Shamz

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@LMTPod @SamLee @DavidMooney Very well laid out by Sam! Nice work.

I still think City's arguments for appeal are paper thin, but at least I understand them all clearly now

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@marius_skagz78 @9320pod That could end up being a deeply entertaining episode in this current whirlwind 😂

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@number15fam @LavidDinnett @drdavidajames If you docked enough points it could be a double relegation or more? Also city would have to then comply with EFL's PSR rules so loads of our players would have to go, that + transfer ban would make it harder to come back up. I think owners being forced to go should be key

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@mcscotty808 🩵

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@FeedingGoater 💯

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@BeersnBlues They were let off very lightly but that was because it was the previous owners who committed the sins and the club turned themselves in to the PL. Very different to City's approach

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@CityBIue Yep, and this is why we need rid of these owners

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@LavidDinnett @drdavidajames Double or triple that points deduction and he is spot on though. By way of punishment that would be fine along with a fine and transfer ban... However, the key bit is the owners should be forced to sell by the football regulator, they are clearly not fit and proper!

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@drdavidajames A lot more points than 40 but other than that, spot on. City fan here too

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@GazDrinkwater

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@DomFarrell1986 @DomFarrell1986 listen to the segment from 1:00:00 to 1:08:30 if you have time. It's suggested that the Independent Football Regulator may actually HAVE to remove the owners from the football club, in accordance with its own rules: https://t.co/zIoB0qt2g9

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

City fans: the segment from 1:00:00 to 1:08:30 in this chat seems to suggest that the Independent Football Regulator may actually HAVE to remove City's owners from the club.

https://t.co/zIoB0qt2g9

[Ben Jacobs @JacobsBen]

Manchester City will argue the so-called 'tagged' sponsorship payments (totalling £830m) came from the Abu Dhabi Government not their owner (ADUG). This applies to State-controlled entities such as Etihad and Etisalat. Yet Etihad has previously refuted AD Government funding as "false".

City can point to an internal report written for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi in 2010 which concluded the Abu Dhabi Government did indeed cover the sponsorship of Manchester City. The report was not intended for external publication.

In their UEFA case, City denied the Etihad (or any other) sponsorship funds came from any other source other than a direct payment. Sheikh Mansour provided a letter which read: "I have not authorised ADUG to make any payments to Etihad, Etisalat or any of their affiliates in relation to their sponsorship of MCFC."

In 2015, the 'Partnership for Open and Fair Skies' wrote to the US departments of Commerce, Transportation and State arguing Etihad gained a competitive advantage due to receiving huge sums from the Abu Dhabi Government. They allude to the internal report referenced above, which appears to confirm this.

Yet Etihad's response was: "The assertion that the Abu Dhabi Government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally 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. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues."

Etihad's denial the Abu Dhabi Government helped pay for their sponsorship goes against City's core argument, according to the verdict, 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."

Due to redacted names, multiple sponsors, and the phrase 'from time to time', City could make a case for other sponsors, but Etihad's on-record denial doesn't help the club's position, according to multiple legal sources spoken to.

Worth also reiterating, the panel, having reviewed the evidence already provided, already concluded any notion the Abu Dhabi Government not ADUG paid the tagged sums was "concocted well after the event".

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@1992ausDc @9320pod 🤝

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@FootballCliches 😂😂😂

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@1992ausDc @9320pod Past successes under the owners are meaningless, future successes under same owners will be viewed same way, and because the club didn't get properly punished, the stain remains. It's not about appeasing rivals, it's to cleanse our club and start afresh, for ourselves. 2/2

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@1992ausDc @9320pod I respect your view, we will all have different views. But, I proffer this to you:

Say we're cleared (or majority cleared) on appeal. Technically we cheated, but we avoid major sanction. Owners/execs stay

What's the point in being a City fan? 1/2

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@JM_Devine 😂😂😂😂😂

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@PrakashShanMCFC @slbsn @TonyTalksUK Desperation. The careers of the execs and the rep of AD is on the line. They've got to go to the end. Pity the fans are being dragged along with them though!

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@ronanpatlee @9320pod Mansour = AD govt, and Mansour is the club owner. The fact that City think this qualifies as enough separation is utterly baffling, and the only explanation is desperation. It really is last shot territory. Their "irrefutable" evidence was refuted wholesale, ergo not irrefutable

[Shamz @CityFanpq]

@ronanpatlee @9320pod Its been reported the claim City intend to make on appeal is the same one the IC rejected (CPC), saying this was an elaborate explanation created later by the club to cover up the fraud. I think they have slim to no chance on appeal. Plus, even if we win appeal, we still cheated