If City get away with this, or are even punished on a small scale, it will be interesting to see what Newcastle do. So far they've been trying to follow the rules and if City get away with it, what stops them from going all in as well? The precedent would have been set already. The Saudi's certainly didn't buy Newcastle to challenge for a Champions League place. Not to mention the Saudi's have alot more power on a global stage than Abu Dhabi do.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
That twitter thread is for the most part pure and utter shite really.
For the emails, see CAS judgement p38 A and p68 onwards. The emails were edited and out of context and City submitted the real emails to CAS, which 2 separate individuals testified..
I and I'm no specialist who also thinks City guilty could go through the CAS judgement and prove every bit of that thread wrong myself.
People don't wanna believe what's really right in front of their eyes but City just beat those charges where they had to and were confident of beating the time barred stuff too, they just didn't have to.
CAS also made a point of pointing out in 5.5 million emails, 6 tenuous at best and heavily edited emails City easily bested in court was all the hackers could offer. And every email was admissible (despite what the media say).
My point with this by the way is not to prove innocence or anything, its just people posting stuff like the twitter thread generally have no fecking clue what they are on about, have stuff out of context and what they think is a smoking gun is mere conjecture.
People are like inadmissible email this, time barred that but reality is a lot different.
Last edited:
Issue here is the CAS panel was a joke (City picked one member, UEFA picked one and then, for a reason no one wants to comment on, City recommended the chairman who will have the deciding vote...so even though it might say the 'majority of the panel', it only means the two guys City chose to be on the panel, versus the one they did not. The UEFA pick was a lawyer who specializes in CAS cases so was an obvious pick for UEFA, the City pick was, as we have come to expect from them, dodgey as sin.
City most likely celebrating a double at the end of the season despite all the accusations / evidence is a farce. No idea why the PL is not pushing harder on this, it will make them look even more stupid
I mean what you posted literally says "There is no suggestion of actual bias on the part of either of City’s nominated arbitrators."
See this is the problem, you guys only wanna see the evidence when it suits your pov. That's not how its going to work. The reality is people are crying bias cause it doesn't suit their view the same way City did with Uefa and the PL, but yet again without any proof.
As of yet there is no proof of any bias in Cities favor and no established proof of City breaking the rules.
In fact City crying bias against UEFA has more credibility given CAS (before the panel who heard the case, described Uefa's behavior as "worrisome") but told City they wouldn't take on the case till post Uefa judgement.
Uefa had every right to argue Rui Santos but felt him impartial. So unless we're implying Uefa brought City up on these charges went balls out to punish them and then decided to work with City during CAS its weird.
Its like City complaining about the current guy overseeing them is Murray Rosen. Uefa could have done the same, no?
Are we saying that Murray Rosen being appointed means there's a bias against City in the current commission? Cause I'd highly doubt it despite City using him as a reason to drag things out and him being an Arsenal club member.
Unfortunately that reply is just lacking common sense. The Guardian doesn't want to be sued by either City or UEFA so what more can it do then point out 2 very irregular instances?
Again, the second part lacks common sense. Question for you, forget it's CAS, forget it's City. A court works through loads of these cases, if in one specific case you have 2 examples of irregularities (recommending the impartial chairman and an arbiter who is quite clearly not impartial) would you just think, that's fine? It's never happened before but whatever?
City have complained about Murray Rosen? You've killed your own point.
Lance Armstrong isn't a state though. City's backers are far bigger than the Premier League. All City needs to do is outlast the Premier League's legal funds.
Yes so the Guardian wouldn't flat out lie cause of the repercussions. 100%. So yeah, they said it was impartial because well it was.
It literally states the guy never worked for anyone at City and again its YOU implying he's not impartial. Because its your bias. Do I think its weird? Yeah, can I prove that it made the commission biased? Just like the Guardian, No.
You misunderstood my point on Rosen given I literally said City objected. Uefa absolutely could have complained against the appointment of Santos, they didn't because they presumed him impartial. It would be quite weird for them to bring all those charges, fight tooth and nail and then be like "Yeah we're cool with 2 of the 3 on the commission being biased towards City".
Considering City fans are supposed to be the ones who are conspiracy theorists, the CAS was rigged is quite a reach from the sensible.
I'm saying that even if Lance Armstrong was a state then Lance Armstrong the state would have lost, because the case against Lance Armstrong the state was so rock solid, that not even infinite lawyers could have won the case for Lance Armstrong the state.
Sovereign states lose cases in courtrooms all the time, against organizations and even private individuals. Being a state provides you with immense advantages when it comes to wealth. Beyond obtaining the best lawyers money can buy, it doesn't change the reality provided by hard evidence. If the PL has said evidence, whatever City are doing are at best delaying the inevitable: a guilty verdict, and the lawyers will just laugh their way to the bank.
Sadly, most city fans have become conspiracy theorists, genuinely believing UEFA and the EPL are working on the behest of 'the elite' to thwart their supposed fairytale.
There is no 'implying', either, they literally assert it outright. Consult 'bluemoon' for proof.
As for this CAS panel, I doubt city completely rigged the game in their favour, but were allowed to influence its construction in an alarming fashion. UEFA's decision not to question the relevant member could be attributed to continued litigation, and the Guardian, who have not attempted any lies, correctly report how suspicious it all is to legal professionals.
The EPL charges are a different matter and we can see, with the application of government lawyers, how city's owners have the power to squeeze their critics.
It's not really about 'lying', they're a newspaper and they report on what's actually happened. They strongly allude to the fact it's a bit dodgey (surely you agree with this?) but that's the limit of that they do.
I am flabbergasted you actually wrote that 2nd para. The guy who chaired the White & Case office in MENA who has those exact clients, you honestly believe has no conflict of interest? You accept it's weird, so there are two weird instances on a panel of 3 and you think it's bias?
You can call me pessimistic but there's no bias here because it makes no sense unless something underhand has happened. Why would UEFA willingly go to all this trouble to then essentially throw the case? Even if they thought Santos was fine, they would go with one of many many other options just in case. We're not dealing with idiots here, it is common sense.
“…people posting stuff like the twitter thread generally have no fecking clue what they are on about”.
Well… cheers.
I just posted it without any opinion or conjecture, but ok.
Nonsense, if someone accused you of having dodgy photos on your phone and it went public and everyone thought you're a dodgy person and treated you as such, if an investigation opened up and you knew 100% you were innocent, you'd hand you phone over to authorities immediately to prove your innocence. You wouldn't go telling them nah mate get a warrant, because that lends credence to the accusation and drags the situation out much longer, which is what City are doing.
All PL clubs have a contract with the PL regarding reporting their financials and cooperating in any investigations if said financials were not adding up, City are not doing that, they're the ONLY ones not doing that, I wonder why.
Wiiiiiiiilmaaaaaaaaaaaa
I wasn't on about you buddy. I was referring to the twitter guy. Of course you are entitled to give opinions and share stuff but likewise I'm entitled to say I disagree with that twitter guy and explain why, bring receipts and proof.
I probably should have said "people posting stuff out of context like that twitter guy" in hindsight. so apologies if it came across as a dig at you personally. Not my intent at all, more a dig at the twitter dude who is like "Heres the proof" when all his proof has been disproven.
Last edited:
Not to mention what City will do as well. There's potential for the clubs to become brazen in their corruption if the lawman is too weak to stop them.
Tough times ahead for the PL
Exactly they aren't lying, they are telling the truth and the truth said "no impartiality (maybe bias can't remember"). I'm saying they said that likely because its true.
Doesn't it usually happen with CAS where both sides recommend one each and a 3rd impartial is selected which is what happened here. The only thing odd is City suggesting him but I have a feeling had UEFA suggested him no one would bat an eye. Its weird but I have no reason to believe he's biased simply because City recommended him, no more than I have to presume Rosen biased. City and Uefa on the other hand were free to argue that bias if they believe it there, City did and the cynic in me and most the Caf believe it wasn't because they believe Rosen actually biased but to drag things out. Uefa didn't.
You are saying you're not biased but then immediately use pure bias speculating on something underhand happening. How can you say that sentence is not biased? Exactly why would Uefa go along with it, seems like your in agreement with me on this but disagree on the why. I tend to take it at face value till I hear or see proof otherwise, you tend to presume something shady happened. One of those is a more biased take than the other.
And again just to make sure, I think City guilty, but my point in quoting the twitter thing is I also think the PL are gonna have a proper hard job getting stuff over the line, given how City hammered Uefa at CAS despite what the time barred etc.. stuff being used to try and gloss over the actual decisions but theres zero reason to think anything underhanded went on with the CAS decisions regardless of who recommended Santos.
Last edited:
If you think the Der Spiegel emails don't amount to much in the broader context and think City hammered UEFA at CAS, and also take things at face value till you hear or see proof otherwise, on what basis or evidence do you think City are guilty?
Is it just that, on the whole, the ascent of the club is hard to believe at face value without breaking some rules? The dodgy betting and crypto or valuation of UAE-adjacent sponsorships? The hard-to-believe revenue figures? A general presumption about the way business is done in that part of the world? Or is it moreso that City have broken the spirt of the rules even if it may be tough task to prove they have broken the letter?
Just curious about the basis of your belief that City are guilty, which you've been pretty consistent on.
24 hours of celebration and City fans back to their main occupation: defending their cheating & corrupt stain of a club
Recommended and choose are not the same thing.
You used the word lying, not me…they suggest otherwise but won’t state it for legal reasons as discussed already.
That’s not what bias is? I’m saying to you here are the facts re the CAS panel and there are two shady parts to the panel. You’ve already agreed it is weird. If we are very generous re McDougall and just say because he’s elected by City he’s going to be City’s man (and vice versa for UEFA) it still makes it extremely strange to have a City recommendation as essentially the deciding vote. Like, why? There are lots of options, it makes no sense.
Also, the CAS case was very small and specific. It was about the emails and ONLY etisalat and etihad. Given the former was time barred, the only thing City ‘won’ was they could not prove Etihad money specifically had been disguised. When you actually read the doc, it paints City in an awful light. There’s a part where it comes to light their expert witness was banned from answering specific questions and they essentially refused to hand over anything and so the only evidence that was judged was a few emails with massively redacted sections…
From what I can tell re the PL’s investigation it is essentially a full audit of the club. They are saying we believe you have these 115 charges and we need x, y and z documents. I agree it will be very hard to prove but really it will come down to what punishment they give for City not providing documents (that’s my opinion based off what we’re hearing about City delaying everything) because the truth is City’s best defence might simply be to refuse to hand over anything at all. Purely speculation but that’s what I believe has been going on, dragging it out, sending loads of irrelevant docs, redacting everything they can, basically making it impossible to ‘prove’ anything.
Be a bit weird if a white collar criminal recommend a judge for their trail and then were found not guilty? But you think because they didn’t ‘choose’ them it’s fine? Not much to say if the answer to that second part is ‘yes’.
It's not that simple, many would say no just to use their right not to, instead of being pressured into it. Also giving your phone in and them finding nothing doesn't prove much, and it won't stop the accusations.
We got the worst of it too. Imagine selling your biggest club side and institution to some cowboys from the USA.
Seemingly nobody even looked at how much the Glazer’s could afford at the time which shows the greed and I’ll be honest low IQ of the people in the game at the time.
I think in the 00’s the Premier League was just winging it really once it became successful.
More professional entities would have laughed the Glazer’s out of the place saying they are just buying with loans and I think Sir Alex and a few others have a lot to answer for.
Seemingly they wanted to just cash out on their success. I’d love to know the actual story because someone was to blame at our club and the FA.
Wasn't it arbitration, not a trial before a judge? In trials white collar criminals forum shop for favorable judges all the time.
Yeah just a high level example. Obviously it wasn’t a trial and there was no jury but v odd to have any influence, no matter how small, over the deciding vote.
The 00s really was where it all went wrong for the integrity of the PL.
It's arbitration. It just doesn't seem that odd that a party to an arbitration would do what they could to influence or recommend the most favorable and/or competent panel as possible; especially one a aggressive, litigious and "resourceful" as City are. Uefa had a right to object to Santos as chairman and refrained from doing so and in fact even welcomed him.
Right in the judgement it says "UEFA has no objection to the proposal made by Appellant in its letter of today (i.e. to appoint Mr. Rui Botica Santos as Chairman), and in order to avoid any delay in the constitution of the panel, UEFA would welcome if CAS appoints the chairman for this Appeal Procedure soon." It seems like his chairmanship was acceptable to and agreed by both parties; it's not like Uefa had no say in the matter.
I suppose you could draw an inference that they were grossly negligent in accepting Santos or the bribes/checks to Uefa officials had cleared and so they welcomed to bring the whole thing to a quick end.
Yeah exactly the last paragraph. As in what do we know factually. UEFA wanted to punish City (they banned them from the CL), City took them to CAS. Why then appoint someone recommend by the party you are accusing even if you think they’re fine? It’s just very odd.
Could be. Could be that given UEFA are repeat players at CAS and Santos is a repeat/frequent panelist whom they've encountered before, they rather take their chances with a relatively known/respected quantity than some other infrequently-used panelist that might be more susceptible to "influence".
I know it’s not the BlueMoon thread but, someone’s a bit salty
Mancini’s Pastilles
After all day of listening to and seeing on social media not one congratulations but all the usual comments but even worse degrading our club the damage is done to our reputation and if we are innocent i hope we take the entire league down. No working with PL for best outcome. Take them to cleaners, the damage they have done is irreparable. So no working with PL or helping PL save face just destroy them
Mancini’s Pastilles
After all day of listening to and seeing on social media not one congratulations but all the usual comments but even worse degrading our club the damage is done to our reputation and if we are innocent i hope we take the entire league down. No working with PL for best outcome. Take them to cleaners, the damage they have done is irreparable. So no working with PL or helping PL save face just destroy them
You're making my point for me? If they know him and think he will give them a good chance of doing well, rather than 'take their chances', surely you agree it would have been better for the independently chosen 3rd person to not come recommended by the defendant?
Better than what? Somebody had to be chosen to do it. In an ideal universe, yes better not to have the recommendation come from City. It's probably even better still for UEFA if UEFA had made the recommendation and City somehow agreed to it.
But this is not an ideal universe. CAS has a limited pool of arbitrators from which to select and amongst that pool a select few (the known quantities) hear a disproportionate number of proceedings, probably because of their professional qualifications, reputation, standing, etc. So the choice is between the acceptable-to-City Santos (factoring in your knowledge of the guy and the fact that the recommendation from City) or objecting, fighting it longer, prolonging proceedings, which people seem to object to, and still possibly ending up with a lesser known quantity who is more of a wildcard and possibly more susceptible to "influence". You can make the choice to take to option before you or keeping fighting for the ideal/better scenario and face the prospect of increased variability of outcomes.
....Or UEFA are just incompetent or took bribes to get the thing over with. If they went the brides route though, then perhaps both parties have been sloppy. The sneakier way would have been to bribe the UEFA officials then have them make the recommendation of the paid-off panel Chairman to which City begrudgingly assents in the name of speedy justice, which City loves, and then somehow against a panel stacked against them with UEFA's chosen panelists achieve a stunning, underdog victory in typical City fashion.
There’s literally hundreds of people they could have picked? You can go on their website and see everyone who is a member.
I get the point it’s not a perfect world, sadly the way the law works means lawyers can make it incredibly difficult to actually prove something and I agree with the other posters point that it will be very tough for the PL to get stuff to stick if City aren’t cooperating.
Yes, there are hundreds of people eligible, but the reality of CAS is that a small subset of those arbitrators see most of proceedings (what I am calling the known quantities) and the majority of those eligible are not involved in that many proceedings at all (the unknown quantities). I've read that 20 of the 400 or so eligible panelists are involved in almost 60 percent of the proceedings, and those are mostly from Europe, the U.S. and Israel and not other places where City-affiliated individuals might enjoy more...influence. I suspect Santos is one of those super-arbitrators about whom UEFA has some grasp of his reputation or some type of pattern recognition. Maybe they could have fought for another of the guys in this sub-group that City would have found mutually agreeable, but you're probably stepping into more uncertain waters if you go outside of that pool.
