I dont see how Mansours influence makes any difference unless the EPL can prove that he has paid the majority of the Etihad sponsorship himself, which is looking highly unlikely
Long post warning - sorry.
But, fair enough. Maybe I am not explaining my thought process properly or maybe I'm not making any sense. Let's see - I'll try one last time, then you can tell me.
Forget fair value for a moment. That is a separate issue which we can talk about later, if you want.
The PL is alleging (as far as we know) that Mansour came to Etihad with a fraudulent scheme whereby he wanted them to sign a super-generous sponsorship scheme with City, but they didn't have to worry about funding it because he would personally give them most of the funds himself.
Now, we can assume for a number of reasons that the PL doesn't have a "smoking gun" such as a whistle-blower with irrefutable evidence. So the PL needs to convince the panel on the balance of probabilities, with particularly cogent evidence, that that happened. They will presumably have many lines of attack - emails, presentations, financial documents and the like, and then they will have to answer the question - why would Etihad do that?
If a complete stranger came to you and asked you to break the law, you would tell him to fuck off. And quite rightly. If someone who had significant control over your life asked you to do it, you may consider it. So if the PL could show Mansour had significant control it strengthens their case, if they can't it weakens their case.
That's my point, really. Up to everyone else to pooh-pooh it. No problem.
How would the PL be able to show that? There are decades of audited accounts that show Mansour doesn't have significant control (as defined by accounting standards) over any of the club's sponsors. To over-ride that consistent and accepted auditor opinion the PL would have to have some pretty serious "evidence". Just quoting publicly known facts about who does what where won't be enough no matter what Harris and Magic Twat say.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the PL have been sniffing around the "owned by Abu Dhabi" narrative in the hope of raising it as a line of attack. I don't know enough about the legal and company structure situation in Abu Dhabi to come to any conclusion on that, but I do know the "ultimate controlling undertaking" of the club changed in the middle of these investigations from a company with one legal form to one with another. I am speculating that may be connected, as a means of strengthening the club's defence, or of weakening an attack from the PL.
In fact, the accounts now refer to Mansour as the ultimate controlling "party" under the"ultimate controlling undertaking" note, which is a little odd as it has previously referred to ADUG and then Newton. May all be nothing, it just seemed strange to me at the time, and still does, tbh.
I'm not sure I can explain it all any more clearly than that. So, there you go. It's probably all bollocks - we will see soon enough.
Oh, and corned beef sandwiches are delicious. Sue me.
