glasgowspur
Jimmy Cantrell
If you think about it three of the last five Pl champions have all had serious financial rule breaches, Chelsea, Leicester and city.
That does not make for good reading.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Naughty Emirates Marketing Project - Spot of Compo??
- Thread starter Clarky
- Start date
If you think about it three of the last five Pl champions have all had serious financial rule breaches, Chelsea, Leicester and city.
That does not make for good reading.
Baleforce
Joe Kinnear
and Liverpool were doping all their players
glasgowspur
Jimmy Cantrell
Ending the triple lock, reverse Brexit and this, you'd almost think he wants sacked.
glasgowspur
Jimmy Cantrell
And arsenal have got at PGMOL.
thfcsteff
Fanny Walden
To your exact point, this has as much been about sportwashing as money. It absolutely decimates any notion that they are 'decent' operators. That is a massive, massive blow.
thfcsteff
Fanny Walden
Great point!
SissokoWasGood (BoL)
Frederic Kanoute
Makes me wonder how deep Burnham was in with foreign money, how much leverage do they really have over him, the UK? How much future investment is planned by UAE that they now might withdraw? Can the UK Gov actually influence the judges at all in this way if UAE made clear investment would slow?
OTOH, where else do they take their money? Surely they invested here because it was a good investment? Are they going to go to riskier countries that they have poorer relationships with? All to save the face of a cheating football club?
thfcsteff
Fanny Walden
Absolutely.
I hope I am wrong but I've thought this from the get-go.
Burnham comparing this to Everton is pathetic.
In fact, his comments are so poor IMO...
MartyFunkhouser
Teddy Sheringham
I stated this days ago, none of its a shock at a political level. The UAE has so much investment at so many levels that it has ability to turn so many lights out. That doesn't make Burnham dirty, its just a fact.
The point is much more likely that if City are fcuked that its good for football but bad for those it impacts aka the economy of Manchester. Thats not outrageous for someone in a political position to say.
I have said it for long enough on here about the influence of their money on the country, seemingly fallen on death ears.
Some of the idiots on here wanted state ownership with Qatar to get rid of a bloke they didn't like because he balanced the books, instead championing this kind of ownership that brings with it political mud with it.
Last edited:
thfcsteff
Fanny Walden
I've said this will end up a geopolitically-spurred bail out.
SissokoWasGood (BoL)
Frederic Kanoute
Was just playing around with Claude AI to try and synthesize the argument from City’s POV, test the likelihood of success on appeal, understand what Soriano means by misunderstanding. This is what was shared:
We actually know City's main argument now, because the commission's decision describes it. It's called the "CPC Explanation" in the ruling (the "CPC" is a redacted Abu Dhabi body).
What City argued
City's case was that the sponsors were always liable for the full fees, and that any shortfall was covered by Abu Dhabi government financial assistance channelled through the CPC, in amounts matching exactly what the league said ADUG paid. That's almost certainly what Soriano means by the league "misunderstanding" how money moved. City's position is essentially: yes, Etihad didn't pay it all from its own budget, but the top-up came from the Abu Dhabi government supporting its own companies, not from Sheikh Mansour's fund. If true, that would make it sponsor-side money rather than disguised owner equity.
This isn't a new idea. Back in the leaks era, reporting suggested a government agency, the Executive Affairs Authority, was picking up the difference between a £12m headline figure and the £4m Etihad paid in 2010-11. So City had a real thread to pull on.
Is there a Gulf-specific norm here?
Yes, partly, and this is the most interesting part of your question. In Abu Dhabi the lines between the ruling family, the state, state companies and "private" investment funds are much blurrier than in the UK. Central government funding a state airline's marketing push, or topping up budgets from the centre, is normal there. City also brought expert evidence on Abu Dhabi politics and governance. So "money moved in a way that looks odd to British eyes but is routine in Abu Dhabi" is a plausible argument in principle.
Why it failed anyway
The kicker
Even if City's story were entirely true, it probably doesn't save them. Government-funded sponsorship from a state airline owned by the same ruling family is still a related-party arrangement, and City were separately found guilty of failing to disclose these deals as related-party transactions. The commission also found City would still have failed the spending rules even if the sponsorships were simply restated to fair market value. So the "irrefutable evidence," at best, argues about which Abu Dhabi pocket the money came from. It doesn't change the outcome.
We actually know City's main argument now, because the commission's decision describes it. It's called the "CPC Explanation" in the ruling (the "CPC" is a redacted Abu Dhabi body).
What City argued
City's case was that the sponsors were always liable for the full fees, and that any shortfall was covered by Abu Dhabi government financial assistance channelled through the CPC, in amounts matching exactly what the league said ADUG paid. That's almost certainly what Soriano means by the league "misunderstanding" how money moved. City's position is essentially: yes, Etihad didn't pay it all from its own budget, but the top-up came from the Abu Dhabi government supporting its own companies, not from Sheikh Mansour's fund. If true, that would make it sponsor-side money rather than disguised owner equity.
This isn't a new idea. Back in the leaks era, reporting suggested a government agency, the Executive Affairs Authority, was picking up the difference between a £12m headline figure and the £4m Etihad paid in 2010-11. So City had a real thread to pull on.
Is there a Gulf-specific norm here?
Yes, partly, and this is the most interesting part of your question. In Abu Dhabi the lines between the ruling family, the state, state companies and "private" investment funds are much blurrier than in the UK. Central government funding a state airline's marketing push, or topping up budgets from the centre, is normal there. City also brought expert evidence on Abu Dhabi politics and governance. So "money moved in a way that looks odd to British eyes but is routine in Abu Dhabi" is a plausible argument in principle.
Why it failed anyway
- The commission sidestepped the cultural argument. It deliberately declined to rule on Abu Dhabi's governance system; it didn't need to know how or why City secured the sponsors' participation, only that it did. That makes the decision much harder to attack on appeal, because it doesn't rest on anyone's interpretation of how the Emirate works.
- It found the explanation invented. It called it an explanation City had "concocted well after the event," and found the supporting documents were created to reassure sponsors and conceal the scheme. City also never offered this explanation to people who challenged it over the years until very late on.
- The sponsors weren't always even involved. In May 2013, facing a £9.9m UEFA shortfall, modified sponsorship agreements were generated in days without the sponsors even being approached, including bonuses for events that had already happened. That's very hard to square with any version of "normal Gulf practice."
- Witnesses were found dishonest. Several important City witnesses gave evidence that was false in key respects, and some knowingly so.
The kicker
Even if City's story were entirely true, it probably doesn't save them. Government-funded sponsorship from a state airline owned by the same ruling family is still a related-party arrangement, and City were separately found guilty of failing to disclose these deals as related-party transactions. The commission also found City would still have failed the spending rules even if the sponsorships were simply restated to fair market value. So the "irrefutable evidence," at best, argues about which Abu Dhabi pocket the money came from. It doesn't change the outcome.
Baleforce
Joe Kinnear
nah, they are a serious club init
Muttley
Vedran Corluka
Where I think this could go directionally is with the other 19 directors of the FAPL Ltd company i.e. the owners of the PL to make a stand against City.
If the sanctions are not deemed to be fair then what's to say that the other 19 clubs refuse to play against City? What stops them? They have 19/20th's of the vote as the owning PL directors. They can inform Richard Masters what he has to do as he works for them.
I can imagine the Everton leadership team will be already making those phone calls to sound out the other clubs, especially 3 of the big 6. No way ourselves, Pool and Gooners wouldn't stand against City. Chelsea might have some empathy because they are also scum and have cheated. When you move to the next layer of clubs, most would want City punished.
If the sanctions are not deemed to be fair then what's to say that the other 19 clubs refuse to play against City? What stops them? They have 19/20th's of the vote as the owning PL directors. They can inform Richard Masters what he has to do as he works for them.
I can imagine the Everton leadership team will be already making those phone calls to sound out the other clubs, especially 3 of the big 6. No way ourselves, Pool and Gooners wouldn't stand against City. Chelsea might have some empathy because they are also scum and have cheated. When you move to the next layer of clubs, most would want City punished.
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Andy Thompson
It is very difficult for media as their sports "journalist" only know how to produce copy about personalities, winning teams and sacking managers. They rarely produce in depth analysis of games or teams and never want to be critical of PL/Sky dominance of the game or the way fans who attend matches are bled dry and taken for granted.
Libel is only an issue if you publish something that is not true or is defamatory, producing an opinion piece should not be beyond a competent journalist.
MartyFunkhouser
Teddy Sheringham
The bloke has it massively undervalued, its not just about Manchester though in why Burnham can't come out and lay into the UAE or Abu Dhabi government.
I will lay out a little of what influence they have in the UK:
- Dnata is one of the largest airport handlers in the world, they service about 20,000 flights a year in the UK in ground operations alone (baggage and meals). They are the largest cargo handlers in the UK. Their travel agency/operation side employs 6000 people alone.
- Emirates & Etihad are two of the largest largest airline services into and out of the UK
- DP World operates some of the largest ports in the world in the UK, employing close to 1000 people and who knows the scale of reliance on the business beyond that.
- Sports sponsorship from UAE based companies props up black holes in some of the largest sporting events in the UK.
- Property and hotels, infrastructure and investment in the UK which is estimated at about 60bn
- Largest race horsing employer in the UK, largest financial backers in UK racing (something done strategically to cosy up to high ranking UK dignitaries)
Thats just the tip of the iceberg on the UAE influence in the UK. The PM isn't going to come out and really IMO shouldn't come out and make a political statement about a football punishment. People will have to be naive as hell if they think that the UAE is not going to be using all levels of power it can to turn taps on here, I am not saying Burnham should help them either, but I don't expect, knowing the level of influence for him to have said much more than he did.
If anything it just proves how fcuked this country has been for 30 years to hand over our jewels to everyone else in fire sales which make this more complicated than a footballing decision. And the UAE isn't at war like Russia, so they can't act under the veil of that excuse and sanction them and every Emirati in the UK
If you think him not saying "chuck them out and chuck the owners out with them" is some sign of guilt then I don't think you understand the magnitude of how much influence the Middle East Gulf States has on these shore to the highest level.
Last edited:
MartyFunkhouser
Teddy Sheringham
And just to prove my point, it starts
Bedfordspurs
Bert Smith
Best bit is the evidence literally has their staff names on it
glasgowspur
Jimmy Cantrell
This going to get really messy, here come the European Super league.
Baleforce
Joe Kinnear
normally, when a sporting entity gets done for cheating sponsors go running
suggests something so egregious involved that their business could have broken some laws too
is this a massive house of cards?