• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Naughty Emirates Marketing Project - Spot of Compo??

If this Labour government tries to interfere with the Independent Judicial Appeals Panel desicions and any punishment for City, someone will get wind of it and TV, the press , social media will have an absolute field day and Labour might as well give up on the next general election. . Whatever the investments in the UK from UAE or Abu Dhabi, compared to what has been lost since Brexit it's probaby peanuts seeing as the EU are our largest trading partner.

Mubarak is safe from any personal litigation

Emirates Marketing Project chair shielded by diplomatic immunity​

Khaldoon al-Mubarak was granted immunity six years ago, protecting him from potential legal proceedings in the UK

PS And reading what was said in the previous judgements against Everton & Forest , I have every confidence that it will be a points deduction not a fine.
 
Last edited:
SirPercyHotspur said:
If this Labour government tries to interfere with the Independent Judicial Appeals Panel desicions and any punishment for City, someone will get wind of it and TV, the press , social media will have an absolute field day and Labour might as well give up on the next general election. . Whatever the investments in the UK from UAE or Abu Dhabi, compared to what has been lost since Brexit it's probaby peanuts seeing as the EU are our largest trading partner.

Mubarak is safe from any personal litigation

Emirates Marketing Project chair shielded by diplomatic immunity​

Khaldoon al-Mubarak was granted immunity six years ago, protecting him from potential legal proceedings in the UK
Click to expand...

It would be suicidal. After Burnham’s comments, journalists are rightly sniffing around that whole relationship now. There’s no way they can do anything.

I also think if UAE want to withdraw from profitable investment opportunities in the UK, we can offer that same opportunity to their gulf rivals or anyone else that wants to come in. It’s not as if they are purely doing us a favour by investing, they make a return. And our finance and legal system (that it cannot be bought) means we have appeal as a safe haven for their money.
 
Last edited:
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
They are banking on the idea that the Independent Commission misunderstood how money moves in the Gulf. Put aside the ludicrous idea that the government and the owners of City are different entities, it is a line of argument that has been looked at and dismissed. They also falsified evidence, had witnesses that lied, and tried to stall the investigation at every turn.

Interesting that Bloomberg are reporting today that Khaldoon met Jonathan Reynolds, UK Government minister, days before the guilty verdict. Clearly they’re going to apply whatever pressure they can to soften the sanctions. If they succeed in any way, it will be a scandal bigger than the guilty verdicts and original acts themselves. This isn’t some shady defence contract that the public doesn’t pay much attention to, this is about the integrity of the national game. Will be incredible to see how it plays out.
Click to expand...

Days before the verdict was leaked or before City knew in the summer?
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
It would be suicidal. After Burnham’s comments, journalists are rightly sniffing around that whole relationship now. There’s no way they can do anything.

I also think if UAE want to withdraw from profitable investment opportunities in the UK, we can offer that same opportunity to their gulf rivals or anyone else that wants to come in. It’s not as if they are purely doing us a favour by investing, they make a return. And our finance and legal system (that is cannot be bought) means we have appeal as a safe haven for their money.
Click to expand...

I honestly think Burnham would be better off supporting Israel than City from a how well it would go down with the public perspective.
 
We’re just under 3 years away from the next scheduled general election. I think some are overestimating the importance of this matter to the British electorate outside of those who support PL teams (and even there I’ve seen comments that are verging on the sympathetic side, hard as that is to believe).
Sure it would be terrible publicity and will deflate the Burnham Bounce, and might even bring about his downfall, although I don’t really see it - but how the government react now is not going to decide a general election.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
We’re just under 3 years away from the next scheduled general election. I think some are overestimating the importance of this matter to the British electorate outside of those who support PL teams (and even there I’ve seen comments that are verging on the sympathetic side, hard as that is to believe).
Sure it would be terrible publicity and will deflate the Burnham Bounce, and might even bring about his downfall, although I don’t really see it - but how the government react now is not going to decide a general election.
Click to expand...

5 of the last 6 PM’s have not made it to an election.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
apple.news

Revealed: Damning evidence that undermines Man City’s defence — The Telegraph

Document submitted by Etihad Airways in 2015 directly contradicts key argument in club’s appeal
apple.news apple.news

Not sure if folks can get Apple News but this is what I was driving at above. This story has just come out minutes ago in the Telegraph.

The idea that Etihad took government funding was denied in Etihad’s case to the US Gov years ago.

Quite how City think this will wash, or that people couldn’t also access this information, is beyond me!
Click to expand...

You also have the smoking gun of City execs in emails saying they need a certain amount of money in sponsorship revenue to he paid in and then that exact amount being provided days later.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Fair enough. I certainly think City are screwed in any case way beyond a £100m fine. But I would absolutely support all the other clubs applying whatever pressure they can to get the sanctions as impactful as possible,

One other thing I have been thinking about while looking into this…if the owners wanted to make the case that this is genuinely government funding to help a national airline get more global exposure, why not just actually send the money to Etihad and let them send it on? Obviously part of it is that they never thought they would get caught, but I think another part of it is intra-portfolio conflict.

If there’s a world in which US airlines were pressuring the US government to shut down routes for gulf airlines, because of complaints about unfair competitive practices and that those airlines receive heavy government subsidies, it would require Etihad for example to need to be more transparent about their books, if the US government asked for that in return for not acquiescing to their own airlines. If Etihad had more audit scrutiny, they couldn’t be seen to have ridiculous and unrealistic sponsorship funding being pumped through them directly by the government.

I really think they are cooked.
Click to expand...

I was also thinking about it as well. Imagine if there was a trust model where the trustees are the FA and a holding UK bank in our case. So City want to inject additional cash into their club but first they have to setup a continuation trust that de-risks the owners withdrawing. In the event they withdraw then the FA can use the trust to help the remaining club run for X years and even help them right size. So to use exaggerated numbers, imagine if City's current owners had £1b in a trust that is held by an independent bank and the FA are the trustees. Then PSR allows them extra leg room to spend year to year because the trust is the piece that satisfies sustainability. If you look at every incremental income above the organic piece (gate receipts, English broadcasting monies through the PL, merchandise etc) and they then calculate the difference to their annual revenues (=CL monies, sponsor deals etc). That gap is calculated by the X years to guarantee security of the club and held in trust. In City's current situation that means they would have to hand over >£0.5b to continue to operate like they do today.

This is as much a sustainability model as PSR to be fair. It has more of a capitalist feel to it rather than the way the football governance bodies operate today. The latter model we have today is just command and control when you think about it.
 
robp135 said:
You also have the smoking gun of City execs in emails saying they need a certain amount of money in sponsorship revenue to he paid in and then that exact amount being provided days later.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It’s actually quite funny seeing all the arguments from the City side because they have all been made to look as dumb as they actually are.

I’ve just seen The Times version of the Etihad / US Gov story and in it they say that City think it actually strengthens their argument because Etihad applied for the grant and then it actually became ‘their money’. Even though…the whole point of the original US case was that they had to argue they weren’t supported by the UAE government? And even though we know the money didn’t come via Etihad? And even though we know about these emails saying they needed these exact amounts? And even though they concocted this story late into the investigation?

I’m actually amazed that City think everyone else is dumb enough to be taken in by this. They are effectively going to try and hold the game hostage / burn it all down because they were caught. And are using the most ludicrous arguments to keep this saga going.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Yeah. It’s actually quite funny seeing all the arguments from the City side because they have all been made to look as dumb as they actually are.

I’ve just seen The Times version of the Etihad / US Gov story and in it they say that City think it actually strengthens their argument because Etihad applied for the grant and then it actually became ‘their money’. Even though…the whole point of the original US case was that they had to argue they weren’t supported by the UAE government? And even though we know the money didn’t come via Etihad? And even though we know about these emails saying they needed these exact amounts? And even though they concocted this story late into the investigation?

I’m actually amazed that City think everyone else is dumb enough to be taken in by this. They are effectively going to try and hold the game hostage / burn it all down because they were caught. And are using the most ludicrous arguments to keep this saga going.
Click to expand...

They don’t work like you or I. They are like a spoilt child who’s parents have never told them no. Deny, deny, deny and save face until eventually somebody takes the bribe and they get away with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back