When the email says “any update on this?” and the update is I forgot it existed

@etihad Questions following your press release on, and threat of legal action over, “The Premier League's public communication of the [Independent] commission's findings”. 1) Documentary evidence of “the Disguised Funding Scheme” which the IC found Etihad to be a part of has been in the public domain since 2018. The Premier League charged Manchester City in 2023. Those charges were not heard until late 2024. As City's most prominent sponsor why did you not ask the club to be a witness at the IC? 2) What is the total quantum of Etihad's sponsorship deals with Manchester City since the airline entered its first commercial deal with the club ? Is it over £800million? 3) Is Etihad's position that all of the Etihad sponsorship income that Manchester City declared to the Premier League and UEFA was paid to City directly and entirely out of Etihad’s own funds? And that not a single penny came from Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, ADUG or any Abu Dhabi government entity? 3) The IC states that Manchester City claimed “that AD Sponsors had from time to time applied for financial assistance from the AD Government towards their liability to pay the Recorded Sponsorship Fees. Such applications had been granted, and financial assistance had been provided to the AD Sponsors by the AD Government via the CPC. In each case the level of financial assistance provided by the AD Government to the relevant Sponsor had been in the amount that the PL wrongly contended represented a Tagged Sum from ADUG.” Is it true that some of Etihad's sponsorship payments were funded by the Abu Dhabi Government via the Crown Prince's Court (CPC)? 4) If so, why did Etihad’s CEO testify to CAS as follows? ‘Neither [Mansour], nor his private investment vehicle ADUG, nor any entity on their behalf, has funded or reimbursed the sponsorship obligations of Etihad under the sponsorship agreements. The sponsorship obligations were paid out of Etihad’s own funds as described above. I was PCEO throughout the relevant period and I would have known if any arrangement had existed for the funding or reimbursement of the sponsorship fees paid by Etihad to MCFC, as alleged by UEFA, which I did not.' 5) Why did Etihad make the following submission to the US Government in 2015? ‘The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false.’ 6) Is Etihad’s objection to the published findings of the IC? Or is to the testimony and arguments made to the IC by your long-term commercial partners and/or your owners?

Unforgivable shit

The Man City scandal explained 💰⚽️

The pope is calling your AI art shit in Latin

Thus we return to this (authentic and never disputed) email from senior City advisor and senior UAE advisor Simon Pearce to Peter Baumgartner, CEO of Etihad Airways at the time. 2/n

This is a hammer blow to Man City’s narrative that the payments to its sponsors were not from ADUG but from the CPC. If Man City had called an exec from Etihad as a witness to support their defence argument of the CPC explanation, they would have been torn apart on the stand.

Curiouser and curiouser As @DamianHastie points out, in 2015 the US depts of Commerce, State + Transport launched an inquiry into whether Etihad were receiving govt subsidies Etihad statement to commission was: "The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad's sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is … false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City's stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity’

Interesting that in 2015, Etihad categorically said they didn't get government funding. I am now confident they will never take the PL to court, as when you couple with other statements they don't look a great witness.

I probably should explain something with this… If Man City had not redacted the sender of this email and the CAS Panel had seen it was Pearce who sent it, then by the logic of their own decision, they would have had to find City guilty.

Answering the question below 👇 If the money was sourced from ADUG, then it is either equity (so none of it should count towards revenue) or it makes the transactions Related Party ones (RPTs) and then only the “Fair Market Value” (FMV) should be counted as revenue. All of it was though, artificially making it easier to pass PSR. This is what the Commission found as fact. If the money had come from central govt. then nothing breaches the rules unless the sponsors are deemed Related Parties and then again, only the FMV should count towards revenue. If the Commission had found that the money came from central govt. and not ADUG… AND had not found the sponsors and Man City to be Related Parties… then the most serious charges would not have been proven. This is effectively the defence that Man City used at CAS. At CAS, there were only SIX redacted emails in evidence. Those emails were between Man City execs (CFO, COO, etc) over a number of years and they discussed ADUG specifically paying the sponsors. One was from the Board Director, Simon Pearce, but his name was redacted and so the CAS Panel did not know that. As a witness, Simon Pearce explained the emails as the execs being “confused”. That they thought the funds were coming from ADUG but they were “mistaken”. 2/3 CAS arbitrators accepted this explanation because the execs alone could not have enacted the scheme. They would have needed Pearce to do it and he denied it. There was no evidence to contradict Pearce. The issue Man City had at the Independent Commission is that the Premier League had a lot more than 6 redacted emails in evidence. They had hundreds if not thousands of email chains specifically explaining that the money was coming from ADUG, including emails from Simon Pearce. They had emails that showed payments from ADUG, including members of the UAE Govt confirming they controlled the accounts and were making payments on Man City’s behalf. They even had transaction data showing payments from ADUG accounts. Not to sponsors but to staff. But proving fraud on one charge makes it much easier to prove fraud in another charge when it comes to English civil law. The senders of these many emails had no reason to lie in them. And what’s more, there were too many over too many years, involving too many people in the know for there to be any possibility of a mistake. And so there is no reason to doubt them. So for Man City to come along and try the argument that they made “false assumptions” about where the money was coming from… it’s ludicrous. Absurd. And quite frankly, I’m amazed their legal team was prepared to argue it.

Etihad threatening to sue. UAE reportedly intimating that UK investment could be pulled. A Prime Minister couching any criticisism. If this sorry saga doesn't convince you that state ownership of football clubs should never be allowed, nothing ever will.

It’s been cut, I think, but there was a bit where Bird questions Borson’s blue credentials despite meeting in the Istanbul toilets in 2023. Great radio

Lawyers on £400,000 a week couldn’t defend a single charge of 115 BUT fear not, mcscotty808 has “read the majority of the documents” and has found holes in the case! A lifeline here for Manchester City!

As someone who reads and writes these types of statements and court/panel decisions for a living, if you believe the story the club is spinning right now, I have a bridge in London to sell you.

Man City Accounts Dept:

Hats off to the legend @JayMotty for keeping it together in the face of such insanity

This absolutely wins hands down

Man City’s defence statements: