N5 Intel

Verified account

@N5excl

N5, North London

Joined June 2023

2K Following

44.1K Followers

4.3K Posts

Pinned Tweet

1 day ago

🚨EXCLUSIVE: Arsenal exploring deal to sign Junior Kroupi. #AFC actively in contact with 20yo’s camp regarding potential January/Summer move. Bournemouth stance is relaxed with the player contracted till 2030. French int’l also has suitors across Europe’s top clubs. https://t.co/bQSsx7lWJj

18

2K

106

62

194K

about 13 hours ago

🚨Golden boy nominee, Myles Lewis-Skelly starts tonight for England | #AFC

1

189

8

1

7K

about 15 hours ago

🚨UPDATE - Max Dowman suffered a knock. No issue anticipated | #AFC

about 23 hours ago

#AFC: Injury update Ezri Konsa - dealing with two separate issues, one minor niggle prior to IB & fresh knock VS. Croatia. Both thought to be nothing serious, club hopeful he can make Leeds game on Saturday. CB now back at Arsenal. Christos Tzolis - set for 2-3 weeks on the sidelines as reported by @dimitrismanakos. Greek int’l back at Arsenal for recovery, targeting Bayern UCL fixture for return. Kai Havertz - suffered a ‘minor’ hamstring injury against Netherlands 11 days ago. One source informs me he’s ‘expected to miss Leeds game’ but should be ready for Forest the following weekend. Max Dowman - 16yo to return to Arsenal in next days, no timeline yet.

1

255

19

15

35K

0

78

4

1

9K

about 23 hours ago

Recovery going better than expected and should be available to face Forest.

0

2

0

0

1K

8 days ago

🚨Understand Kai Havertz is set to be out for 3-4 weeks after sustaining a hamstring injury in the Nations League. Further scans clarified the left hamstring problem. The Germany int’l is targeting a return in time for #AFC’s trip to face Bayern Munich on 21 October.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨Understand Kai Havertz is set to be out for 3-4 weeks after sustaining a hamstring injury in the Nations League.

Further scans clarified the left hamstring problem. The Germany int’l is targeting a return in time for #AFC’s trip to face Bayern Munich on 21 October. https://t.co/axJYem5U30

5

314

13

5

30K

about 23 hours ago

#AFC: Injury update Ezri Konsa - dealing with two separate issues, one minor niggle prior to IB & fresh knock VS. Croatia. Both thought to be nothing serious, club hopeful he can make Leeds game on Saturday. CB now back at Arsenal. Christos Tzolis - set for 2-3 weeks on the sidelines as reported by @dimitrismanakos. Greek int’l back at Arsenal for recovery, targeting Bayern UCL fixture for return. Kai Havertz - suffered a ‘minor’ hamstring injury against Netherlands 11 days ago. One source informs me he’s ‘expected to miss Leeds game’ but should be ready for Forest the following weekend. Max Dowman - 16yo to return to Arsenal in next days, no timeline yet.

1

255

19

15

35K

4 days ago

@ArtdeRoche First call - @dimitrismanakos 👏

1

6

1

0

1K

5 days ago

🚨City have officially announced they have lodged an appeal - hearing to take place soon | #MCFC

5 days ago

🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

9

133

31

33

39K

0

34

2

2

8K

5 days ago

@JacobsBen @alexwickham https://t.co/vy8D2ohcRv

5 days ago

🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

9

133

31

33

39K

0

2

0

1

1K

5 days ago

@HandofArsenal 💣

5 days ago

🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

9

133

31

33

39K

0

49

5

3

10K

5 days ago

@TelegraphDucker @SamWallaceTel https://t.co/vy8D2ohKH3

5 days ago

🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

9

133

31

33

39K

0

20

4

4

10K

5 days ago

@ManCity https://t.co/vy8D2ohKH3

5 days ago

🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

9

133

31

33

39K

1

6

0

0

1K

5 days ago

🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨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.

9

133

31

33

39K

N5excl retweeted

Dimitris Manakos

@dimitrismanakos

5 days ago

🚨 CONFIRMED: Christos Tzolis is OUT of Greece’s squad for the next match. ❌🇬🇷 He will RETURN to England and Arsenal tomorrow! ✈️🇬🇷 #Tzolis #Greece #Arsenal

dimitrismanakos's tweet photo. 🚨 CONFIRMED: Christos Tzolis is OUT of Greece’s squad for the next match. ❌🇬🇷

He will RETURN to England and Arsenal tomorrow! ✈️🇬🇷

#Tzolis #Greece #Arsenal https://t.co/mSYwnBKD3n

14

2K

138

22

67K

5 days ago

@AFC__Xtra 🫡

8 days ago

🚨Understand Kai Havertz is set to be out for 3-4 weeks after sustaining a hamstring injury in the Nations League. Further scans clarified the left hamstring problem. The Germany int’l is targeting a return in time for #AFC’s trip to face Bayern Munich on 21 October.

N5excl's tweet photo. 🚨Understand Kai Havertz is set to be out for 3-4 weeks after sustaining a hamstring injury in the Nations League.

Further scans clarified the left hamstring problem. The Germany int’l is targeting a return in time for #AFC’s trip to face Bayern Munich on 21 October. https://t.co/axJYem5U30

5

314

13

5

30K

0

3

0

0

1K

6 days ago

🧨 Just some of the communication documents within Manchester City including CEO Ferran Soriano ( a man who claims the commission’s findings are wide off the mark). Files collated by @HandofArsenal 🔝

N5excl's tweet photo. 🧨 Just some of the communication documents within Manchester City including CEO Ferran Soriano ( a man who claims the commission’s findings are wide off the mark).

Files collated by @HandofArsenal 🔝 https://t.co/DHYRa4yJUm

N5excl's tweet photo. 🧨 Just some of the communication documents within Manchester City including CEO Ferran Soriano ( a man who claims the commission’s findings are wide off the mark).

Files collated by @HandofArsenal 🔝 https://t.co/DHYRa4yJUm

N5excl's tweet photo. 🧨 Just some of the communication documents within Manchester City including CEO Ferran Soriano ( a man who claims the commission’s findings are wide off the mark).

Files collated by @HandofArsenal 🔝 https://t.co/DHYRa4yJUm

N5excl's tweet photo. 🧨 Just some of the communication documents within Manchester City including CEO Ferran Soriano ( a man who claims the commission’s findings are wide off the mark).

Files collated by @HandofArsenal 🔝 https://t.co/DHYRa4yJUm

7 days ago

🚨EXCLUSIVE: Manchester City file appeal after being found guilty of all 115 PL financial rule breaches. #MCFC have appealed against the findings of the commission despite the sanctions yet to be decided. #AFC & #MUFC among rivals considering compensation claims. https://t.co/bBCFZ2woJa

11

414

35

16

73K

2

78

16

6

11K

6 days ago

🧨Up to £300m, reports @franchisexcl

6 days ago

🚨 Understand #AFC have now formally submitted a compensation claim, however, a response may take some time.

2

155

10

4

23K

2

99

2

0

13K

6 days ago

🚨 Understand #AFC have now formally submitted a compensation claim, however, a response may take some time.

7 days ago

🚨EXCLUSIVE: Manchester City file appeal after being found guilty of all 115 PL financial rule breaches. #MCFC have appealed against the findings of the commission despite the sanctions yet to be decided. #AFC & #MUFC among rivals considering compensation claims. https://t.co/bBCFZ2woJa

11

414

35

16

73K

2

155

10

4

23K

7 days ago

🚨EXCLUSIVE: Manchester City file appeal after being found guilty of all 115 PL financial rule breaches. #MCFC have appealed against the findings of the commission despite the sanctions yet to be decided. #AFC & #MUFC among rivals considering compensation claims. https://t.co/bBCFZ2woJa

11

414

35

16

73K

7 days ago

N5excl's tweet photo. https://t.co/g2SZ8cdY5L

4 months ago

It is my understanding, there is a seriously confident expectation now for a decision on the Man City 115 case to be delivered in the coming weeks ( sometime in the summer latest ) All Premier League clubs await official communication.

2K

45K

6K

2K

9M

1

1K

55

9

26K

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users