🚨𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝗙𝗣 - 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁🚨
I’ve wondered why so many people only ever talk about the 115 charges against Man City and not the evidence itself, which is incredibly damning and already in the public domain for anyone to read.
I came to the conclusion that the mainstream media outlets don’t raise it because they’re afraid of Man City’s financial power and inclination to pursue litigation.
And I think the reason its not discussed on social media is because the evidence is not so blatant if you don’t understand corporate financial matters and terminology.
So here is a thread, putting some the most damning evidence of Man City’s cheating in the spotlight and breaking it down in a way that anyone can make sense of.
𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁…
In November 2018, German Publication “Der Spiegel” released their first 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 “earned” such as from matchday income, broadcast revenue or commercial deals, such as sponsorships / partnerships.
The story’s source was a cache of leaked emails that Der Spiegel had obtained between Man City executives and board members, 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 the sponsors’ accounts.
Man City’s owner is the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), which is ultimately owned by Sheikh Mansour.
Uefa estimated that by cheating FFP in this way, Man City was able to spend hundreds of millions more that it should have been, distorting the transfer market and destroying the sporting integrity of the Premier League.
The emails analysed in this thread are the emails that Man City themselves provided as “originals” during adjudication.
For more on the background of the case, check out this thread:
🧵…
I’ve wondered why so many people only ever talk about the 115 charges against Man City and not the evidence itself, which is incredibly damning and already in the public domain for anyone to read.
I came to the conclusion that the mainstream media outlets don’t raise it because they’re afraid of Man City’s financial power and inclination to pursue litigation.
And I think the reason its not discussed on social media is because the evidence is not so blatant if you don’t understand corporate financial matters and terminology.
So here is a thread, putting some the most damning evidence of Man City’s cheating in the spotlight and breaking it down in a way that anyone can make sense of.
𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁…
In November 2018, German Publication “Der Spiegel” released their first 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 “earned” such as from matchday income, broadcast revenue or commercial deals, such as sponsorships / partnerships.
The story’s source was a cache of leaked emails that Der Spiegel had obtained between Man City executives and board members, 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 the sponsors’ accounts.
Man City’s owner is the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), which is ultimately owned by Sheikh Mansour.
Uefa estimated that by cheating FFP in this way, Man City was able to spend hundreds of millions more that it should have been, distorting the transfer market and destroying the sporting integrity of the Premier League.
The emails analysed in this thread are the emails that Man City themselves provided as “originals” during adjudication.
For more on the background of the case, check out this thread:
🧵…
https://x.com/santismagic/status/1790707385570394144?s=46&t=EVAzEvKZ125CAe-UICKZWQ
🧵2/n
𝗘𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗔 - 𝟲 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟮
The email provided by Man City had redacted the sender’s name and so I also attach the equivalent leaked version where the sender’s name can be seen.
This email was sent towards the start of the second season after FFP had been introduced.
It’s from Graham Wallace (Chief Operating Officer of Man City) to Simon Pearce (a Director of Man City’s board, a senior figure in the UAE Govt and a key advisor to both the ruler of the UAE and Man City’s Chairman).
It also CC’s Ferran Soriano (Man City’s CEO).
In it, Wallace explains:
“𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨”
He is saying that Man City must be able to demonstrate to Uefa and the Premier League the origin of any cash they receive and make clear whether it is from partners / sponsors versus what they receive from the owner (equity). The distinction is needed for reporting on FFP compliance.
So we must ask this - why is this statement even being made? Sponsorship monies come from third parties and should have nothing to do with equity (owner funding). Equity should be no-where near sponsors and so there should never be a need to make such a statement, ever.
Next he says:
“𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵, 𝘈𝘋𝘛𝘈, 𝘈𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 [𝘔𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘪𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴], 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘯 [𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸], 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘱𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳/𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘭𝘶𝘮𝘱”
He is asking for money to be paid from the sponsors’ accounts and not from one account that combines all of the sponsors’ monies together with equity.
This in itself is strange because again, equity should be no-where near sponsorship revenues. Simon Pearce should have no ability to pay sponsorship revenues or make requests to pay any money from sponsors’ accounts. They are supposed to be independent third parties.
What this implies is that Simon Pearce is able to control money flows from Man City’s sponsors.
This is highly suspicious and certainly not proper governance. However, it is not proof of an FFP breach in its own right. This is the damning bit…
Two tables are provided, both breaking down “𝘛𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 2012/13 𝘘2 𝘍𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘙𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥”.
This is the cash needed by Man City for the second financial quarter (3-month period) in the 2012/13 season. The total is a figure of £95million.
The top table makes clear that £88.1million of the £95million is “𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘌𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘍𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨”. i.e., owner funds.
The other £6.9million relates to another source.
The bottom table then breaks down the £95million in terms of which accounts the money is to be paid from.
£15 million “𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵”
£5 million “𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥”
£1 million “𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘈𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘳”
£1 million “𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘈𝘋𝘛𝘈”
This is £22million in total, demanded from the sponsors’ accounts.
Therefore, a minimum of £15.1 million (22-6.9) of those funds demanded from sponsors is actually equity funding disguised as sponsorship payments by remitting it via the sponsors’ accounts.
All of those requested sums from the sponsors were paid into Man City’s accounts and declared as sponsorship revenue, not equity (known from the CAS judgement).
𝗘𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗔 - 𝟲 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟮
The email provided by Man City had redacted the sender’s name and so I also attach the equivalent leaked version where the sender’s name can be seen.
This email was sent towards the start of the second season after FFP had been introduced.
It’s from Graham Wallace (Chief Operating Officer of Man City) to Simon Pearce (a Director of Man City’s board, a senior figure in the UAE Govt and a key advisor to both the ruler of the UAE and Man City’s Chairman).
It also CC’s Ferran Soriano (Man City’s CEO).
In it, Wallace explains:
“𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨”
He is saying that Man City must be able to demonstrate to Uefa and the Premier League the origin of any cash they receive and make clear whether it is from partners / sponsors versus what they receive from the owner (equity). The distinction is needed for reporting on FFP compliance.
So we must ask this - why is this statement even being made? Sponsorship monies come from third parties and should have nothing to do with equity (owner funding). Equity should be no-where near sponsors and so there should never be a need to make such a statement, ever.
Next he says:
“𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵, 𝘈𝘋𝘛𝘈, 𝘈𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 [𝘔𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘪𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴], 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘯 [𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸], 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘱𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳/𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘭𝘶𝘮𝘱”
He is asking for money to be paid from the sponsors’ accounts and not from one account that combines all of the sponsors’ monies together with equity.
This in itself is strange because again, equity should be no-where near sponsorship revenues. Simon Pearce should have no ability to pay sponsorship revenues or make requests to pay any money from sponsors’ accounts. They are supposed to be independent third parties.
What this implies is that Simon Pearce is able to control money flows from Man City’s sponsors.
This is highly suspicious and certainly not proper governance. However, it is not proof of an FFP breach in its own right. This is the damning bit…
Two tables are provided, both breaking down “𝘛𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 2012/13 𝘘2 𝘍𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘙𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥”.
This is the cash needed by Man City for the second financial quarter (3-month period) in the 2012/13 season. The total is a figure of £95million.
The top table makes clear that £88.1million of the £95million is “𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘌𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘍𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨”. i.e., owner funds.
The other £6.9million relates to another source.
The bottom table then breaks down the £95million in terms of which accounts the money is to be paid from.
£15 million “𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵”
£5 million “𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥”
£1 million “𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘈𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘳”
£1 million “𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘈𝘋𝘛𝘈”
This is £22million in total, demanded from the sponsors’ accounts.
Therefore, a minimum of £15.1 million (22-6.9) of those funds demanded from sponsors is actually equity funding disguised as sponsorship payments by remitting it via the sponsors’ accounts.
All of those requested sums from the sponsors were paid into Man City’s accounts and declared as sponsorship revenue, not equity (known from the CAS judgement).
🧵3/n
Also in the table, it says £44.1 million is “𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘢𝘴 𝘌𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺”. i.e., this is the normal way of getting equity into Man City and labelled as equity where as the non-normal way is via the sponsors so it can be disguised.
And to top it all off he then clarifies why this is so important:
“𝘸𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘈𝘣𝘶 𝘋𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦/𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴”
So, this is him asking Simon Pearce, someone who should have nothing to do with the sponsors or their payments, to make sure this payment schedule from sponsors’ accounts takes place, in order to avoid anyone knowing that Abu Dhabi based sponsor payments are actually being funded by the Man City owner.
Wallace (Man City’s COO) has the clear belief that this can and will happen and that Simon Pearce has the power to enact it.
CAS excluded this evidence entirely when judging the case because it was connected to an offence they considered time-barred.
But it’s there, written in black and white. A genuine email from Man City’s COO, CCing the CEO, asking a board member of Man City to disguise equity as sponsorship revenue and cheat FFP. No question or debate - that’s a fact.
Also in the table, it says £44.1 million is “𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘢𝘴 𝘌𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺”. i.e., this is the normal way of getting equity into Man City and labelled as equity where as the non-normal way is via the sponsors so it can be disguised.
And to top it all off he then clarifies why this is so important:
“𝘸𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘈𝘣𝘶 𝘋𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦/𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴”
So, this is him asking Simon Pearce, someone who should have nothing to do with the sponsors or their payments, to make sure this payment schedule from sponsors’ accounts takes place, in order to avoid anyone knowing that Abu Dhabi based sponsor payments are actually being funded by the Man City owner.
Wallace (Man City’s COO) has the clear belief that this can and will happen and that Simon Pearce has the power to enact it.
CAS excluded this evidence entirely when judging the case because it was connected to an offence they considered time-barred.
But it’s there, written in black and white. A genuine email from Man City’s COO, CCing the CEO, asking a board member of Man City to disguise equity as sponsorship revenue and cheat FFP. No question or debate - that’s a fact.
🧵4/n
𝗘𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗕 - 𝟳 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟮
This is 3 months later, still early in the second season after FFP had been introduced.
This is an email from Andrew Widdowson (Man City’s Head of Finance) to Simon Pearce (a Director of Man City’s board, a senior figure in the UAE Govt and a key advisor to both the ruler of the UAE and Man City’s Chairman).
Widdowson writes:
“𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯, 𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘈𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘣𝘶 𝘋𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘐 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘰𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴”
So here we have Man City’s head of finance asking Simon Pearce to help channel shareholder (owner) funds through Abu Dhabi partners, thereby subverting FFP.
He also admits that this has already been done before, in previous quarters - a clear admission of prior cheating.
He adds:
“£27𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥
£15𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵”
Not funded ‘from’. These are shareholder funds he’s asking to be funded “𝘷𝘪𝘢” the sponsors.
Widdowson then adds:
“𝘊𝘢𝘯 𝘐 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 (£35𝘮 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 £16.5𝘮 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵) - 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘶𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳”
So again he is making clear that he is requesting that the shareholder (owner) funds are paid through the sponsors’ accounts and are added to the fees they already owe (their direct contributions). He then confirms that Etihad did this last year.
A clear admission that they have previously cheated FFP.
Again, CAS excluded this evidence when judging the case because it was connected to an offence they considered time-barred.
𝗘𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗕 - 𝟳 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟮
This is 3 months later, still early in the second season after FFP had been introduced.
This is an email from Andrew Widdowson (Man City’s Head of Finance) to Simon Pearce (a Director of Man City’s board, a senior figure in the UAE Govt and a key advisor to both the ruler of the UAE and Man City’s Chairman).
Widdowson writes:
“𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯, 𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘈𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘣𝘶 𝘋𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘐 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘰𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴”
So here we have Man City’s head of finance asking Simon Pearce to help channel shareholder (owner) funds through Abu Dhabi partners, thereby subverting FFP.
He also admits that this has already been done before, in previous quarters - a clear admission of prior cheating.
He adds:
“£27𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥
£15𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵”
Not funded ‘from’. These are shareholder funds he’s asking to be funded “𝘷𝘪𝘢” the sponsors.
Widdowson then adds:
“𝘊𝘢𝘯 𝘐 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 (£35𝘮 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 £16.5𝘮 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵) - 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘶𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳”
So again he is making clear that he is requesting that the shareholder (owner) funds are paid through the sponsors’ accounts and are added to the fees they already owe (their direct contributions). He then confirms that Etihad did this last year.
A clear admission that they have previously cheated FFP.
Again, CAS excluded this evidence when judging the case because it was connected to an offence they considered time-barred.
🧵5/n
𝗘𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗖 - 𝟮𝟳 𝗔𝘂𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟯
This is 9 months later, early in the third season after FFP had been introduced.
This is an email from Jorge Chumillas (Man City’s CFO) to Simon Pearce (a Director of Man City’s board, a senior figure in the UAE Govt and a key advisor to both the ruler of the UAE and Man City’s Chairman).
It also CC’s Ferran Soriano (Man City’s CEO).
Chumillas is forwarding a message from someone (likely an accountant at ADUG) with a question for him and the Man City team. It is that question that Chumillas is now forwarding onto Simon Pearce and Ferran Soriano.
The question is:
“𝘐 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘣𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎. 𝘐𝘴 (𝘴𝘪𝘤) 𝘪𝘵 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳-> 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎-> 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 [𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳]-> 𝘔𝘊𝘍𝘊 [𝘔𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘪𝘵𝘺]? 𝘖𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳-> 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 -> 𝘔𝘊𝘍𝘊? 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘵 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎”
This establishes that this person believes equity monies are coming from the owner’s accounts, through the sponsor’s accounts, to Man City. The person just doesn’t know which of the owner’s accounts it originates from and this person needs to know so it can be accounted for correctly at ADUG.
After the question he says:
“𝘑𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘦, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘗&𝘓 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴. 𝘚𝘰 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨…”
He is making clear that he acknowledges the need to account for the money in the owner’s accounts. However, he confirms thay he “𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴” and that the owner funding income needs to be called “𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨”.
Again, written in black and white, clear recognition that owner funds are being disguised as sponsor funding and that Simon Pearce understands how it is to be facilitated. And again, admitting that they need to keep it hidden.
𝗘𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗖 - 𝟮𝟳 𝗔𝘂𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟯
This is 9 months later, early in the third season after FFP had been introduced.
This is an email from Jorge Chumillas (Man City’s CFO) to Simon Pearce (a Director of Man City’s board, a senior figure in the UAE Govt and a key advisor to both the ruler of the UAE and Man City’s Chairman).
It also CC’s Ferran Soriano (Man City’s CEO).
Chumillas is forwarding a message from someone (likely an accountant at ADUG) with a question for him and the Man City team. It is that question that Chumillas is now forwarding onto Simon Pearce and Ferran Soriano.
The question is:
“𝘐 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘣𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎. 𝘐𝘴 (𝘴𝘪𝘤) 𝘪𝘵 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳-> 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎-> 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 [𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳]-> 𝘔𝘊𝘍𝘊 [𝘔𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘪𝘵𝘺]? 𝘖𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳-> 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 -> 𝘔𝘊𝘍𝘊? 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘵 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎”
This establishes that this person believes equity monies are coming from the owner’s accounts, through the sponsor’s accounts, to Man City. The person just doesn’t know which of the owner’s accounts it originates from and this person needs to know so it can be accounted for correctly at ADUG.
After the question he says:
“𝘑𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘦, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘗&𝘓 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴. 𝘚𝘰 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨…”
He is making clear that he acknowledges the need to account for the money in the owner’s accounts. However, he confirms thay he “𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴” and that the owner funding income needs to be called “𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨”.
Again, written in black and white, clear recognition that owner funds are being disguised as sponsor funding and that Simon Pearce understands how it is to be facilitated. And again, admitting that they need to keep it hidden.
🧵6/n
𝗘𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗗 - 𝟭𝟭 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟯
This is a few months later, still in the third season after FFP had been introduced.
This is an email from Jorge Chumillas (Man City’s CFO) to Simon Pearce (a Director of Man City’s board, a senior figure in the UAE Govt and a key advisor to both the ruler of the UAE and Man City’s Chairman).
In it, Chumillas writes:
“𝘵𝘩𝘦 £57𝘮 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 £65𝘮 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘴 £8𝘮 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥. 𝘐𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 £65𝘮 𝘵𝘰 £67.5𝘮”
He is explaining that Man City still requires £57m from its £65m sponsorship contract with Etihad. However, that begs the question, why does Etihad only have an £8m direct contribution? Surely they pay the whole thing if it’s a legitimate agreement?
Well, he explains how that £65m is broken down further:
“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴…
𝘉) £57.0𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 13/14 (𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 13/14 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘧𝘦𝘦)
𝘊) £8.0𝘮 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 13/14 (𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 13/14 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘧𝘦𝘦)”
This is Man City’s CFO making it very clear that out of the £65m sponsorship income for season 2013/14, only £8m is actually from the sponsor, Etihad, and the rest is “𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯” (i.e., owner funds). And yet again, an email to Simon Pearce with the clear belief he is facilitating the transfer of the owner’s money through the sponsor.
Chumillas also adds:
“𝘈) £31.5𝘮 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 12/13 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳 (𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 £30𝘮 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 12/13 [𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 £35𝘮 𝘵𝘰 £65𝘮] 𝘢𝘯𝘥 2 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘜𝘊𝘓 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 £750𝘬 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 11/12 𝘢𝘯𝘥 12/13)
𝘈 & 𝘉) 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 £88.5𝘮
𝘊) 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 £8𝘮”
Here, he is explaining that when the base Etihad sponsorship value increased from £35 to £65m in the 2012/13 season, that this was to be entirely funded by the owner, ADUG, as well as the addons for UCL qualification. He reiterates that Etihad only owes £8m and the rest is contributed by the owner, ADUG.
So yet again, another email that makes it clear Man City are cheating FFP by more than £57m a season and hiding it from Uefa and the Premier League by asking Simon Pearce to channel it through Etihad.
𝗘𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗗 - 𝟭𝟭 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟯
This is a few months later, still in the third season after FFP had been introduced.
This is an email from Jorge Chumillas (Man City’s CFO) to Simon Pearce (a Director of Man City’s board, a senior figure in the UAE Govt and a key advisor to both the ruler of the UAE and Man City’s Chairman).
In it, Chumillas writes:
“𝘵𝘩𝘦 £57𝘮 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 £65𝘮 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘴 £8𝘮 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥. 𝘐𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 £65𝘮 𝘵𝘰 £67.5𝘮”
He is explaining that Man City still requires £57m from its £65m sponsorship contract with Etihad. However, that begs the question, why does Etihad only have an £8m direct contribution? Surely they pay the whole thing if it’s a legitimate agreement?
Well, he explains how that £65m is broken down further:
“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴…
𝘉) £57.0𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 13/14 (𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 13/14 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘧𝘦𝘦)
𝘊) £8.0𝘮 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 13/14 (𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 13/14 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘧𝘦𝘦)”
This is Man City’s CFO making it very clear that out of the £65m sponsorship income for season 2013/14, only £8m is actually from the sponsor, Etihad, and the rest is “𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯” (i.e., owner funds). And yet again, an email to Simon Pearce with the clear belief he is facilitating the transfer of the owner’s money through the sponsor.
Chumillas also adds:
“𝘈) £31.5𝘮 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 12/13 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳 (𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 £30𝘮 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 12/13 [𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 £35𝘮 𝘵𝘰 £65𝘮] 𝘢𝘯𝘥 2 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘜𝘊𝘓 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 £750𝘬 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 11/12 𝘢𝘯𝘥 12/13)
𝘈 & 𝘉) 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 £88.5𝘮
𝘊) 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 £8𝘮”
Here, he is explaining that when the base Etihad sponsorship value increased from £35 to £65m in the 2012/13 season, that this was to be entirely funded by the owner, ADUG, as well as the addons for UCL qualification. He reiterates that Etihad only owes £8m and the rest is contributed by the owner, ADUG.
So yet again, another email that makes it clear Man City are cheating FFP by more than £57m a season and hiding it from Uefa and the Premier League by asking Simon Pearce to channel it through Etihad.
🧵7/n
𝗘𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗘 - 𝟮𝟰 𝗔𝘂𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟱
The email provided by Man City redacted the date and so I also attach the equivalent leaked version where the date can be seen.
This is an email from Jorge Chumillas (Man City’s CFO) to Simon Pearce (a Director of Man City’s board, a senior figure in the UAE Govt and a key advisor to both the ruler of the UAE and Man City’s Chairman).
It also CC’s Ferran Soriano (Man City’s CEO).
In it, Jorge writes:
“𝘏𝘪 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯. 𝘗𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘔𝘊𝘍𝘊:
200011796 : 𝘜𝘊𝘓 𝘘𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 14/15, £750,000.
200012107 : 𝘚𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘴 15/16, £67,500,000. 𝘗𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 £67.5𝘮, £8𝘮 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 £59.5 𝘣𝘺 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎.”
So again, in black and white, the CFO of Man City is asking Simon Pearce to deal with an invoice to Etihad where £67.5million must be paid, of which only £8million is to come from Etihad and £59.5million is to be contributed by the owner, ADUG.
You’d think that if Simon Pearce weren’t facilitating these payments over the past 4 years that Man City’s CFO would have stopped asking him to do it by that point.
𝗘𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗘 - 𝟮𝟰 𝗔𝘂𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟱
The email provided by Man City redacted the date and so I also attach the equivalent leaked version where the date can be seen.
This is an email from Jorge Chumillas (Man City’s CFO) to Simon Pearce (a Director of Man City’s board, a senior figure in the UAE Govt and a key advisor to both the ruler of the UAE and Man City’s Chairman).
It also CC’s Ferran Soriano (Man City’s CEO).
In it, Jorge writes:
“𝘏𝘪 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯. 𝘗𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘔𝘊𝘍𝘊:
200011796 : 𝘜𝘊𝘓 𝘘𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 14/15, £750,000.
200012107 : 𝘚𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘴 15/16, £67,500,000. 𝘗𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 £67.5𝘮, £8𝘮 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘌𝘵𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 £59.5 𝘣𝘺 𝘈𝘋𝘜𝘎.”
So again, in black and white, the CFO of Man City is asking Simon Pearce to deal with an invoice to Etihad where £67.5million must be paid, of which only £8million is to come from Etihad and £59.5million is to be contributed by the owner, ADUG.
You’d think that if Simon Pearce weren’t facilitating these payments over the past 4 years that Man City’s CFO would have stopped asking him to do it by that point.
🧵8/n
𝗜𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆
These are only some of the emails that Man City produced as originals at the CAS hearing.
There are so many more from the leak, with far more detail on Man City’s cheating. Many can be found here:
There may be even more still that no-one has seen too. Der Spiegel has released a number of stories over the past few years, sharing additional emails from the leak each time.
In fact, after the CAS hearing where Simon Pearce gave a witness statement saying he never did the actions described in the emails, Der Spiegel released more leaked emails from Pearce completely contradicting this and undermining his statement.
The evidence is all out there, for everyone to see. That’s what we should be discussing. It’s not a question of whether Man City cheated and destroyed the integrity of the Premier League - they did that. The only question is when they are finally going to have to pay for it?
They were let off by CAS - an absolutely egregious decision that had mainstream media outlets even questioning the independence of the adjudicators. The judgement should never have been allowed to stand. In the coming months, I will share a thread dissecting CAS’s judgement to show it for the garbage that it was and why it does nothing to help Man City now.
Personally, I anticipate the most severe sanctions being applied to Man City by the Independent Commission.
The suspicion is that the Commission’s hearings may take many months or even a year to conclude and reach a judgement. However, there is another reason why it might be concluded by the end of this year (more to come on that at a later date).
I will share when I can.cdn.prod.www.spiegel.de/media/b0d08e04…
𝗜𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆
These are only some of the emails that Man City produced as originals at the CAS hearing.
There are so many more from the leak, with far more detail on Man City’s cheating. Many can be found here:
There may be even more still that no-one has seen too. Der Spiegel has released a number of stories over the past few years, sharing additional emails from the leak each time.
In fact, after the CAS hearing where Simon Pearce gave a witness statement saying he never did the actions described in the emails, Der Spiegel released more leaked emails from Pearce completely contradicting this and undermining his statement.
The evidence is all out there, for everyone to see. That’s what we should be discussing. It’s not a question of whether Man City cheated and destroyed the integrity of the Premier League - they did that. The only question is when they are finally going to have to pay for it?
They were let off by CAS - an absolutely egregious decision that had mainstream media outlets even questioning the independence of the adjudicators. The judgement should never have been allowed to stand. In the coming months, I will share a thread dissecting CAS’s judgement to show it for the garbage that it was and why it does nothing to help Man City now.
Personally, I anticipate the most severe sanctions being applied to Man City by the Independent Commission.
The suspicion is that the Commission’s hearings may take many months or even a year to conclude and reach a judgement. However, there is another reason why it might be concluded by the end of this year (more to come on that at a later date).
I will share when I can.cdn.prod.www.spiegel.de/media/b0d08e04…
🧵9/n
A couple of bits I’d like to add based on comments and questions…
𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘂𝗽 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗔𝗦 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻?
As I mentioned in the thread, CAS excluded any evidence that arose as a result of Uefa investigating offences deemed to be time-barred.
However, many of the other emails were considered as evidence. CAS explicitly would not exclude them at Man City’s request just because they became known through a leak.
However, 2/3 adjudicators on the CAS panel decided that just because Man City execs wrote emails about how they were subverting FFP, this did not mean they actually did it. They took the view that they would have to see accounts and bank statements of the sponsors and owners for it to be evidenced that owner funds were actually paid into the sponsors.
An impossible ask.
As I mentioned in my summary, when I have the time I will dissect CAS’s judgement and what I deem to be wrong with it.
𝗪𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗞 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗨𝗔𝗘?
I most strongly doubt this.
I know there is an article in the Athletic that reveals members of UKG have consulted UAE officials about the charges and that they won’t reveal what was said.
However, I believe there are three reasons why UKG would never interfere:
1) The Commission will be made up of expert, suitably qualified and independent individuals selected by Murray Rosen QC (the independent chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel). I only know Rosen by reputation but it is an outstanding one. I have confidence he will select only unimpeachable individuals that cannot be influenced by any external party.
2) It would be unbelievably stupid to undertake what would amount to corruption to benefit one ally when it would severely damage relations with others (such as the USA given so many EPL clubs have US owners). It would also destroy confidence in international investors investing in the UK. The risks far outweigh any conceivable benefit.
3) If it were discovered, that a political party interfered so egregiously with English football, I doubt they’d ever be voted in again. They care about themselves far more than they do about relations with one ally over a football team.
A couple of bits I’d like to add based on comments and questions…
𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘂𝗽 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗔𝗦 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻?
As I mentioned in the thread, CAS excluded any evidence that arose as a result of Uefa investigating offences deemed to be time-barred.
However, many of the other emails were considered as evidence. CAS explicitly would not exclude them at Man City’s request just because they became known through a leak.
However, 2/3 adjudicators on the CAS panel decided that just because Man City execs wrote emails about how they were subverting FFP, this did not mean they actually did it. They took the view that they would have to see accounts and bank statements of the sponsors and owners for it to be evidenced that owner funds were actually paid into the sponsors.
An impossible ask.
As I mentioned in my summary, when I have the time I will dissect CAS’s judgement and what I deem to be wrong with it.
𝗪𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗞 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗨𝗔𝗘?
I most strongly doubt this.
I know there is an article in the Athletic that reveals members of UKG have consulted UAE officials about the charges and that they won’t reveal what was said.
However, I believe there are three reasons why UKG would never interfere:
1) The Commission will be made up of expert, suitably qualified and independent individuals selected by Murray Rosen QC (the independent chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel). I only know Rosen by reputation but it is an outstanding one. I have confidence he will select only unimpeachable individuals that cannot be influenced by any external party.
2) It would be unbelievably stupid to undertake what would amount to corruption to benefit one ally when it would severely damage relations with others (such as the USA given so many EPL clubs have US owners). It would also destroy confidence in international investors investing in the UK. The risks far outweigh any conceivable benefit.
3) If it were discovered, that a political party interfered so egregiously with English football, I doubt they’d ever be voted in again. They care about themselves far more than they do about relations with one ally over a football team.
🧵10/n
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗴𝘂𝗲’𝘀 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀?
I’ve seen numerous questions and comments disparaging the Premier League - suggesting they have dragged their feet and that they will go easy on Man City because they’re the golden goose for TV rights.
I have a rather different perspective on this.
First, just to clarify what the Premier League is…
It’s a company with 20 shareholders. Each of the 20 teams in the Premier League owns one share. When teams are relegated, their share is transferred to the promoted teams.
Like in any company, the shareholders elect a board of directors to take accountability for the running of the company.
That board appoints executives who actually run the company.
So if the majority of the Premier League clubs dislike how things are being run sufficiently to do something about it, they can vote in new board members to affect change.
The accountability is to them.
Each club also has a contract with the company because they aren’t just shareholders - they’re also participants in the league. This contract governs how clubs must interact with the Premier League and with other member clubs. It also gives the Premier League the power to investigate clubs, demand information from them and sanction them.
Now, the Premier League is not controlled by the FA or Uefa. But because the Premier League wants to participate with the English Football League (enabling promotion / relegation and participate in the FA and League cups) it must abide by FA rules and regulation. The same applies to Uefa rules and regulation because its clubs want to be able to compete in Uefa competitions.
So that’s what we mean by “the Premier League”.
Following the Der Spiegel story and email
leak, the Premier League became bound by their contracts to all 20 clubs to investigate Man City.
If the Premier League and the vast majority of the clubs in the League had preferred the investigation go away for the betterment of the league and its brand, the best time to have done this would have been a short while after the CAS judgement. Remember, the Premier League investigation was never a topic of discussion in the media.
This did not happen. The Premier League fought Man City in the UK Courts of Law again and again to allow the investigation to take place and to be able to charge them and then empanel the Independent Commission (IC).
They achieved this and I commend them for it. They were up against some of the best lawyers in the UK.
Now the IC takes over and it is out of the Premier League’s control. Its legal team will argue its case in front of the IC but the IC will, by its nature, independently decide the merits of the case, what charges hold and what sanctions are fitting given the charges.
The Premier League does not decided this.
Murray Rosen KC is the Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel and he will appoint suitably qualified, independent adjudicators to the IC to hear the case.
It’s in their hands now, as well as the legal teams of Man City and the Premier League to make their cases as best as possible.
The IC will follow English Law though. For more details on how it will be different from CAS, you can find that in this thread here:
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗴𝘂𝗲’𝘀 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀?
I’ve seen numerous questions and comments disparaging the Premier League - suggesting they have dragged their feet and that they will go easy on Man City because they’re the golden goose for TV rights.
I have a rather different perspective on this.
First, just to clarify what the Premier League is…
It’s a company with 20 shareholders. Each of the 20 teams in the Premier League owns one share. When teams are relegated, their share is transferred to the promoted teams.
Like in any company, the shareholders elect a board of directors to take accountability for the running of the company.
That board appoints executives who actually run the company.
So if the majority of the Premier League clubs dislike how things are being run sufficiently to do something about it, they can vote in new board members to affect change.
The accountability is to them.
Each club also has a contract with the company because they aren’t just shareholders - they’re also participants in the league. This contract governs how clubs must interact with the Premier League and with other member clubs. It also gives the Premier League the power to investigate clubs, demand information from them and sanction them.
Now, the Premier League is not controlled by the FA or Uefa. But because the Premier League wants to participate with the English Football League (enabling promotion / relegation and participate in the FA and League cups) it must abide by FA rules and regulation. The same applies to Uefa rules and regulation because its clubs want to be able to compete in Uefa competitions.
So that’s what we mean by “the Premier League”.
Following the Der Spiegel story and email
leak, the Premier League became bound by their contracts to all 20 clubs to investigate Man City.
If the Premier League and the vast majority of the clubs in the League had preferred the investigation go away for the betterment of the league and its brand, the best time to have done this would have been a short while after the CAS judgement. Remember, the Premier League investigation was never a topic of discussion in the media.
This did not happen. The Premier League fought Man City in the UK Courts of Law again and again to allow the investigation to take place and to be able to charge them and then empanel the Independent Commission (IC).
They achieved this and I commend them for it. They were up against some of the best lawyers in the UK.
Now the IC takes over and it is out of the Premier League’s control. Its legal team will argue its case in front of the IC but the IC will, by its nature, independently decide the merits of the case, what charges hold and what sanctions are fitting given the charges.
The Premier League does not decided this.
Murray Rosen KC is the Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel and he will appoint suitably qualified, independent adjudicators to the IC to hear the case.
It’s in their hands now, as well as the legal teams of Man City and the Premier League to make their cases as best as possible.
The IC will follow English Law though. For more details on how it will be different from CAS, you can find that in this thread here:
@TinoVickers Ps I like your handle. Top movie (albeit kind of racist with the choice of lead)
@FejLessur Ps Congrats on fatherhood - that’s a very heartwarming profile photo 🫶
🧵11/n
Note: This post is far more theory than fact and so it may be of less interest.
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗴𝘂𝗲’𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴?
This question has been bugging me. Man City effectively chose not to engage Uefa in its disiplinary process. The reason Man City gave was because although they say they wanted the opportunity to prove themselves innocent of the charges, they did not trust Uefa’s process and so they wanted to fast-track it to CAS. This was risky because it offered fewer opportunities to demonstrate innocence but made some sense if Man City had absolute faith in the CAS outcome (which of course raises questions) and really did want to demonstrate innocence ASAP.
However, the flip side of this is why didn’t they comply with the Premier League (PL) investigation then? Man City has made no public allegations against the Premier League regarding a lack of trust. Why did they drag out the investigation and process for more than 5 years by fighting it in the UK Courts if they actually had the intention of proving their innocence?
It was fairly obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of the case and the relevant law that they were eventually going to have to comply with the investigation and be adjudicated by an Independent Commission empanelled by the Premier League. And by dragging it out they way they did only made matters substantially worse for them; it has resulted in 35 charges for failing to comply with the investigation, which could even be worthy of severe sanctions such as relegation in their own right, and it has resulted in them winning the competition multiple times whilst under investigation and charge. Such an action and consequence greatly amplifies the implications of their charges and would therefore, warrant even greater sanctions.
So why do it? Why take on all that very tangible, extra risk for such an unlikely reward. It does not seem worth it in any way, especially if they believe what they say about wanting to exonerate themselves. Plus their legal team is quite frankly, brilliant. They would know this too.
So why?
This is where I have a tenuous theory.
I had assumed that Man City would not be subject to third party claims for their actions in civil law. i.e., I did not believe anyone would sue them for their actions in this matter to try and make a claim of financial loss. People such as: those who lost bets or betting companies who had to make pay outs as a result of a distorted competition; sponsors of other teams whose value of their sponsorship agreements was diminished because the team did not finish as high as it could have done had their team finished higher in the competition; and of course, other Premier League clubs who lost out on income from European football or possible commercial deals because Man City finished above them.
I has assumed that these claims were not a possibility. That claims from parties outside the league would be too tenuous and claims from other PL clubs would be barred by their contract with the PL.
However, over time, I saw articles such as these where reporters confirm that PL clubs have considered legal action against other clubs for PSR violations:
.
So even if it is not possible, maybe Man City feared that it could be. If so, this is why delaying the investigation and subsequent prosecution for so long makes more sense.
Under English Law, there are statute of limitations for civil offences, meaning claims against parties for financial loss must be made within a given timeframe. In this case, I believe it to be 6 years (there is a possibility it could be 12 years depending on how PL clubs contract with the PL but I doubt they would do it in this way). This time limit is extended if the offences are hidden from view, as was the case here until the emails were revealed by Der Spiegel in November 2018…inews.co.uk/sport/football…
Note: This post is far more theory than fact and so it may be of less interest.
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗴𝘂𝗲’𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴?
This question has been bugging me. Man City effectively chose not to engage Uefa in its disiplinary process. The reason Man City gave was because although they say they wanted the opportunity to prove themselves innocent of the charges, they did not trust Uefa’s process and so they wanted to fast-track it to CAS. This was risky because it offered fewer opportunities to demonstrate innocence but made some sense if Man City had absolute faith in the CAS outcome (which of course raises questions) and really did want to demonstrate innocence ASAP.
However, the flip side of this is why didn’t they comply with the Premier League (PL) investigation then? Man City has made no public allegations against the Premier League regarding a lack of trust. Why did they drag out the investigation and process for more than 5 years by fighting it in the UK Courts if they actually had the intention of proving their innocence?
It was fairly obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of the case and the relevant law that they were eventually going to have to comply with the investigation and be adjudicated by an Independent Commission empanelled by the Premier League. And by dragging it out they way they did only made matters substantially worse for them; it has resulted in 35 charges for failing to comply with the investigation, which could even be worthy of severe sanctions such as relegation in their own right, and it has resulted in them winning the competition multiple times whilst under investigation and charge. Such an action and consequence greatly amplifies the implications of their charges and would therefore, warrant even greater sanctions.
So why do it? Why take on all that very tangible, extra risk for such an unlikely reward. It does not seem worth it in any way, especially if they believe what they say about wanting to exonerate themselves. Plus their legal team is quite frankly, brilliant. They would know this too.
So why?
This is where I have a tenuous theory.
I had assumed that Man City would not be subject to third party claims for their actions in civil law. i.e., I did not believe anyone would sue them for their actions in this matter to try and make a claim of financial loss. People such as: those who lost bets or betting companies who had to make pay outs as a result of a distorted competition; sponsors of other teams whose value of their sponsorship agreements was diminished because the team did not finish as high as it could have done had their team finished higher in the competition; and of course, other Premier League clubs who lost out on income from European football or possible commercial deals because Man City finished above them.
I has assumed that these claims were not a possibility. That claims from parties outside the league would be too tenuous and claims from other PL clubs would be barred by their contract with the PL.
However, over time, I saw articles such as these where reporters confirm that PL clubs have considered legal action against other clubs for PSR violations:
.
So even if it is not possible, maybe Man City feared that it could be. If so, this is why delaying the investigation and subsequent prosecution for so long makes more sense.
Under English Law, there are statute of limitations for civil offences, meaning claims against parties for financial loss must be made within a given timeframe. In this case, I believe it to be 6 years (there is a possibility it could be 12 years depending on how PL clubs contract with the PL but I doubt they would do it in this way). This time limit is extended if the offences are hidden from view, as was the case here until the emails were revealed by Der Spiegel in November 2018…inews.co.uk/sport/football…
🧵12/n
…
As such, it would be safe to assume that unless claims are initiated by November 2024, that the statute of limitations would hold.
However, I would also suspect that other clubs would not be inclined to even attempt litigation until the PL’s process is resolved and gathered evidence is available.
So if potential financial litigation from PL clubs or other parties was a concern of Man City’s, then it makes far more sense for them to have delayed the investigation even with it risking greater punishment because it would ward off third party litigation.
Like I said, this is pure theory and to be honest, a tenuous one at that. But if it did hold, then there is a possibility that once the statute of limitations is passed, that Man City might be more willing to end the process ASAP for the possibility of lighter sanctions (i.e., cut a deal). If so, this process might conclude at the end of the year rather than sometime in 2025.
It’s a shame that the process will be behind closed doors because I think it would be absolutely fascinating to observe.
…
As such, it would be safe to assume that unless claims are initiated by November 2024, that the statute of limitations would hold.
However, I would also suspect that other clubs would not be inclined to even attempt litigation until the PL’s process is resolved and gathered evidence is available.
So if potential financial litigation from PL clubs or other parties was a concern of Man City’s, then it makes far more sense for them to have delayed the investigation even with it risking greater punishment because it would ward off third party litigation.
Like I said, this is pure theory and to be honest, a tenuous one at that. But if it did hold, then there is a possibility that once the statute of limitations is passed, that Man City might be more willing to end the process ASAP for the possibility of lighter sanctions (i.e., cut a deal). If so, this process might conclude at the end of the year rather than sometime in 2025.
It’s a shame that the process will be behind closed doors because I think it would be absolutely fascinating to observe.
🧵13/n
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗴𝘂𝗲’𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆
I suspect this will be the last post in this thread and my next major contribution will be the dissection of the CAS judgement (I hope to share this before the end of June).
However, for anyone who is interested in why it has been such a challenge for the Premier League to get Man City to this point, I would suggest you read this article in the NY Times.
I won’t re-write or synthesize its points because they’re already so well written.
But it showcases just what the Premier League has been up against.
My personal opinion is that Man City’s actions in response to the investigations and charges alone warrant permenant expulsion from the league because they are indicative of a belief that mutually agreed upon rules should not apply to them.
An incredibly disturbing attitude for those who compete with them and one that is counter to sporting integrity.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/spo…
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗴𝘂𝗲’𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆
I suspect this will be the last post in this thread and my next major contribution will be the dissection of the CAS judgement (I hope to share this before the end of June).
However, for anyone who is interested in why it has been such a challenge for the Premier League to get Man City to this point, I would suggest you read this article in the NY Times.
I won’t re-write or synthesize its points because they’re already so well written.
But it showcases just what the Premier League has been up against.
My personal opinion is that Man City’s actions in response to the investigations and charges alone warrant permenant expulsion from the league because they are indicative of a belief that mutually agreed upon rules should not apply to them.
An incredibly disturbing attitude for those who compete with them and one that is counter to sporting integrity.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/spo…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
