1/2 Surely the main issue with the PL’s "sham contract" ruling is that it relies heavily on internal spreadsheet tags ("ADUG Tagged") and selective internal emails rather than actual bank records. In the written decision, the Commission explicitly cited internal finance ledgers that categorized £830.69m in sponsorship revenue as "ADUG (Tagged Sums)", using those working notes and email fragments to infer a massive fraud. Yet, they never produced direct "upstream" bank statements from Abu Dhabi showing owner cash moving into Etihad to cover those wires. They chose circumstantial working notes over signed contracts, verified bank receipts, and audited accounts. This exact evidentiary gap was highlighted back in the CAS award: > "If only UEFA had sought to establish the payment flows underlying the Etihad sponsorship from the outset, or MCFC had chosen to provide them, this matter would not have had to be brought before CAS." > When those primary bank statements were produced at CAS, the panel cleared us. Yet the PL Commission reached its guilty verdict by claiming we filed misstated accounts, relying on internal files while completely ignoring the co-signatory. What makes the PL's position so legally fragile is that they declared these commercial deals a "sham" without ever contacting Etihad, interviewing their executives, or auditing their books. Our position on appeal is straightforward: overriding audited bank receipts using internal spreadsheets represents a material error of law and makes the verdict completely unsafe. Etihad didn't provide their books earlier simply because the PL has zero jurisdiction over a foreign airline and no legal process existed for a third party to step into a private arbitration. Beyond that, no major company hands over private treasury files to a football regulator without being formally asked. But they can bring that evidence forward now on appeal because being labelled a front for fraud gives them clear legal standing to protect their brand, and English arbitration rules allow fresh third-party bank records to prove the panel’s inferences were unsafe. Etihad has already proven their funding mechanics before—in 2015, they submitted a 60-page audit to the US Dept of Transportation disclosing $14.3bn in state equity while proving zero state money funded our sponsorship deal, which came out of their commercial budget. If Etihad steps into this appeal process or challenges the PL with those audited accounts, the league faces catastrophic fallout. Both City and Etihad would have massive grounds to claim legal fees, commercial devaluation, and reputational damage. Any compensation awarded against the PL would come straight out of central revenues, directly cutting broadcast payouts for the other 19 clubs. Above all, bypassing a major international sponsor to declare a "sham" on circumstantial spreadsheets proves the league cannot fairly self-regulate, handing total authority to the UK Government's Independent Football Regulator.

Haha, so the secret source has been reaching out to almost every City fan. I thought I was the only one he contacted. The claim he made here is accurate. City have been found guilty of 68 of the 115 charges, with a fine and points deduction reportedly under consideration, potentially bringing relegation into the conversation. However, Manchester City have maintained their innocence and are prepared to fight the case legally. They are also reportedly prepared to demand a public apology and $1 billion in compensation from the Premier League. No secret apology. That's my oil club. ❤️❤️😎

People have gone nuts. Relegation more or less guarantees losing our best players. Further points deduction means potentially getting stuck for longer. Honestly, people want the club burned to the ground and it’s pathetic.

BEST DEFENDING OF THE WEEK GOES TO DIOGO DALOT✅ ABSOLUTELY MAGNIFICENT🤩🤩🤩

How funny would it be if this all ended up coming true? Would you come back here and say you were wrong?

An insight into City’s legal strategy on 114. City have recently recruited Mark Howard described as a “super silk” a term used for a highly distinguished King’s Counsel (KC). He joins a legal team that includes Lord David Pannick KC, who has led City’s defence in the long-running case. What follows is where the legal battle appears to stand between City, Etihad, and the Premier League following the Independent Commission’s verdict. 1. The Snook Trap: How the PL Committed a Massive Legal Error Under English law (Snook precedent), to declare a contract a "sham," you have to prove both parties intended to deceive. The PL’s three KCs found City guilty of fraud via "adverse inferences" because City refused to turn over Etihad’s books. But here’s the catch: the PL never once interviewed Etihad or audited their banking records. They effectively shifted the burden of proof to City to prove a negative, which is legal quicksand in a real court. 1. Why Pannick Left Etihad Out of the Initial Tribunal It looks like a deliberate tactical play by Lord Pannick KC. By keeping Etihad as a "non-party," the PL’s tribunal made definitive findings of corporate fraud against a multi-billion-dollar global airline without ever giving them a Right to Reply (Audi alteram partem). Bringing Etihad in earlier would have subjected them to massive, un-secure disclosure pools vulnerable to the PL's historic mainstream media leaks. 1. Etihad’s High Court "Nuclear Option" Because Etihad is a separate corporate entity and not a PL member, they aren’t bound by football arbitration rules. Etihad’s threat to sue the PL for commercial defamation in the English High Court completely upends the case: Strict Confidentiality Rings: In a real court, Etihad can safely hand over verified Abu Dhabi bank routing records and independent audits under judge-supervised security—completely shielded from leaks to rival clubs. Destroying the "Spoofed Payments" Theory: Once a High Court judge validates that the sponsorship funds came entirely from Etihad’s own commercial revenue, the PL’s "sham contract" ruling is legally dead. City can then port that judicially stamped proof directly into the football appeal. 1. The "Prosecutorial" Panel and Fallback Findings Did the three KCs act impartially? It’s highly debatable. By reverse-engineering the judgment with "backup charges" (like non-cooperation and acting in bad faith), they tried to make the verdict appeal-proof. But if Pannick proves the primary "sham" ruling was built on an unlawful legal process, the secondary fallback findings logically collapse with it. 1. CAS vs. The "Kangaroo" Football Tribunal The PL deliberately ignored the 2020 CAS verdict (which cleared City of hiding equity funding) by exploiting the fact that the domestic PL rulebook has no statute of limitations. They used lower evidential standards to bypass the supreme court of world sport. Pannick will aggressively argue on appeal that ignoring a definitive CAS ruling on the exact same contracts constitutes an abuse of process. 1. Geopolitical Fallout: UAE Threats & Whitehall Frustration It’s now spilling into international diplomacy. Emirati officials have reportedly warned the UK Government that the severity of the ruling directly threatens a £30 billion UK-UAE investment pipeline, clouding an upcoming London investment summit. UK officials are furious because they are facing massive economic pressure from a foreign state over a private sports tribunal that the government has zero constitutional power to interfere with. The Bottom Line: Pannick is executing a brilliant multi-front counter-offensive. By stalling the compressed PL appeal timeline and letting Etihad loose in the High Court, he is forcing the Premier League to defend its leaked, circumstantial case in a real court of law where they have no safety net.

United haven’t won a major trophy in a decade lol but PSR doesn’t allow them to drop into extinction as they naturally should.

Probably these images that give credence to it all init

It’s all about being entertained on Manchester City certainly do that. Why do we want boring teams winning things? I wanna watch quality work class players playing football.

La Liga run FFP based on the finances of each individual owner and spending limits are set based on those finances. That’s how it should be done.

Salary caps would be a start. You won't even go with that.