Jason Matt Seed

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

@BigBearKentlaar Etihad accounts for upwards of 50% of City’s sponsorship revenue and the PL alleges that the great majority of City’s sponsorship revenue was a sham. Who tf did you think they were talking about in the decision? 😂🤦🏻‍♂️

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

@walkeradam1 @mrdaniel989 Can’t believe you actually doubled down on that. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

@walkeradam1 @mrdaniel989 How do you know they didn’t? We haven’t seen the appendices—the actual evidence—yet. Again, if you accuse a big company of entering into sham agreements, you better be right or 🫰

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

It takes a special brand of idiot to publicly accuse a big company of entering into sham agreements without even picking up the phone to get the company’s perspective first. And before anyone embarrasses themself by saying Etihad wasn’t identified by name in the 40 page document, remember that Etihad accounts for upwards of 50% of City’s sponsorship revenue and the PL alleges that the great majority of it was through sham agreements.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

They account for upwards of 50% of City’s sponsorship revenue. Your answer is that they didn’t identify Etihad by name when saying 80% of City’s revenue was from sham agreements? You think the public is that stupid? Free tip: before you accuse a big company who can sue you to oblivion of entering into sham agreements, maybe give them a call and get their take on the matter.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

@RealTalkMCFC Etihad likely accounts for about half of the disputed sponsorship agreements.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

@henrywinter What overwhelming evidence? You haven’t seen it because all they it hasn’t been made public yet. All we’ve seen is the 40 page summary of the panel’s conclusions. I stopped reading your tome because you’re clearly nothing more than a partisan hack.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

@dionysianwavves @GazCFC11 @jfunnell_lfc Lay off the drugs bro.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

@scousericey How much are they paying you for this slop? Are you sitting in a massive call center turned propaganda machine? That’s the only way the statement you just made is true 😂😂😂

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

@GazCFC11 @jfunnell_lfc Ah you support Chelsea. I get it bro. Hang in there ✊

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

@Managing_City They aren’t hiding the ball. Our owner didn’t source the sponsor deals. That’s the whole case. If the evidence shows that, we win.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

@City_Chief I’d like to request an investigation into whether the Red Cartel supporter who chairs the Judicial Council and appointed all Red Cartel supporters to the “independent panel” might be biased and ignoring City’s evidence on sponsorship for partisan reasons. Cheers 🍻🩵

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

I watched you on ESPN FC and you are the most dishonest, biased, City-hating, PL-script-spewing performer posing as a journalist I’ve ever seen give an interview. Your lack of integrity and impartiality, as evidenced by your repeated, partisan conclusory assertions, are an embarrassment to journalism. We know you’re a United/Cartel man.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

It’s no mystery. When Monsour bought City, United, Liverpool et al were faced with an owner who could actually spend enough to catch them and break their stranglehold of the top of the table. So they pushed for the FFP rules that restricted the ability of owners to self-fund and built a regime around commercial revenue, which they dominated at the time. The rules passed over the objection of City and the other clubs. Fun facts. The leading yes votes on the rules in question—United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Newcastle and Everton—had average annual commercial revenue of 55 million euros. Leaving out City, the top no votes—Fulham, Aston, West Brom, Swansea and Southampton had average annual commercial revenue of 10 million euros. Gee, I wonder why the guys at the top wanted the rules while the people trying to catch up didn’t.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

The whole case rests on the true source of the sponsorship money. City is being as clear as they can that they’re continuing to fight because they presented evidence demonstrating it wasn’t the owner’s money—but rather sponsor money. City is telling us in their legally scrubbed statements that they presented this evidence to the panel but the panel is not impartial. They haven’t been able to share the evidence due to the confidential PL process, as Mansour explained in his letter a couple of days ago.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

And remember the reason City is fighting so hard even now is because the whole case rests on the true source of the sponsorship money and City insists they presented evidence demonstrating that it wasn’t the owner’s money—but rather sponsor money. City is telling us in their legally scrubbed statements that they presented this evidence to the panel but the panel is not impartial. They haven’t been able to share the evidence due to the confidential PL process, as Mansour has explained.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

Mansour buys City with enough money to build a competitor against the Cartel. Rules are quickly adopted to restrict his ability to help Man City catch up with the Cartel, which had a massive commercial revenue advantage built over decades. Incumbents/PL weaponize rules against upstart City. Here we are.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

Yet the whole reason City is fighting so hard is because they insist they have and presented evidence that it wasn’t the owner’s money—it was actually sponsor money. That’s the case and why City is trying to tell us in so many words that they presented irrefutable evidence to a partial panel. They haven’t been able to share it due to the confidential process.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

The whole point is that they can’t per the confidential process that has been ongoing. We just received the high level report summarizing the panel’s conclusions but we haven’t seen the appendices describing and analyzing either parties’ evidence. Why? Because it’s still confidential.

[Jason Matt Seed @mattseed1]

You’re arguing something that the Premier League is not. The Premier League’s position, which may or may not be well supported by the evidence we haven’t seen yet, is that it’s Mansour’s money rather than entities he has relationships with. Every owner leverages their relationships to secure sponsorships. Nothing illegal about that.