Quite probably an unknown journalist from a newspaper in Knoxville, Tennessee in 1981, reporting on an AA meeting. On the other hand, it may have been the author Rita Mae Brown, as said by the character Jane Fulton, In the book Sudden Death In 1983. It almost certainly wasn’t Albert Einstein, to whom it is usually attributed.I only visit this thread for reassurance from people I don't know, whose opinions I can't trust and who have no inside knowledge of anything that's happening.
Who said madness was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
Or our owner weighed up what his ADUG team were proposing and said ok you've gone as far as you can lets simplify it. I'll have a word with my dad..Why is it unlikely that Sheikh Mansour financed the Etihad deal? The hacked emails suggest he did exactly that and City have never denied their authenticity, merely their context. And having looked at them again yesterday I’m really struggling to see how they might have been taken out of context as claimed. They come from senior members of the City hierarchy and contain very precise instruction on the movement of money between ADUG and Etihad. If we’re going to take this ban down, then it seems (to my untrained eye) that it’ll have to be on one of the regulatory/technical/whatever you want to call them, grounds that Projectriver outlined in that 93:20 podcast he did
Maybe the sensitivity over the Open Skies case meant that the guys in Abu Dhabi didn't want people to know ADEC was actually funding it? If you wanted to keep that secret then you'd hardly broadcast it all round City. So ADUG's name was used to keep ADEC out of it. One of the few facts we do know is that ADEC were covering the Etihad sponsorship just a couple of years earlier. Why would that suddenly change?Why is it unlikely that Sheikh Mansour financed the Etihad deal? The hacked emails suggest he did exactly that and City have never denied their authenticity, merely their context. And having looked at them again yesterday I’m really struggling to see how they might have been taken out of context as claimed. They come from senior members of the City hierarchy and contain very precise instruction on the movement of money between ADUG and Etihad. If we’re going to take this ban down, then it seems (to my untrained eye) that it’ll have to be on one of the regulatory/technical/whatever you want to call them, grounds that Projectriver outlined in that 93:20 podcast he did
I only visit this thread for reassurance from people I don't know, whose opinions I can't trust and who have no inside knowledge of anything that's happening.
Who said madness was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
Brother...Or our owner weighed up what his ADUG team were proposing and said ok you've gone as far as you can lets simplify it. I'll have a word with my dad..
A paper trail that would certainly be irrefutable, and one we’d have had every reason to not want to show to cretins at UEFA.Maybe the sensitivity over the Open Skies case meant that the guys in Abu Dhabi didn't want people to know ADEC was actually funding it? If you wanted to keep that secret then you'd hardly broadcast it all round City. So ADUG's name was used to keep ADEC out of it. One of the few facts we do know is that ADEC were covering the Etihad sponsorship just a couple of years earlier. Why would that suddenly change?
Even if the money came to City via ADUG, perhaps that was the route ADEC decided to use after the revelation that it was funding the Etihad sponsorship. ADEC -> ADUG -> City.
Maybe the sensitivity over the Open Skies case meant that the guys in Abu Dhabi didn't want people to know ADEC was actually funding it? If you wanted to keep that secret then you'd hardly broadcast it all round City. So ADUG's name was used to keep ADEC out of it. One of the few facts we do know is that ADEC were covering the Etihad sponsorship just a couple of years earlier. Why would that suddenly change?
Even if the money came to City via ADUG, perhaps that was the route ADEC decided to use after the revelation that it was funding the Etihad sponsorship. ADEC -> ADUG -> City.
I have only ever heard of Rita Mae Brown as a reference to Ruby Fruit Jungle in Educating Rita. I was delighted to see a copy once in a Parisian bookshop.Quite probably an unknown journalist from a newspaper in Knoxville, Tennessee in 1981, reporting on an AA meeting. On the other hand, it may have been the author Rita Mae Brown, as said by the character Jane Fulton, In the book Sudden Death In 1983. It almost certainly wasn’t Albert Einstein, to whom it is usually attributed.
Nope, it would be fine.Is that something we should be concerned about PB ?
Spliff.... :)Nope, it would be fine.
Maybe the sensitivity over the Open Skies case meant that the guys in Abu Dhabi didn't want people to know ADEC was actually funding it? If you wanted to keep that secret then you'd hardly broadcast it all round City. So ADUG's name was used to keep ADEC out of it. One of the few facts we do know is that ADEC were covering the Etihad sponsorship just a couple of years earlier. Why would that suddenly change?
Thought that was an away game... at Rotherham!I tried that in the sixties. Kept going back to Maine Road and we kept getting whacked, then one day we won!
We've done this before but the emails say that ADUG route or wire Ethad finance to Manchester City. They do not say that ADUG underwrites the Etihad sponsorship.Why is it unlikely that Sheikh Mansour financed the Etihad deal? The hacked emails suggest he did exactly that and City have never denied their authenticity, merely their context. And having looked at them again yesterday I’m really struggling to see how they might have been taken out of context as claimed. They come from senior members of the City hierarchy and contain very precise instruction on the movement of money between ADUG and Etihad. If we’re going to take this ban down, then it seems (to my untrained eye) that it’ll have to be on one of the regulatory/technical/whatever you want to call them, grounds that Projectriver outlined in that 93:20 podcast he did
It shouldn't be. If we can show that ADUG wasn't the originator but the conduit then I'd hope we would be OK. Naturally UEFA would probably try to change the rules again no doubt.Is that something we should be concerned about PB ?
Etihad have already said that they were fully liable for the entire sponsorship. It's a statement that raises eyebrows but it'snot in my opinion damning. I find it very difficult to believe that the UAE state were not and are not responsible for underwriting the commercial obligations of their airline. I don't find it a surprise that the money gets routed through ADUG.No idea PB. None of it makes sense, not least that we could have been so stupid (if the emails are a true reflection of affairs) when we didn’t need to be. Doesn’t sound a very plausible explanation though.
This is what I believe to be the case since I saw the open skies document Ultimately if a trial of the money can be shown that originated from ADEC via ADUG then it’s fineMaybe the sensitivity over the Open Skies case meant that the guys in Abu Dhabi didn't want people to know ADEC was actually funding it? If you wanted to keep that secret then you'd hardly broadcast it all round City. So ADUG's name was used to keep ADEC out of it. One of the few facts we do know is that ADEC were covering the Etihad sponsorship just a couple of years earlier. Why would that suddenly change?
Even if the money came to City via ADUG, perhaps that was the route ADEC decided to use after the revelation that it was funding the Etihad sponsorship. ADEC -> ADUG -> City.
Even Conn accepted that the Etihad deal was state financed. However, we have the issue that the UEFA AC ruled against City. How? I don't see a case in the Der Spiegel emails. I see a case to answer but not a uncontestable case. Do they have something else?This is what I believe to be the case since I saw the open skies document Ultimately if a trial of the money can be shown that originated from ADEC via ADUG then it’s fine