10k and start again. This was in a run down, poor partof the country and was astonishing really.

It's just washing money. Just dding another layer of complexity for the authorities. They didn't mind that they lost overall, maybe 10-15% of their overall money, it ws just an accepted fee to have new notes/money. They just pay in a big win and it will show up as a from a company that owns the Casino, which will have a registered UK address and their fine to go.

What you see Oligrarchs do on a big sale, in the UK is that. I have no idea what Moshiri/Usmanov are doing, but it would be more strange if they weren't doing this, than if they were.
True.
Not all clever, devious, sods are billionaires, but all billionaires are clever, devious, sods.
 

From the actual judgement.


But on the funding from an Abu Dhabi communications firm that sponsors City, Cas said in the full verdict that the “charges with respect to equity funding being disguised as sponsorship contributions from Etisalat are time-barred”.

Cas said that alleged breaches fell outside their statute of limitations because the payments were received in June 2012 and January 2013.


Uefa’s adjudicatory chamber had been “comfortably satisfied” that there was “compelling evidence” based on leaked emails published in 2018 that “payments were made or caused to be made by [club owners] ADUG but attributed to the sponsorship obligations of Etisalat so as to disguise the true purpose of providing equity funding”, according to details released by Cas.






The club was “well aware” that the payments were made as equity funding, not as payments for the sponsor on account of genuine sponsorship liabilities.
Truly shocked to see you here crying about the City judgement.
 
No the whole technicality regards when the evidence became time-barred. Let's be honest the actual evidence is a smoking gun. There were actual emails detailing City breaking the rules.

To put this into perspective City didn't even deny the emails were legitimate. Their defence was all about when the 5 year period was triggered.



Not co-operating is a breach of FFP.

UEFA did not prove their case because City found loopholes and played for time by not co-operating. The likelihood is that UEFA will just tighten up their regulations.
Yawn.

The emails were stolen via hacking and then presented in a bogus manner. One was from 2010 ffs before the regulations had even come in. Another was 2 emails doctored and put together as one.

The entire ‘investigation’ was seemingly based on a 3rd party funded targeted hack of City.

Had City lost at CAS then they’d already intimated they were taking this to the civil courts. Where the entire premise of this utterly bogus rule would have fallen to pieces imo. It’s anti competitive nonsense, purely designed to keep the status quo for the established ‘big clubs’.

There’s no other business on the planet where a stakeholder can’t invest his own cash today, in the hope of a ROI at some point further down the line. As long as that investor is covering any annual losses and not accruing massive debt on the football club, then it should be literally no one else’s business.

FFP is a sham, that’s a remnant of the previously disgraced and corrupt UEFA leadership. It was heralded as a protection for clubs from themselves, the reality was it was a restriction of trade, and if it ever went to a civil court it’d be its death knell.

What needs to happen with it, is the current rules need binning. And rules around how owners must safeguard their clubs introduced, with firm rules on how any overspend is covered by that owner and what the maximum debt levels should be.

Uniteds debt level is likely to overtake its turnover this fiscal year at way in excess of £500m. Whilst the Glazers continue to extract over £20m per year in family dividends. UEFA don’t give a monkey’s as they pass FFP, but if they were genuinely interested in safeguarding football clubs, then they really should.

The whole thing stinks, not least because 2 of the loudest voices crying about FFP are the Spanish giants, both of whom have been massively bailed out with extremely dodgy land deals and tax breaks etc from their local authorities over the years. The hypocrisy is off the scale.

We know why you’re crying about it like, funny that you couldn’t help yourself btw. Soooooon.
 
I have read it.

The thing is that the conclusion was based upon the permissible evidence. Even then it was only a majority of the 3 man panel. It wasn't a unanimous decision. So even without the time barred evidence one of the panel still thought City were guilty of disguising equity as sponsorship.

Worse still is that City were still found guilty of breaching FFP and fined £10m.
The conclusion was based on evidence. The conclusion was not based on evidence that was spurious or against UEFA's own rules. If you have a problem with this, then I suggest that you have an axe to grind with City and following UEFA's laws to govern the game have the same interest to you as they did to UEFA when it came to this case and their attitude towards Manchester City.

The CAS decision was for innocence regardless of it being unanimous or not. You are making up what you think the minority panel member thought.

City were found to be obstructive with UEFA and hence the fine. I think the ruling here is also open to challenge by City as the report states that with regards to the UEFA charges, CIty co-operated sufficiently. City made it clear that every time they dealt with UEFA, then it was 'leaked' to the media and used to smear their good name and hence their understandable reticence to go beyond what they gave to UEFA (and I'm not even mentioning the illegally hacked evidence here that I wouldn't be surprised is pursued further once the hacker is processed through the legal system).

You keep mentioning that City got off on a technicality. Well you're right, that technicality was that they were innocent of what UEFA was charging them with under UEFA's own rules.

Anyway back to Usmanov.
 
The panel overturned the guilty finding relating to Etisalat because two of their members decided that any breach of rules had not happened in 2014 when, the AC and IC found, City’s financial information provided for the settlement was false. Instead, presumably to the bemusement of the IC, AC and Uefa’s lawyers, the Cas majority decided any breach happened in 2012 and 2013, when the payments were made. CFCB rules require breaches to be prosecuted within five years – even if the evidence only emerged in November 2018 when the German magazine Der Spiegel published “leaks” of City’s emails. So, the Cas panel decided the Etisalat charges were “time-barred” when the IC prosecuted them in May 2019.

why you gutted?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top