🚨December 2012 -
#MCFC exec. emails Abu Dhabi contact requesting £42m in January 2013 — £27m via Etihad, £15m via Etisalat.
Not as owner cash, rather, purposely routed through the partners as part of a “disguise”, so the auditors fail to pick up on it as a separate source of funding. The same move Etihad made the year before for City.
That’s the whole game. Shareholder money dressed up as sponsorship so the books look clean. Board had already approved of the funding arrangement, they just didn’t want it looking like what it actually was - a breach of several PL financial rules…🧨 (according to the independent commission’s published findings).
- Sham contracts and sham agreements with commercial partners, which misrepresented the true deal and disguised owner funding as revenue. The commission stated this conduct was “clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules.”
- Misstated accounts, and concealment of the true finances from auditors and football regulators. The result was a failure to accurately report income and expenditure.
- The Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules, and UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Rules. Correctly reported, the commission said City would have breached both spending limits by a very substantial amount (~£920m according to the commission’s findings).
City have since filed an appeal ahead of the 2 October deadline and are reportedly ready to argue that the extra sponsorship money came from the Abu Dhabi government, not the club’s owner, Sheikh Mansour.