MANCHESTER UNITED FANS, IT’S TIME TO UNITE. If we genuinely want change at our club, we need to stand together. 📢 Boycott the club 📢 Boycott the sponsors 📢 Stop giving the ownership our money 📢 Make our collective voice impossible to ignore #BoycottUnited #GlazersAndIneosOUT

🙈 #MUFC_FAMILY 🙈 We haven’t had a cheating scandal as bad as this since Coldplay 😂😂😂😂😂 #GlazersandIneosOut @AnnetteH0526 @Benniewilson111 @refc160 @PhilHowarth @john_nufc42 @tedio74 @wumaufu77 @UTDFOREVER58 @Davethemanc15 @mufc19680 @AdorabullyBadge

🚨JUST IN: The English FA could add additional charges against Manchester City on top of the Premier League They’ve indicated City have damaged the game’s integrity

If Man City don’t get a severe punishment the Premier League is finished btw. Everyone will know it’s because the UEA threaten the UK and the league will just be known as forever corrupt and likely fall off worse than the Serie A.

Coming to every away, for City, near you. Dont ever let them forget what they are. Into them cartel cunts!

🚨 NEW: The Lib Dems have called for Andy Burnham to publish all details of his meetings with Manchester City’s owners and hospitality he’s accepted at the Etihad Stadium

Paul Scholes on Instagram 😂❤️

🚨 BREAKING! Contributed by ADUG, by manager, at Manchester City, 2009–2018: Mancini: £56.9m per season Pellegrini: £113.0m per season Guardiola: £132.2m per season

#BoycottUnited #GlazersAndIneosOut

🚨 Manchester City’s appeal could face a major complication after previous statements made by their own main sponsor, Etihad Airways, resurfaced. 🔸 In 2015, Etihad told the US government that claims Abu Dhabi’s government paid for its Manchester City sponsorship were “false”, insisting the deal was funded from its “own liquidity”. 🔸 City are now expected to argue as part of their appeal that additional sponsorship funding came from the Abu Dhabi government — rather than the club’s owners, ADUG. The 2015 Etihad statement therefore appears to contradict a key part of City’s appeal case. (Source: Sky Sports)

Proven cheats disrespecting Sir Alex is vile! Sir Alex Ferguson’s legendary 1990-2001 run at Man United was pure dominance. 21 trophies in 11 years: 🏆 7x Premier League 🏆 4x FA Cup 🏆 1x League Cup 🛡️ 5x Charity Shield 🇪🇺 1x Champions League 🇪🇺 1x Cup Winners’ Cup 🌍 1x Super Cup & 1x Intercontinental Cup Led United to the first "Double Double" (League & FA Cup in '94 & '96) and made them the first-ever English team to win the historic Treble in 1999! All this without systemetic cheating, sham sponsorship deals and as the 10th highest spender in England, plus Leagues like Serie A had much more money than English clubs in this era🐐 Luke and City fans must stop talking like they are winners or achievements anything, they are proven cheats!

This is what keeps getting ignored. Manchester City were allowed to defend themselves. Their witnesses were heard. Their evidence was considered. But an independent Commission ultimately found 114 of 115 charges proven, including sham commercial arrangements, misstated accounts and disguised funding. City have appealed those findings. (Premier League) You cannot simply call the process corrupt because the evidence didn’t produce the verdict you wanted. They weren’t denied a defence. They presented one and lost the case. Now let the appeal process test those findings.

Etihad Airways suing the Premier League is comedy. 1.Etihad and Man City are owned by the same people. The claim they had no idea about this for eight years is absurd. 2.The Premier League has no duty to produce witnesses for City. That’s City’s problem. 3.Etihad were in court because they have the same ownership group. 4. City can’t sue the league themselves after being proven GUILTY, so they’re using a related entity to try and BULLY EPL & get the case thrown out. 5.Lawfare and political pressure are the only remaining options for Man City, ironic after 18 years of insisting they aren’t state-owned that is this the tactic!

Let me explain why I believe the Commission made the finding that Mansour was not aware of the “Disguised Funding Scheme”. The arbitrators must start from a strong presumption that an innocent explanation is inherently more likely to be correct than one that involves dishonesty, fraud or deception. And as such, there is a burden of proof that must be met by the claimant for the arbitrators to decide that, on the balance of probabilities, an explanation involving dishonesty, fraud or deception is more likely. For Mansour, the innocent explanation aligned with the other findings is that he knew money was leaving his account but he was not aware that is was being used for a Disguised Funding Scheme. For example, he may not have been aware of the particulars of PSR and may have simply thought it was just being used as equity as it had been in years prior. And because there was no direct evidence to demonstrate his awareness (per the Decision) the Commission has decided that the burden of proof to determine otherwise has not been met. Trying to structure an appeal around this seems beyond daft because (1) it appears wholly consistent with any scenario as described and (2) with any reversal it’s far more likely that the outcome would be to implicate Mansour rather than exonerate the Club.

It was a Sham.......