Anri

[Anri @AnriLv]

@SpursOfficial sorry Spurs fans but it's so funny 🤣🤣🤣

[Anri @AnriLv]

@RealTolmie apparently she said no comment

[Anri @AnriLv]

@petek_78 @AliceTalksFooty that's not nice.

[Anri @AnriLv]

@EGTVEgal I checked the website, and it’s either fake or it’s specifically for disabled ticket holders.

[Anri @AnriLv]

@81KGB @slbsn Bro i Understand but they already win this case on CAS. against Uefa

[Anri @AnriLv]

@RedDevil0_0_7 Check my tweet and read carefully

[Anri @AnriLv]

About all this City Situation. The whole point is this: if City can prove that the additional sponsorship funding came from the Abu Dhabi government through a government-owned company such as Etihad, rather than from Sheikh Mansour or ADUG, then the whole “owner funding disguised as sponsorship” argument becomes much harder to sustain.

And this is about deals from 2009–2018. The Premier League’s APT rules were only introduced in December 2021. Those rules specifically created a new system for assessing commercial deals involving entities linked to a club’s ownership. So you can’t simply apply the 2021 rules retrospectively to sponsorship agreements made years earlier.

If City can prove that the money came from the Abu Dhabi government, that the sponsors were genuinely paying for commercial agreements, and that ADUG/Sheikh Mansour was not secretly funding those payments, then City could challenge one of the central factual findings of the commission. That could potentially undermine the “sham sponsorship” theory and, depending on how the appeal panel treats the evidence and the applicable rules, lead to some or potentially all of those findings being overturned.

[Anri @AnriLv]

@81KGB @slbsn You don’t get it, innit? Read it carefully and analyze it. If the money was invested through Etihad without Sheikh Mansour or ADUG being involved, that changes everything.

[Anri @AnriLv]

@AdamMcKola Newcastle’s Saudi takeover in 2021, the PL changed the rules to prevent clubs singing inflated commercial and sponsorship deals with governments and companies linked to their owner’s. @AdamMcKola and it's fact. they can win this appeal and sue EPL

[Anri @AnriLv]

@drsportsmedia Before 2021, there were no rules prohibiting clubs from receiving sponsorship money from a government or government-linked entity.

[Anri @AnriLv]

@NotanAlien23 @FergiesRightRef Yeah, and that’s exactly the point. Before 2021, there were no rules preventing clubs from having a sponsor that was owned by the government. so if they can prove that, they gonna win the case.

[Anri @AnriLv]

@UnitedRedX Yeah, and that’s the point. Before 2021, there were no rules saying you couldn’t have a sponsor that was owned by the government.

[Anri @AnriLv]

@EWHK70 listen Before 2021, there were no rules saying you couldn’t have a sponsor that was owned by the government. it's very hard case but you need to understand both sides not only the Epl. they win the marketing battles, but more is come. and this case can go like to 2-5 years

[Anri @AnriLv]

@MUFC_RA Before 2021, there were no rules saying you couldn’t have a sponsor that was owned by the government.

[Anri @AnriLv]

@DarylJeannetti Before 2021, there were no rules saying you couldn’t have a sponsor that was owned by the government.

[Anri @AnriLv]

@BurneyMac88 and again. Before 2021, there were no rules saying you couldn’t have a sponsor that was owned by the government.

[Anri @AnriLv]

@RichRedVoices Before 2021, there were no rules saying you couldn’t have a sponsor that was owned by the government.

[Anri @AnriLv]

@jimmymcbride1 Newcastle’s Saudi takeover in 2021, the PL changed the rules to prevent clubs singing inflated commercial and sponsorship deals with governments and companies linked totheir owner’s.Before 2021 there were no rules saying you couldn’t have a sponsor thatwas owned by the government