OFFICIAL FOOTY THREAD ⚽️: Euro Cup and Copa America underway

Who wins the Euros?

  • Total voters
    23
  • This poll will close: .
Show All
Armada said:
Main sponsors having ties to owners of a club isn’t that uncommon and I straight up I said it’s not that I believe they aren’t capable I said I don’t believe they that stupid. These things get checked by several accounting firms the risk on that level would be absurd. And it was not just down to time barred they would not make such a definitive statement like they did if all the evidence was just time barred on a technicality. They said flat out the claims could not be proven with the evidence presented and that some of the evidence was straight up doctored.

Regardless tho if you ask me this isn’t even a question of innocence it’s a question of if what’s being accused on such a large scale can be proven and I have a really hard time believing it can especially considering these charges are based on the same weak evidence UEFA got thrown out
Click to expand...
It's not based the same evidence in the CAS case though. The same defenses City used to get the key evidence thrown out in the CAS case can't be used in the current IC case.
The IC has different evidentiary standards and a more powerful investigative authority.
The evidence that was thrown out in the CAS case can and will be used in the IC case due to this distinction.

UEFA lacks the same authority and they were extremely incompetent. For the most part, all they had were a couple emails that describe the elements of the conspiracy. The evidence that got thrown out contained emails that explicitly refer to those elements being carried out. The emails that were thrown out referred to the exact falsifications in the past tense. Not 'here's how we're going to do it', but 'we did it.'
The hacker (Rui Pinto) did parse contents from different emails together, which is doctoring. However City's lawyers never challenged the authenticity of the content. Not once. If any of the content was doctored in the sense of it just not existing altogether, they would've argued that immediately.
All they argued was that the emails were obtained through criminal means and that several of the leaked emails contained "out of context" content from other emails, not that the content from those other emails was fabricated.

I think it's clear you haven't read the actual content of the emails as there's really no way of reasonably arguing around it. Again, take in mind that City never challenged the authenticity of any of the content.
The emails straight up discuss a scheme to route payments through various bank accounts for the specific purpose of disguising it as commercial funds and hiding the actual UAE government source.

One specific example described in the emails by several executives is a payment fraudulently masked as a supposed £67.5m Etihad sponsorship. Simon Pearce (a City director and board member of City Group) explicitly states in those emails that only £8m was actually coming from Etihad, the rest came from Sheikh Mansour's investment fund ADUG (Abu Dhabi United Group).


I don't think the people involved in the scheme are stupid. The communications show a very extensive and complicated scheme to defraud FFP.
What the communications do show is an extreme level of arrogance. As City's lawyers state in the emails, they would rather "would rather spend £30m on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue [UEFA] for the next 10 years" than accept a fine.

That same mentality is also prominently displayed in the IC case. They've obstructed the investigation at every step of the way, challenging virtually every procedural element and subsequently taking it to an appeal even though they were very well aware they would lose those appeals. That's why they've managed to stall the case for so many years.
You mentioned Trump but what City is doing isn't all that different from his legal team. Obstruct -> Challenge ruling forcing compliance -> Lose -> Appeal -> Lose appeal -> Repeat.

This level of extreme arrogance isn't unique to City. Having accounting firms isn't necessarily a defense either; they can be deceived or co-conspirators. The most egregious example of fraud on a massive scale I can think of is the collapse of Enron. The executives at Enron perpetrated an extremely complex multi-billion dollar fraud scheme for years. Infinitely worse than what City or almost any company has accomplished, and they did it while remaining at the top of the stock exchange with cartoonish levels of supposed profit. During this time, Enron employed an accounting firm (Arthur Andersen) that was one of the 5 largest accounting firms in the US at the time.
Trump used a massive accounting firm that operates worldwide. I'm on the other side of the ocean and his now former accounting firm (Mazars) has an office in the same building I work at.
Did Mazars stop anything? No. They were given false information in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Saw that there's still one remaining Serie A match this weekend Atalanta v Fiorentina, when the rest of the league has already wrapped out.

Will be surprised if any of both sides will be up for it.
 
Belgium said:
It's not based the same evidence in the CAS case though. The same defenses City used to get the key evidence thrown out in the CAS case can't be used in the current IC case.
The IC has different evidentiary standards and a more powerful investigative authority.
The evidence that was thrown out in the CAS case can and will be used in the IC case due to this distinction.

UEFA lacks the same authority and they were extremely incompetent. For the most part, all they had were a couple emails that describe the elements of the conspiracy. The evidence that got thrown out contained emails that explicitly refer to those elements being carried out. The emails that were thrown out referred to the exact falsifications in the past tense. Not 'here's how we're going to do it', but 'we did it.'
The hacker (Rui Pinto) did parse contents from different emails together, which is doctoring. However City's lawyers never challenged the authenticity of the content. Not once. If any of the content was doctored in the sense of it just not existing altogether, they would've argued that immediately.
All they argued was that the emails were obtained through criminal means and that several of the leaked emails contained "out of context" content from other emails, not that the content from those other emails was fabricated.

I think it's clear you haven't read the actual content of the emails as there's really no way of reasonably arguing around it. Again, take in mind that City never challenged the authenticity of any of the content.
The emails straight up discuss a scheme to route payments through various bank accounts for the specific purpose of disguising it as commercial funds and hiding the actual UAE government source.

One specific example described in the emails by several executives is a payment fraudulently masked as a supposed £67.5m Etihad sponsorship. Simon Pearce (a City director and board member of City Group) explicitly states in those emails that only £8m was actually coming from Etihad, the rest came from Sheikh Mansour's investment fund ADUG (Abu Dhabi United Group).


I don't think the people involved in the scheme are stupid. The communications show a very extensive and complicated scheme to defraud FFP.
What the communications do show is an extreme level of arrogance. As City's lawyers state in the emails, they would rather "would rather spend £30m on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue [UEFA] for the next 10 years" than accept a fine.

That same mentality is also prominently displayed in the IC case. They've obstructed the investigation at every step of the way, challenging virtually every procedural element and subsequently taking it to an appeal even though they were very well aware they would lose those appeals. That's why they've managed to stall the case for so many years.
You mentioned Trump but what City is doing isn't all that different from his legal team. Obstruct -> Challenge ruling forcing compliance -> Lose -> Appeal -> Lose appeal -> Repeat.

This level of extreme arrogance isn't unique to City. Having accounting firms isn't necessarily a defense either. The most egregious example of fraud on a massive scale I can think of is the collapse of Enron. The executives at Enron perpetrated an extremely complex multi-billion dollar fraud scheme for years. Infinitely worse than what City or almost any company has accomplished, and they did it while remaining at the top of the stock exchange with cartoonish levels of supposed profit. During this time, Enron employed an accounting firm that was one of the 5 largest accounting firms in the US at the time.
Trump used a massive accounting firm that operates worldwide. I'm on the other side of the ocean and his now former accounting firm (Mazars) has an office in the same building I work at.
Did Mazars stop anything? No. They were given false information in the first place.
Click to expand...

Both these cases come of the same place of questioning the inflation of the sponsorship. The IC will need substantial evidence from the league thats not already out thereto combat the witness statements and evidence provided there that CAS evaluated that the sponsorship was inflated. Could all those people and all the auditors that go over these numbers have lied or even been mislead? Sure that always possible but I find that highly unlikely unless more evidence is discovered. CAS even threw UEFA a bone in saying that the seriousness of the allegations did not increase the standard of being beyond a reasonable level but the IC will need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and that is a tall tall task based on what we found out in the CAS decision and that UEFA wasn't even able to prove it within reason.

Screenshot 2024-05-29 100136.png


You are right they never said the emails weren't legit just taken out of context.

I have read the case and the emails including the original versions of the leaked emails that where provided to CAS that they detailed in the report. The stuff that they said was time barred they still evaluated the veracity of it regardless and clearly stated that. There was no evidence produced that was was discussed in those emails that what was discussed was executed (granted of course that could just be because they covered their tracks well) the main email that uefa based their argument on the witness and man you mentioned said that uefa interpreted it wrong and that the His Highness in question was not the clubs owner but another sheik at the head of a company tied to the sponsorship. Their was no proof that it was referring to Sheik Mansour and CAS even went on to say even if it was it wouldn't have mattered

Screenshot 2024-05-29 094558.png


They even went on to say that the witness evidence and accounting provided contradicted uefas entire argument.
I do agree with you that the current owners of the club are arrogant I have no doubt in my mind about that and yea they didn't cooperate with UEFA because they thought the proceedings where silly right or wrong but they did provide the full context of those emails and other evidence to CAS they just didn't want to give it to UEFA because of their clear incompetence they showed in handling the matter.

I agree with what you say that people can be deceived or co-conspirators but until there is more evidence to show that im not gonna assume thats the case when the evidence we do know of that was evaluated contradicts that. Again that could just be because they where incredibly good at covering their tracks I wouldn't put that past anyone but thats an assumption right now.
 
Last edited:
Praying for Kompany success, he's gonna need to not be as rigid with lineups at a job with expectations like Bayern.
 
Armada said:
Both these cases come of the same place of questioning the inflation of the sponsorship. The IC will need substantial evidence from the league thats not already out thereto combat the witness statements and evidence provided there that CAS evaluated that the sponsorship was inflated. Could all those people and all the auditors that go over these numbers have lied or even been mislead? Sure that always possible but I find that highly unlikely unless more evidence is discovered. CAS even threw UEFA a bone in saying that the seriousness of the allegations did not increase the standard of being beyond a reasonable level but the IC will need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and that is a tall tall task based on what we found out in the CAS decision and that UEFA wasn't even able to prove it within reason.

Screenshot 2024-05-29 100136.png


You are right they never said the emails weren't legit just taken out of context.

I have read the case and the emails including the original versions of the leaked emails that where provided to CAS that they detailed in the report. The stuff that they said was time barred they still evaluated the veracity of it regardless and clearly stated that. There was no evidence produced that was was discussed in those emails that what was discussed was executed (granted of course that could just be because they covered their tracks well) the main email that uefa based their argument on the witness and man you mentioned said that uefa interpreted it wrong and that the His Highness in question was not the clubs owner but another sheik at the head of a company tied to the sponsorship. Their was no proof that it was referring to Sheik Mansour and CAS even went on to say even if it was it wouldn't have mattered

Screenshot 2024-05-29 094558.png


They even went on to say that the witness evidence and accounting provided contradicted uefas entire argument.
I do agree with you that the current owners of the club are arrogant I have no doubt in my mind about that and yea they didn't cooperate with UEFA because they thought the proceedings where silly right or wrong but they did provide the full context of those emails and other evidence to CAS they just didn't want to give it to UEFA because of their clear incompetence they showed in handling the matter.

I agree with what you say that people can be deceived or co-conspirators but until there is more evidence to show that im not gonna assume thats the case when the evidence we do know of that was evaluated contradicts that. Again that could just be because they where incredibly good at covering their tracks I wouldn't put that past anyone but thats an assumption right now.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree with the CAS ruling based on the evidence (or rather lack thereof) they were allowed to take into account. I'd describe the overall outcome as a miscarriage, yes, but it was UEFA who acted excessively arrogant by presenting a deeply flawed case. It's like they thought 'well we have the scheme in writing, what more do we need?' and didn't account for City's ability to cripple their case with very effective lawyering.

I think the distinction you're clearly missing that leads to this misunderstanding is that the CAS case is radically different from the IC case in several ways.
#1: The IC case does not have to take into account that the emails were obtained through criminal hacking offenses. They are able to use evidence that CAS couldn't.
#2: The IC case is not limited by time-barring
#3:The IC case has a stronger investigative authority and thus are able to obtain much more evidence than UEFA/CAS could.

Another thing you're missing is that the IC case won't be decided on a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction standard that will be used here is a standard of likelihood. In simple terms, City loses if they are deemed more likely than not to have committed the offenses they are charged with.
 
Belgium said:
I don't necessarily disagree with the CAS ruling based on the evidence (or rather lack thereof) they were allowed to take into account. I'd describe the overall outcome as a miscarriage, yes, but it was UEFA who acted excessively arrogant by presenting a deeply flawed case. It's like they thought 'well we have the scheme in writing, what more do we need?' and didn't account for City's ability to cripple their case with very effective lawyering.

I think the distinction you're clearly missing that leads to this misunderstanding is that the CAS case is radically different from the IC case in several ways.
#1: The IC case does not have to take into account that the emails were obtained through criminal hacking offenses. They are able to use evidence that CAS couldn't.
#2: The IC case is not limited by time-barring
#3:The IC case has a stronger investigative authority and thus are able to obtain much more evidence than UEFA/CAS could.

Another thing you're missing is that the IC case won't be decided on a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction standard that will be used here is a standard of likelihood. In simple terms, City loses if they are deemed more likely than not to have committed the offenses they are charged with.
Click to expand...

I would argue it would be a miscarriage if they did convict based on the information and facts presented there simply was not enough there. And yea fully agree that the people at the top of the club and UEFA were arrogant in how that case went down but only UEFA was foolish with it.

I know CAS is different from the IC but the level and severity of the claims that would need to be proven is gonna be tough to do its alleging a criminal conspiracy essentially and I don't believe the Premier League (there aren't anymore competent than UEFA) will be able to present enough evidence to the contrary of what CAS already viewed or new evidence for the IC to consider that will lead to a different outcome. Again I could be completely wrong about that i'm just discussing what I think will happen based on what we know and what came out of the last case and also some leeway given that I don't think the people at the top of the club would be that foolish and sloppy despite their arrogance, maybe that's the just fan in me of my club but regardless. Id never argue the innocence of any of these people at the top of the club I don't know them.

Like you said the IC has their own investigative powers but its still up to the premier league to set the basis for this they are bringing this case forward.

Emails illegally attained but regardless in the previous case they still factored in what was in them and and spoke on them because the originals where provided to CAS. Again the time barring thing doesn't mean much to me as the time barred stuff wasn't just waved away CAS addressed it and said even if it was in play what is presented during that timeline isn't a strong argument either to prove wrongdoing. I would agree it would be a big difference if they said well time barred we wont even discuss it but they didn't do that. They said this stuff would be time barred but even if its not for the sake of argument we will evaluate it and they even went on to add it wasn't even against the rules at that time even if it was proven true.

Regardless to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or prove likelihood this was done they would need to be enough there that the witnesses the auditors and evidence provided lied and or where mislead and to show that is a massive undertaking that I doubt could be shown unless there is some smoking gun we dont know about yet. There still needs to be enough evidence there which as of right now we dont know that there is.

If i was to sum up my thoughts on this it has nothing to do with innocence I would be a fool to claim some billionaire's and corporate suits i don't know are innocent. And it certainly has nothing to do with trying to convince people otherwise over stuff like this because people are going to think what they want regardless and be as salty as they wanna be regardless on the fan front and its why I just stay out of this topic until the next case is over cause its really pointless till then to me. Really what this comes down to me is not that I believe them dudes are innocent but that I do not believe that UEFA or the Premier League are anywhere near competent enough or actually care about this financial stuff enough to actually bring a strong case forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom