obainojazz:
Eruditor

LOOOL.

Those who live in glass houses will not throw stones.

Ibime:


City did not fix their books. Their books remain the same. You cannot declare a certain amount in a contract and change it in your books later on the basis of deception. That would invite criminal authorities in UK and also deflate their revenue to where they fail FFP.

The only party that could fix their books to clean the matter is Etihad Airways. Their books may have been saying they pay City £100m whereas City books say it's £400m. Meanwhile Sheikh funds the £300m balance. The problem is that Etihad is not under UEFA or any countries' jurisdiction except Sheikh himself. They may still be carrying £100m in their books as the figure till today sef, and are not compelled to reveal it to anyone, not even in the UAE which is a monarchy, and Sheikh is the law there.

UEFA is trying to navigate outside the ambit of the law here cos the only authorities that can can compel Etihad to prove their case transactionally are UAE authorities. All they have is emails which tell a different story to what City present in their accounts. Only Etihad has the real paper trail in their books, which is the amount they recognised as liability to City for those contracts. That is the golden gun.

You can only investigate a financial crime in the UK if the injured party agrees that it has been injured. Financial injury to a party is actually the threshold for fraud. According to City directors emails, Etihad would be the injured party in this case because the email trail says they agreed a lower amount while City's books say it's a higher amount.

That is what I have been telling you. UEFA had accepted City's explanations in 2014 and their fine (City claimed the extra money from Sheikh was for salaries and wages - not transfers).

2015, some hackers gain access to in-house emails that expose that City may have been receiving more money than they admitted in 2014 (In other words, that they were buying players with the money).

UEFA ask City about it in 2018, City tell them they have no jurisdiction to ask for it. They say the evidence is inadmissible.

UEFA in revenge, ban them and fine them in 2020.

City expect the ban so they already get lawyers ready to appeal the case.

The ruling from UEFA will not come into effect whilst the case is with the CAS.

If that case takes 5 years to be resolved, City will play every UEFA CL till then. If CAS uphold the ban, then City will face it. If they don't, all the noise on this thread will be, as Shakespeare said, "much ado about nothing".

Greatihex:
which European trophy did City win?

Which EPL were other teams winning when City were winning it?

Leyqute:


You’re being disingenuous here. The bigger your brand, the easier it is to attract lucrative contracts. Everybody knows that.

United haven’t played UCL games for years but their sponsorship deal is worth more than City’s who play UCL every year and have won the league twice in the last 3 years.

You do not understand the issue and your posts give you away. For the umpteenth time, bigger brand has nothing to do with the case.

Your thinking is still wrong. It shouldn’t have been “sauce for the goose” in the first place.

If everybody is doping like City allegedly is, if everybody is buying players yaffunyaffun like Pep, you think City can win any trophy?

Which is the only reason many of you are excited.

Thank God I did not waste my words.

Ibime:



The issue in breach is UEFA rules. You are right. In the commercial world, if a contract is signed for certain amount and cash is paid for that amount from the contracting party, the revenue is valid under any accounting rules.

The problem here is UEFA pulled up emails that show that Etihad only paid a fraction of those amounts while Sheikh passed the remaining balance from his personal funds through Etihad to City.

UEFA can pull issue with that and ask them to restate their accounts for FFP purposes to see if they passed the threshold. Na the Koko be that.

One thing is sure is that this could be a criminal matter (which it can be if British Govt cares enough), but all authorities know that Etihad/Abu Dhabi would not cooperate and British Govt would not risk tense relationship with a UAE Royal investing in their country, beside there is no negative tax implication to Her Majesty's Revenue from the transaction. There is however precedent for this in BAE Systems payments in the Middle East. All the payments were contractual and seem above board on paper, however British Govt intercepted some communications to find out the true intent of these payments, and fined them heavily for it.

City will be hiding under paper contracts while UEFA has rumbled the true cash movements that took place.

UEFA did not rumble through anything. They had fined City in 2014 and moved on. Then those leaks happened and they asked City to explain them, City refused to cooperate. UEFA in retribution, have now fined and banned City.

But City already knew that UEFA will do this because they were not cooperating. City treated the case with levity when UEFA were the adjudicators. They had prepared for the case with CAS. They called it CASE 2 right from the jump and called the case with UEFA CASE 1. As long as they file that suit, there would be a stay of execution of that ruling by UEFA.

Which is why I keep asking you why you are misleading some of the people here who cannot read?

Greatihex:
who stopped them from winning in the one they participated in?

The same thing that prevented every other club from winning the ones City won.

Leyqute:


Doesn’t seem like you did.

No 1, the other clubs you accused of the same crime have a bigger brand name than City. Much bigger. So if they can argue that this is netting them enough money to buy players. That’s the point.

They can be guilty as hell though.

Your response was off. You only reiterated what you said earlier: that they’re cooking books, without any evidence I might add.

The size of the club is irrelevant. If you don't get it, you can join blueangel419.

Secondly , I said if those you mentioned were actually inflating their revenue, they should also get punished. NOT EVERYBODY IS INFLATING FIGURES. Are Wolves doping? Leicester? Dortmund? Atletico Madrid?

If those ones (including City) are allowed to breach the law, like you are championing, there’s no reason for the law to exist, and anybody can do as they wish.

City can then join the AbuDhabi Champions League where they’ll be crowned champions every year.

Do you get my point now?

Nobody is arrogating for City's right to breach any law. But fair play means what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Ibime:


That's what CAS is for. However, that does not preclude UEFA from investigating and making judgements on its own rules, which is why I can't understand City statement that UEFA investigated and adjudicated on the matter. That is their right to do so. All City talk and your talk is just rabble rousing.

That is why I said City already expected this and had hired lawyers against going to the court of arbitration. They knew UEFA will rule this way. So no need for the doomsday prophecies about players leaving and Pep jumping ship.

Ibime:


The body who sets the rules is the one who adjudicates on it. Who do you expect to investigate and apply UEFA rules if not UEFA?

If you are unsatisfied with their verdict, you can take it to arbitration.

If you break Chevron HR rules as an employee, would you expect Total or Shell to be the ones to come and do your disciplinary? If you have a problem with Chevron's decision, you take your appeal to the courts, simple.

When Chevron fires their staff for joining unions which they forbid. The aggrieved member of staff always go outside of Chevron - the court of arbitration for labour in Nigeria (industrial court). Because they know they will never get a fair hearing with chevron. Many times the industrial court (acts like the supreme court) by overriding any decisions that Chevron may have made. You even see judgements where Chevron is asked to pay said staff huge emoluments to go with a reinstatement to their jobs.

Ibime:


You can argue till you are blue in the face. Anyone who knows accounts will know they would fall foul if forced to restate accounts. They are barely compliant now so any reduction in revenue (just for current accounting period only) will take them below FFP threshold.

And if you want to get technical, if they were found to overstate revenue in the past, IAS8 rules would require them to correct prior period misstatements in 2020 to cover incorrect revenue recognition from 2012 to 2019 which would hit their Other Comprehensive Income line in their P&L for hundreds of millions of pounds and knock them out of FFP compliance once and for all.



On another point, City are in a serious bind. It is in their interest to accept EPL points deduction this year since they cannot win the league and may be banned from UCL next year. However that will constitute admission of guilt in the eyes of CAS and hamper their case there.

On the other hand, they could challenge Premier League sanction this year and risk taking the hit next year which will knock them out of league contention for 20/21 season while also getting hammered by UEFA.


ELruditor, would you advise that they take their L this year or next?

Conjecture.

I have been telling you that City had been suspected like PSG etc and already settled their issue with UEFA in 2014 by paying a fine then and proving that their books have been good after that. The issue then was that City spent more than they could account for (not that the Sheikh intentionally gave them more money than he was allowed to). When those leaks came out in 2015, it appeared that City may have deceived UEFA in 2014 so they asked City for more information and City did not cooperate. So UEFA set out to teach them a lesson.

I don't know why you keep talking about restating an account. FFP was trying to limit the amount rich owners could invest in their clubs. A rich owner made one of his companies sponsor his team. No fraud. The suspected breach is that he lied about how much his company actually sponsored his team with. He understated it. He did so in that window so he could help his team buy and pay certain players that the team would not have been able to buy and pay with their revenue at the time.

Sheikh did not continue doing so. City had fixed their books since.

Leyqute:


Did you understand my post?

I did and replied only the aspects that were relevant to the discourse.

larride:


You are the one that’s having comprehension issue.

I asked you a simple question that you are yet to find an answer too. Who should have being the Judge in this case?

No need for megedege. Answer the question.

An independent and impartial body.

BikeMan:
Hi Eruditor, Liverpool just won another game, what will happen to our hand like this?

76 points. It has been a while since anyone won the league with less than 78 points.

I am on schedule

BlueAngel444:

Oya you that know something tell us why you mentioned those clubs na.

ain't you the same Id.iot that mentioned players bought by PSG or was it another id.iot that posted that.

Once this gets in the picture, my point has been proven.

Move along.

larride:


Lol. I asked you a simple question and you are jumping from pillar to post to answer. Who should be the judge in this case?

During PSG trial, UEFA Adjudicatory chamber heard the case likewise Madrid and Chelsea but now that it involved your Beloved City and Pap, UEFA should not have been the judge, they should have taken the case to Spanish FA or FIFA to sit on the matter.

Yeye

I told you that comprehension and expressing yourself adequately are not your gifts. Trying to mask it with this faux umbrage and show of ego is unbecoming.

City's position:

"The Club has always anticipated the ultimate need to seek out an independent body and process to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence in support of its position".

If the police will prosecute, still constitute the jury, be the judge and then dislike the plaintiff, the plaintiff will simply never get a fair hearing.

Ibime:


No they are not.

UEFA cannot ask them to restate their books and cannot punish them twice for the same crime. UEFA only need to find a rolling five year period where they would have breached FFP rules to nail them. 2012 to 2016 will do. You take your punishment for that period, and don't need to do a complicated unwinding of your accounts which has effect on other jurisdictions (tax authorities etc). If UEFA ask them to unwind their 2012 to 2016 books which are still accruing revenue in 2017, 2018, 2019, you will see they are not making enough revenue in 2017, 2018, 2019, but no need to punish them twice for the same crime.

City are making more than enough revenues especially when juxtaposed with how much they spent in said years.

UEFA did not need any period. They relied on the emails that leaked. Simple. Only thing City did was not cooperate during the investigations.

BlueAngel444:

PSG bought them at different seasons and their purchase is still off shoot by the players who left.

You don't need to comment on something you don't know.

Besides PSG didn't spend 300m a season buying players.

Spending 10B is not the issue. Did you generate the revenue to spend it, that is the issue.

Juventus are you serious or seriously joking, those guys sign free players or is it De lite and Ronaldo that you are counting.

If you don't know something, just ignore it.

This two teams above win their leagues almost yearly for the past 5+ seasons.

And how much do they generate for their spendings?

The you mention Real Madrid, what a joke, RM always buys and offloads. Do you know how many seasons went buy and Madrid hardly bought any player even with winning UCl back to back to back. Bro you need help

You are clearly not well-versed in an issue and yet you are commenting the most.

Now Barca you might have a point, but then again, Barca like Madrid have serious income revenue, they win LA liga and QFs in UCL for seasons though they stupidly spent almost 400m on 3 left wingers double what they collected for Neymar, still one of them is on his way out.

Hope you know the issue being discussed happened between 2012-15?

What stopped City from selling Sane last summer.

Questions like this prove you should leave the discourse for people who know what is going on.

Then again how does your post justify that other clubs are inflating their incomes to sign players, mehn look at PSG XI na, can you compare that to City who have a star player for every position with back up.

Read up please.

airmark:


What about in 2016/2017?

You are good at digging. Bring my posts then.

Ibime:


Take 10 year Etihad naming rights of £400m in 2011 which was double any other naming right. The fraudulent effect of that contract continues till 2021. Unless they restate those contracts to their true value, then their revenue is still overstated till date. A simple accounting principle - if you sign a 10 year deal, you will book 1/10th of the present value of that deal each year to Revenue under deferred Revenue principles. So Pep is still benefiting from all those frauds. That's why he can buy without selling like other clubs

.

Let's say City needed 200M to make purchases. They did not generate enough revenue. Sheikh gave them the money but pretended it came from sponsorship. That is all. UEFA suspected it but could not prove it until the leaks showed those emails.

No, they are not making enough revenue since 2017. Let them restate their fraudulent deals to true value first. Most of their commercial revenue is still Abu-Dhabi related and likely inflated. The only issue is burden of proof. Same as with PSG.

They are.

They can only allude to suspicions about PSG et al. They can't prove it in court. If there's any public info about PSG, UEFA will charge them sooner or later. The only one caught red-handed for now is City.

They can. UEFA have not charged PSG because they don't have leaked emails. Their books don't add up.

CAS will treat City based on AC Milan precedent which was one year deferment of ban, followed by one year ban.

The person who leaked the emails is arrested in Portugal. The leaked emails are not even supposed to be admissible because of how they were obtained. Precedent ko.

airmark:


Just as you believe that City can still win epl.

Just like I believed so in 2017/18 and 2018/19 as well.

BlueAngel444:


Other big clubs like?

PSG
Juventus
RM
Barcelona

Don't tell me you believe PSG had generated enough revenue to buy Neymar and Mbappe for e.g.

Leyqute:
Elruditor are you comparing City’s commercial outreach and fan base with Madrid, Barca, Juve and PSG’s?

Cos you can easily convince the average Joe that Madrid and others made enough income to buy players ( PSG less so) but you can’t with City.

Cos they don’t have a strong brand nor a fan base big enough to bring them that much.

But that’s by the way.

City could not generate that amount of money in 2012-16 but not today. The other clubs I mentioned were complicit as well. Fact.

Your argument that City should not be penalized because others are “allegedly doing it” is immature. Should a jobless youth be allowed to rob people at gunpoint because “others are doing it”?

Every cheat should be penalized irrespective of location or stature. That’s how to create a level playing field for everybody.

What City did was not a crime. That is part 1.

2, City can make that argument in this case simply because FFP was introduced to create a level playing field. So if other big clubs were doing same, does it not prove that the field was level when the game was being played?

Ibime:


You are the one spinning lies.

UEFA and every sensible person suspected that City were doping financially ever since they announced the Etihad naming rights.

The problem they had is burden of proof.

Football leaks hacked their emails catching them red-handed, allowing UEFA to commence investigations in December 2018, not 2016 as you claim.

Pinto hacked his way into club emails from his Portugal home in 2015 and then passed them on to the media and sparked the investigation into City's finances.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8006067/Meet-man-downed-Manchester-City-Football-Leaks-hacker-Rui-Pinto-prison.html

Emails from their execs exposed by football leaks showed that they were asking Sheikh to inflate naming rights and other commercial deals.

These are multi-year deals so the contract inflation is still giving them inflated revenues to this day.

Lies. FFP rules made it difficult for a fledgling club like City at the time to raise enough revenue to make purchases. So the owners provided the money for it through sponsorship. That is all.

They were doping then, and they are doping now, allowing Pep unlimited funds to buy players without selling.

City have been making enough revenue since 2017.

All they can do now is challenge UEFAs jurisdiction to put them on trial, not that they can clear themselves of the crime.

1. They can prove that other big clubs did same thereby nullifying the "FairPlay" spirit of the rule.
2. They can prove that the punishment was not commensurate with the crime

Fraudiola access to fraudulent funds is over. Na to jump ship remain.

Of course. Like City were not buying players even after the investigation commenced.

BlueAngel444:


So the big question you forgot to erudite upon now is who is Mary and who is Peter in all this?

Abi did UEFA marry any club


And no go quote scripture, speak plainly.

I should have said UEFA cannot be Judge, Jury, Prosecutor and Executioner.

If I am trying to prosecute someone. I cannot be the same person judging over the case and then be the same person to decide the penalty.

Especially when I have been quarrelling with said person.

Greatihex:
stop typing nonsense.

How has City crashing out in round 16 and quarter final been helping England in ucl?
Tottenham, Chelsea, Manchester United and Liverpool are better or having been contributing to coefficient more than City in Europe.


Chelsea and United have won the Europa once each in the past three seasons with Tottenham making final (dumping City in the process) and Liverpool winning it.

City on the other hand have been disgracing England since pep took over. Losing shamelessly to Monaco and not reaching any semifinal

You can't win a competition you never participated in.

larride:


So who should have being the Judge? FIFA?

If Amaechi and Peter Odili have grouses and Amaechi has another unrelated case that Mary Odili will preside over, do you think Amaechi will have a fair hearing in the case?

Do you think he will ask for another Judge to oversee the case?

Ibime:


It is everything to do with Pep. The inflated revenue from stadium naming rights continues to this day and the fraudulent contracts contribute greatly to the money he is spending now.

UEFA only need to prove that in a certain time window without these inflated revenues, you would have breached FFP caps.

UEFA have them dead to rights with their own Executive emails from that period showing they inflated revenue, all UEFA needs to do is show they would have breached FFP without those inflated contracts. No point investigating any other period where they don't have email trail, before a clever accountant or lawyer come and do magomago.

To send a serial killer to jail, you only have to prove one murder.

Of course, this is a lie. But you will go about your day knowing all you needed to say is "I tell these lies in the name of being a Chelsea fan" and the lemmings will chorus "Amen"!

UEFA did not select any time frame to check anything. This case hovered over Man City the season before Pep signed.

Yes, Man City inflated contracts because the company sponsoring the team is owned by the owners of Man City.

But contract inflation by big clubs is something they are all guilty of. City knew this and rested partly on the fact that Real Madrid, Barca, Juventus and PSG are guilty of the same - and UEFA can prove it.

So UEFA are to ban all 4 teams as well, but can't because their revenues will suffer.

This judgement is just a statement to more like ruffle City a little because they were uncooperative during the investigations.

As if you don't know that the court of sports arbitration will more than likely overturn the ban and perhaps leave City with a fine, something the Sheikh will pay with one of his son's per annum.

Ibime:
Net spend doesn't matter, net spend doesn't matter.

Other clubs are selling to buy, you are just buying and buying and buying

Now UEFA don ban you

Everybody knew UEFA will do this. City knew and wanted to appeal to the Court of Sports Arbitration but they were told to wait till UEFA made a decision.

How can you be Judge, Jury and Executioner of the same case? That is what UEFA have been in the whole saga.

airmark:


When you keep on spending lavishly like a yahoo boy, they check your books.

I will respect Fraudiola if he stays with City until they win Ucl, even if it takes him 20yrs. He needs to prove us wrong that he can face huge challenges.

Keep pandering to your fanbase.

You know the case is about something that other clubs do and had nothing to do with Pep. It was between 2012-2016.

TLona1:



Guardiola has won 2 UCLs and that's all that matters!

When he wins one post-Messi they will say show us one post-KdB.

airmark:


Fraudiola made them to overspend and their covering up, got exposed.

Man City will regret the decision to opt for the fraud, in few months when he runs away, without winning Ucl.

Lies.

TLona1:


But if Guardiola is truly a fraud and a bad coach, why's there usually a mass party here whenever something negative comes his way?

The fruitful tree always gets stoned at.