ð ð®ð» ðð¶ððâð ððð± ð°ðµð®ð¿ðŽð²ð - ððµð®ðâð ðŽðŒð¶ð»ðŽ ðŒð»âŠ
It seems that thereâs plenty of confusion surrounding the situation of Manchester Cityâs 115 charges for breaching Premier League rules and how it relates to their prior case with Uefa and CAS. Yet thereâs not much out there in the mainstream media explaining it in that much detail.
As such, I thought it might be helpful to provide a rough summary answering some of the most common questions about it all.
Note: since I drafted all this, the BBC has released a similar version of FAQs about the case which can be found here:
The below also has some information that the BBC did not elaborate upon though.
ð§µ1/n
ðªðµð®ð ðµð®ð ð ð®ð»ð°ðµð²ððð²ð¿ ðð¶ðð ðð (ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð) ð¯ð²ð²ð» ð°ðµð®ð¿ðŽð²ð± ðð¶ððµ?
Following an investigation by the Premier League, Man City has been charged with 115 counts of breaching Premier League rules:
- 54 counts of failing to provide accurate financial information
- 14 failures to provide accurate details for player and manager payments
- 5 failures to comply with Uefa rules including FFP
- 7 breaches of Premier League PSR rules
- 35 failures to co-operate with Premier League investigations
ðªðµð ðð²ð¿ð² ððµð²ð ðð»ð±ð²ð¿ ð¶ð»ðð²ððð¶ðŽð®ðð¶ðŒð»?
In November 2018, German Publication âDer Spiegelâ released a story about how Man City had been subverting Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) and Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. These rules, introduced in Uefa competitions in 2011/12 and the Premier League in 2012/13, prevented clubs from undertaking unlimited spending using debt or owner funds (known as equity). Instead, clubs were required to spend what they âearnedâ such as from matchday revenue, broadcast revenue or commercial deals, such as sponsorships.
The storyâs source was a cache of leaked emails that Der Spiegel had obtained between Man City executives, including the Chief Executive Office (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO).
The emails, which are numerous and took place over many years, go into precise detail about how Man City sought to subvert FFP rules by disguising equity payments from the owner as sponsorship revenue, by channelling the funds through their sponsorsâ accounts.
This formed the initial basis of investigations by Uefa and the Premier League. The accusation is that by disguising equity payments as sponsorship revenues, they would have subsequently misreported their financial accounts, hence the charges of failing to provide accurate financial information.
Uefa estimated that at least £204million of equity payments were disguised as sponsorship revenues which would also result in substantial breaches to PSR and FFP rules.
Subsequently, there were further reports that Man City paid players and managers âoff the booksâ, resulting in charges for failing to provide accurate details for player and manager payments, which would also have knock on effects for the above charges as well.
ðð¿ð²ð»âð ððµð² ð²ðºð®ð¶ð¹ð ð®ð¹ð¹ ð³ð®ðžð² ð®ð»ð± ð±ðŒð°ððŒð¿ð²ð±?
No.
Man City didnât officially confirm or deny the authenticity of the emails during the Uefa investigation. However, Man City eventually released their own âoriginal versionsâ of some of the emails during one of the hearings.
The original versions of those emails matched the equivalent contents of the leaked emails. A few of the emails submitted by Man City as âoriginalsâ have been attached to this tweet.
ðªðµð ð¶ð ð¶ð ðð®ðžð¶ð»ðŽ ððŒ ð¹ðŒð»ðŽ ððŒ ð¯ð² ð¿ð²ððŒð¹ðð²ð±?
The nature of the accusation is complex and the Premier League lacks broad powers of investigation because it is not a Government body. It relies on its members to co-operate with investigations and provide the information that they request.
Man City sought to challenge the investigation over many years in the UK Courts of Law, thereby delaying the investigation and subsequent prosecution.bbc.co.uk/sport/footballâŠ
It seems that thereâs plenty of confusion surrounding the situation of Manchester Cityâs 115 charges for breaching Premier League rules and how it relates to their prior case with Uefa and CAS. Yet thereâs not much out there in the mainstream media explaining it in that much detail.
As such, I thought it might be helpful to provide a rough summary answering some of the most common questions about it all.
Note: since I drafted all this, the BBC has released a similar version of FAQs about the case which can be found here:
The below also has some information that the BBC did not elaborate upon though.
ð§µ1/n
ðªðµð®ð ðµð®ð ð ð®ð»ð°ðµð²ððð²ð¿ ðð¶ðð ðð (ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð) ð¯ð²ð²ð» ð°ðµð®ð¿ðŽð²ð± ðð¶ððµ?
Following an investigation by the Premier League, Man City has been charged with 115 counts of breaching Premier League rules:
- 54 counts of failing to provide accurate financial information
- 14 failures to provide accurate details for player and manager payments
- 5 failures to comply with Uefa rules including FFP
- 7 breaches of Premier League PSR rules
- 35 failures to co-operate with Premier League investigations
ðªðµð ðð²ð¿ð² ððµð²ð ðð»ð±ð²ð¿ ð¶ð»ðð²ððð¶ðŽð®ðð¶ðŒð»?
In November 2018, German Publication âDer Spiegelâ released a story about how Man City had been subverting Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) and Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. These rules, introduced in Uefa competitions in 2011/12 and the Premier League in 2012/13, prevented clubs from undertaking unlimited spending using debt or owner funds (known as equity). Instead, clubs were required to spend what they âearnedâ such as from matchday revenue, broadcast revenue or commercial deals, such as sponsorships.
The storyâs source was a cache of leaked emails that Der Spiegel had obtained between Man City executives, including the Chief Executive Office (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO).
The emails, which are numerous and took place over many years, go into precise detail about how Man City sought to subvert FFP rules by disguising equity payments from the owner as sponsorship revenue, by channelling the funds through their sponsorsâ accounts.
This formed the initial basis of investigations by Uefa and the Premier League. The accusation is that by disguising equity payments as sponsorship revenues, they would have subsequently misreported their financial accounts, hence the charges of failing to provide accurate financial information.
Uefa estimated that at least £204million of equity payments were disguised as sponsorship revenues which would also result in substantial breaches to PSR and FFP rules.
Subsequently, there were further reports that Man City paid players and managers âoff the booksâ, resulting in charges for failing to provide accurate details for player and manager payments, which would also have knock on effects for the above charges as well.
ðð¿ð²ð»âð ððµð² ð²ðºð®ð¶ð¹ð ð®ð¹ð¹ ð³ð®ðžð² ð®ð»ð± ð±ðŒð°ððŒð¿ð²ð±?
No.
Man City didnât officially confirm or deny the authenticity of the emails during the Uefa investigation. However, Man City eventually released their own âoriginal versionsâ of some of the emails during one of the hearings.
The original versions of those emails matched the equivalent contents of the leaked emails. A few of the emails submitted by Man City as âoriginalsâ have been attached to this tweet.
ðªðµð ð¶ð ð¶ð ðð®ðžð¶ð»ðŽ ððŒ ð¹ðŒð»ðŽ ððŒ ð¯ð² ð¿ð²ððŒð¹ðð²ð±?
The nature of the accusation is complex and the Premier League lacks broad powers of investigation because it is not a Government body. It relies on its members to co-operate with investigations and provide the information that they request.
Man City sought to challenge the investigation over many years in the UK Courts of Law, thereby delaying the investigation and subsequent prosecution.bbc.co.uk/sport/footballâŠ
ð§µ2/n
ðªðµð ðð®ð ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð ð®ð¹ð¹ðŒðð²ð± ððŒ ð±ðŒ ððµð®ð?
It is Man Cityâs legal right to challenge contracts and their application in the UK Court of Law and this is what they have with the Premier League - a legally binding contract in the form of the Premier League Rule Book contained within its Handbook. It is this contract that provides the Premier League with its powers to investigate.
However, some of these actions may also be considered breach of contract depending on their legitimacy. That is probably why Man City has been charged with 35 counts of failing to comply with the investigation.
ðð®ðð»âð ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð ð¯ð²ð²ð» ðð¿ð¶ð²ð± ð³ðŒð¿ ððµð¶ð ð®ð¹ð¿ð²ð®ð±ð?
Man City were charged and adjudicated by Uefa for similar but not identical offences. However, the basis for Uefaâs investigation and charges originated from the same source - the leaked emails published in Der Spiegel.
Uefa found Man City guilty and applied a number of sanctions, including expulsion from the Champions League.
Man City appealed the verdict to CAS (the Court of Arbitration for Sport).
ðªðµð®ð ðð®ð ððµð² ðŒððð°ðŒðºð² ð®ð ðððŠ?
CAS decided that the charges relating to failure to provide accurate financial information and resulting breaches in FFP were not proven and as such, overturned Uefaâs sanction to ban Man City from the Champions League.
CAS decided that Uefa were within their rights to investigate Man City and that Man City substantially failed to comply with the investigation and gave them a fine for these offences.
The fully published decision by CAS (which also contains the email evidence they used) can be found here:
ðªðµð ð¶ð ððµð² ð£ð¿ð²ðºð¶ð²ð¿ ðð²ð®ðŽðð² ððð¶ð¹ð¹ ðœðð¿ððð¶ð»ðŽ ð¶ð ð¶ð³ ðððŠ ð°ð¹ð²ð®ð¿ð²ð± ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð?
Likely for several reasons.
Firstly, the Premier League will have separate evidence to Uefa. Their investigation ran for longer and incorporated matters that neither Uefa nor CAS considered.
Secondly, there are some different charges that must be addressed; such as the charges for failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments.
Thirdly, because the rules are different. Uefa and the Premier League have different rules meaning differences in offences and how they are adjudicated.
Fourthly, because there were significant issues with the CAS decision that the Premier League were potentially uncomfortable with and felt still required addressing - more detail on that is provided below.
Lastly, because they are obligated to. The Premier League has a contractual obligation to maintain the sporting integrity of the competition by ensuring its rules are adhered to and if there are breaches of those rules, that they result in suitable sanctions. The obligation extends to all of its members.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/userâŠ
ðªðµð ðð®ð ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð ð®ð¹ð¹ðŒðð²ð± ððŒ ð±ðŒ ððµð®ð?
It is Man Cityâs legal right to challenge contracts and their application in the UK Court of Law and this is what they have with the Premier League - a legally binding contract in the form of the Premier League Rule Book contained within its Handbook. It is this contract that provides the Premier League with its powers to investigate.
However, some of these actions may also be considered breach of contract depending on their legitimacy. That is probably why Man City has been charged with 35 counts of failing to comply with the investigation.
ðð®ðð»âð ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð ð¯ð²ð²ð» ðð¿ð¶ð²ð± ð³ðŒð¿ ððµð¶ð ð®ð¹ð¿ð²ð®ð±ð?
Man City were charged and adjudicated by Uefa for similar but not identical offences. However, the basis for Uefaâs investigation and charges originated from the same source - the leaked emails published in Der Spiegel.
Uefa found Man City guilty and applied a number of sanctions, including expulsion from the Champions League.
Man City appealed the verdict to CAS (the Court of Arbitration for Sport).
ðªðµð®ð ðð®ð ððµð² ðŒððð°ðŒðºð² ð®ð ðððŠ?
CAS decided that the charges relating to failure to provide accurate financial information and resulting breaches in FFP were not proven and as such, overturned Uefaâs sanction to ban Man City from the Champions League.
CAS decided that Uefa were within their rights to investigate Man City and that Man City substantially failed to comply with the investigation and gave them a fine for these offences.
The fully published decision by CAS (which also contains the email evidence they used) can be found here:
ðªðµð ð¶ð ððµð² ð£ð¿ð²ðºð¶ð²ð¿ ðð²ð®ðŽðð² ððð¶ð¹ð¹ ðœðð¿ððð¶ð»ðŽ ð¶ð ð¶ð³ ðððŠ ð°ð¹ð²ð®ð¿ð²ð± ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð?
Likely for several reasons.
Firstly, the Premier League will have separate evidence to Uefa. Their investigation ran for longer and incorporated matters that neither Uefa nor CAS considered.
Secondly, there are some different charges that must be addressed; such as the charges for failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments.
Thirdly, because the rules are different. Uefa and the Premier League have different rules meaning differences in offences and how they are adjudicated.
Fourthly, because there were significant issues with the CAS decision that the Premier League were potentially uncomfortable with and felt still required addressing - more detail on that is provided below.
Lastly, because they are obligated to. The Premier League has a contractual obligation to maintain the sporting integrity of the competition by ensuring its rules are adhered to and if there are breaches of those rules, that they result in suitable sanctions. The obligation extends to all of its members.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/userâŠ
𧵠3/n
ðªðµð®ð ðœðŒððð¶ð¯ð¹ð² ð¶ðððð²ð ðð²ð¿ð² ððµð²ð¿ð² ðð¶ððµ ððµð² ðððŠ ðð²ð¿ð±ð¶ð°ð?
The first is around required standard of evidence.
CAS decided that just because there were multiple emails, over a number of years, between Man City top executives, including its CEO and CFO, outlining in precise detail how they sought to subvert FFP by channelling owner equity payments through sponsors, along with corresponding schedules of payments from those sponsors matching Man Cityâs accounts; that this did not constitute sufficient evidence to prove that such events actually took place.
CAS insisted that the evidence they would require in order to be satisfied that such an action took place would be the accounts and bank statements of the owner and the sponsors, showing the money from the owner entering the sponsorsâ accounts.
There are two rather concerning implications of such a required standard.
The first is that it would in effect, make FFP impossible to enforce. Uefa does not have the power to demand such information and as such, this establishes a tactic for any club to break FFP without ever being sanctioned.
The second is that it never addressed why Man City execs would write such emails. What plausible rationale could there be for them to write in such precise detail, instructions for subverting FFP over years, if this were not in fact happening? CAS never addressed this.
The second major issue is regarding offences and evidence that were excluded by CAS.
Uefa has a 5-year âstatute of limitationsâ relating to certain offences, effectively time-barring them from being prosecuted more than 5 years after they occur. Uefa ignored this statute when investigating and prosecuting Man City. Uefaâs rationale for ignoring the statue was since they accused Man City of hiding their offences and delaying the investigation, this resulted in a heavily delayed prosecution, pushing it past the time limit. CASâs interpretation of Uefaâs rules was that the statute of limitations must still apply.
The implication of this was that certain offences were dismissed but more importantly, certain pieces of evidence were excluded too. Any pieces of evidence obtained by Uefa that arose as a result of the investigation for time-barred offences were then excluded by CAS. This included some very important pieces of evidence to Uefaâs case.
The last major issue is regarding potential conflicts of interest and subsequently, concerns around lack of independence.
Standard practice for a CAS tribunal is that each party, Man City and Uefa, get to select one arbitrator, who must be independent and suitably qualified. Then the third arbitarator, the chairman, is selected by CASâs own appeals arbitration division.
The UK newspaper, the Guardian, reported that there were questions regarding the independence of the arbitrator selected by Man City because there were potential conflicts of interest at play. The arbitrator selected by Man City was a partner in the law firm White and Case whose clients included two of the sponsors accused of helping Man City disguise equity payments as sponsorship revenue.
Also, when it came to the appointment of the chairman, the Guardian reported that there was a deviation in standard procedure. Instead of CASâs own appeals arbitration division independently selecting the chairman, Man City recommended the candidate that CAS then selected. It should be noted that Uefa did not object to the Chairman.
ðªðµð®ð ðœðŒððð¶ð¯ð¹ð² ð¶ðððð²ð ðð²ð¿ð² ððµð²ð¿ð² ðð¶ððµ ððµð² ðððŠ ðð²ð¿ð±ð¶ð°ð?
The first is around required standard of evidence.
CAS decided that just because there were multiple emails, over a number of years, between Man City top executives, including its CEO and CFO, outlining in precise detail how they sought to subvert FFP by channelling owner equity payments through sponsors, along with corresponding schedules of payments from those sponsors matching Man Cityâs accounts; that this did not constitute sufficient evidence to prove that such events actually took place.
CAS insisted that the evidence they would require in order to be satisfied that such an action took place would be the accounts and bank statements of the owner and the sponsors, showing the money from the owner entering the sponsorsâ accounts.
There are two rather concerning implications of such a required standard.
The first is that it would in effect, make FFP impossible to enforce. Uefa does not have the power to demand such information and as such, this establishes a tactic for any club to break FFP without ever being sanctioned.
The second is that it never addressed why Man City execs would write such emails. What plausible rationale could there be for them to write in such precise detail, instructions for subverting FFP over years, if this were not in fact happening? CAS never addressed this.
The second major issue is regarding offences and evidence that were excluded by CAS.
Uefa has a 5-year âstatute of limitationsâ relating to certain offences, effectively time-barring them from being prosecuted more than 5 years after they occur. Uefa ignored this statute when investigating and prosecuting Man City. Uefaâs rationale for ignoring the statue was since they accused Man City of hiding their offences and delaying the investigation, this resulted in a heavily delayed prosecution, pushing it past the time limit. CASâs interpretation of Uefaâs rules was that the statute of limitations must still apply.
The implication of this was that certain offences were dismissed but more importantly, certain pieces of evidence were excluded too. Any pieces of evidence obtained by Uefa that arose as a result of the investigation for time-barred offences were then excluded by CAS. This included some very important pieces of evidence to Uefaâs case.
The last major issue is regarding potential conflicts of interest and subsequently, concerns around lack of independence.
Standard practice for a CAS tribunal is that each party, Man City and Uefa, get to select one arbitrator, who must be independent and suitably qualified. Then the third arbitarator, the chairman, is selected by CASâs own appeals arbitration division.
The UK newspaper, the Guardian, reported that there were questions regarding the independence of the arbitrator selected by Man City because there were potential conflicts of interest at play. The arbitrator selected by Man City was a partner in the law firm White and Case whose clients included two of the sponsors accused of helping Man City disguise equity payments as sponsorship revenue.
Also, when it came to the appointment of the chairman, the Guardian reported that there was a deviation in standard procedure. Instead of CASâs own appeals arbitration division independently selecting the chairman, Man City recommended the candidate that CAS then selected. It should be noted that Uefa did not object to the Chairman.
𧵠4/n
ðªðµð ððŒðð¹ð± ð¶ð ð¯ð² ð®ð»ð ð±ð¶ð³ð³ð²ð¿ð²ð»ð ððµð¶ð ðð¶ðºð²?
There are several reasons why this case is different from the previous case that was adjudicated by CAS:
- Firstly, the case will be heard by an Independent Commission that will be subject to English Law and not Swiss Law. This will result in a different process of evidentiary review and possibly a different standard of evidence required. It also seems likely that the Commission will not allow the question of why Man City execs wrote those emails to go unanswered.
- Unlike Uefa, the Premier League has no statute of limitations time-barring offences or evidence - the offences and associated evidence that CAS refused to consider in their decision, some of which appears very damning, can be considered by the Independnet Commission in its decision.
- The Commission will be made up of independent parties, not selected or proposed by Man City or the Premier League. As such, there should be no issues relating to conflicts of interest or independence.
All of these reasons mean that the above issues relating to the CAS decision above should not apply here.
Also, there are two further differences at play:
- As mentioned previously, the Premier League is applying more and different charges than Uefa did in relation to failures to provide accurate details for player and manager payments, as well as different charges for failure to co-operate with the investigation given it was a completely different investigation undertaken.
- This would also suggest that the Premier League has additional evidence that Uefa did not possess.
ðªðŒð»âð ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð ð·ððð ð®ðœðœð²ð®ð¹ ððŒ ðððŠ ð®ðŽð®ð¶ð»?
No, that option is not open to them. The Premier League contract does not permit appeals to CAS and the Independent Commission process is considered final.
ðªðŒð»âð ð¶ð ð·ððð ð¿ð²ððð¹ð ð¶ð» ð® âðð¹ð®ðœ ðŒð» ððµð² ðð¿ð¶ððâ ð¹ð¶ðžð² ððµð®ð ðµð®ð ðµð®ðœðœð²ð»ð²ð± ð³ðŒð¿ ðœð¿ð²ðð¶ðŒðð ð¯ð¿ð²ð®ð°ðµð²ð ðŒð³ ððð£?
Itâs impossible to know what sanctions the Independent Commission will decide upon. It will depend which charges Man City are convicted of and how the Commission assesses their severity.
Many sanctions are open to the Commission ranging from warnings, to fines, to points deductions, relegation, stripping of prior honours and even permanent expulsion from the Premier League.
Other clubs have fallen foul of FFP and PSR previously and received single digit points deductions or merely fines. However, it is worth noting that this case is substantially more severe than those charged against any other club previously.
The accusation is that Man City did not just breach FFP⊠but that they purposefully hid an enormous breach which completely distorted the sporting integrity of the competition and then, that they refused to comply with the contractually required process of investigation and sanction needed to ensure such sporting integrity can be maintained.
These are enormous charges because if proved, it not only renders previous seasons and honours of the Premier League as tainted but itâs also heavily damaging to the brand and subsequent desirability of the Premier League as an entertainment product. What is the point of watching a sport that has been fixed?
As such, if the charges are proven, itâs far more likely that the sanctions will be extremely severe.
ðªðµð ððŒðð¹ð± ð¶ð ð¯ð² ð®ð»ð ð±ð¶ð³ð³ð²ð¿ð²ð»ð ððµð¶ð ðð¶ðºð²?
There are several reasons why this case is different from the previous case that was adjudicated by CAS:
- Firstly, the case will be heard by an Independent Commission that will be subject to English Law and not Swiss Law. This will result in a different process of evidentiary review and possibly a different standard of evidence required. It also seems likely that the Commission will not allow the question of why Man City execs wrote those emails to go unanswered.
- Unlike Uefa, the Premier League has no statute of limitations time-barring offences or evidence - the offences and associated evidence that CAS refused to consider in their decision, some of which appears very damning, can be considered by the Independnet Commission in its decision.
- The Commission will be made up of independent parties, not selected or proposed by Man City or the Premier League. As such, there should be no issues relating to conflicts of interest or independence.
All of these reasons mean that the above issues relating to the CAS decision above should not apply here.
Also, there are two further differences at play:
- As mentioned previously, the Premier League is applying more and different charges than Uefa did in relation to failures to provide accurate details for player and manager payments, as well as different charges for failure to co-operate with the investigation given it was a completely different investigation undertaken.
- This would also suggest that the Premier League has additional evidence that Uefa did not possess.
ðªðŒð»âð ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð ð·ððð ð®ðœðœð²ð®ð¹ ððŒ ðððŠ ð®ðŽð®ð¶ð»?
No, that option is not open to them. The Premier League contract does not permit appeals to CAS and the Independent Commission process is considered final.
ðªðŒð»âð ð¶ð ð·ððð ð¿ð²ððð¹ð ð¶ð» ð® âðð¹ð®ðœ ðŒð» ððµð² ðð¿ð¶ððâ ð¹ð¶ðžð² ððµð®ð ðµð®ð ðµð®ðœðœð²ð»ð²ð± ð³ðŒð¿ ðœð¿ð²ðð¶ðŒðð ð¯ð¿ð²ð®ð°ðµð²ð ðŒð³ ððð£?
Itâs impossible to know what sanctions the Independent Commission will decide upon. It will depend which charges Man City are convicted of and how the Commission assesses their severity.
Many sanctions are open to the Commission ranging from warnings, to fines, to points deductions, relegation, stripping of prior honours and even permanent expulsion from the Premier League.
Other clubs have fallen foul of FFP and PSR previously and received single digit points deductions or merely fines. However, it is worth noting that this case is substantially more severe than those charged against any other club previously.
The accusation is that Man City did not just breach FFP⊠but that they purposefully hid an enormous breach which completely distorted the sporting integrity of the competition and then, that they refused to comply with the contractually required process of investigation and sanction needed to ensure such sporting integrity can be maintained.
These are enormous charges because if proved, it not only renders previous seasons and honours of the Premier League as tainted but itâs also heavily damaging to the brand and subsequent desirability of the Premier League as an entertainment product. What is the point of watching a sport that has been fixed?
As such, if the charges are proven, itâs far more likely that the sanctions will be extremely severe.
ð§µ5/n
ððŒð ð¹ð¶ðžð²ð¹ð ð¶ð ð¶ð ððµð®ð ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð ðð¶ð¹ð¹ ð¯ð² ð³ðŒðð»ð± ðŽðð¶ð¹ðð?
An impossible question to answer with any certainty.
It could well come down to what standard of proof is applied.
In UK Law, criminal cases have a high bar for finding someone guilty - they must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - whereas civil cases have a much lower bar of what is most likely to have occured based on the balance of probabilities.
e.g., Based on the evidence, does the Commission believe it is more likely that the owner channelled funds through the sponsors than not?
If this bar is applied, which seems likely given the nature of the proceeding, then the emails in question certainly seem like sufficient evidence to hold such a belief.
No plausible explanation has ever been provided for why else those emails would exist.
ðªðµð²ð» ðð¶ð¹ð¹ ðð² ðžð»ðŒð ððµð² ðŒððð°ðŒðºð²?
Again, this is not known. The rumoured timeline is Summer 2025. This is because the hearings will likely run for many months due to the volume and complexity of the charges and associated evidence.
ððŒð ð¹ð¶ðžð²ð¹ð ð¶ð ð¶ð ððµð®ð ð ð®ð» ðð¶ðð ðð¶ð¹ð¹ ð¯ð² ð³ðŒðð»ð± ðŽðð¶ð¹ðð?
An impossible question to answer with any certainty.
It could well come down to what standard of proof is applied.
In UK Law, criminal cases have a high bar for finding someone guilty - they must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - whereas civil cases have a much lower bar of what is most likely to have occured based on the balance of probabilities.
e.g., Based on the evidence, does the Commission believe it is more likely that the owner channelled funds through the sponsors than not?
If this bar is applied, which seems likely given the nature of the proceeding, then the emails in question certainly seem like sufficient evidence to hold such a belief.
No plausible explanation has ever been provided for why else those emails would exist.
ðªðµð²ð» ðð¶ð¹ð¹ ðð² ðžð»ðŒð ððµð² ðŒððð°ðŒðºð²?
Again, this is not known. The rumoured timeline is Summer 2025. This is because the hearings will likely run for many months due to the volume and complexity of the charges and associated evidence.
ð§µ6/6
Last of this thread just to say that in the coming weeks I will publish 2 more threads on this topic.
1) A summary of what was in the hacked emails released by Der Spiegel, simplified so they can be understood by all (highlighting which emails have been verified by Man City as genuine)
And
2) A full dissection of the CAS judgement, analysing the contentious majority decisions, their flaws and their potential implications
Last of this thread just to say that in the coming weeks I will publish 2 more threads on this topic.
1) A summary of what was in the hacked emails released by Der Spiegel, simplified so they can be understood by all (highlighting which emails have been verified by Man City as genuine)
And
2) A full dissection of the CAS judgement, analysing the contentious majority decisions, their flaws and their potential implications
⢠⢠â¢
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ã
