I have just received a reply back from the Independent Press Standards Organisation about my complaint regarding the “Sheikh head in disbelief” article. The IPSO have deemed the article does not breach the Editors' Code of Practice. I have copied the IPSO's response below with my name and the complaints officer's name removed.
Dear Mr XXXXX,
I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “Sheikh head in disbelief”, published by the Daily Star Sunday on 18 October 2015.
On receipt of a complaint, IPSO’s Executive reviews it to ensure that it falls within our remit, and discloses a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Executive has now completed an assessment of your complaint under the terms of the Code. Having considered the points you have raised in full, we have concluded that your complaint does not raise a possible breach of the Code.
You complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) that the article was inaccurate because it said that Manchester City had been running a deficit of £650 million, when you said that deficit had been converted into equity. You do not dispute that the club had amassed a net transfer spend of £650 million in the last eight transfer windows, or that it had spent £200 million refurbishing the stadium and funding the academy. We also note that the article said: “What has happened to all the money City owe? Written off by the mega-rich owners presumably.” In this context, we did not consider that the article gave a misleading impression of Manchester City’s overall financial situation. As such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.
You complained under Clause 1 that the article was inaccurate because it stated that Manchester City’s sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways was a “related party” arrangement, despite UEFA having ruled that it was not. The article said that “Even City’s major sponsor – Etihad Airways – is a family firm run by Sheikh and Vac’s brother”. The article did not report that Etihad Airways was a “related party” arrangement in line with UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules; as a result, the article was not inaccurate. As such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.
You also said that Clause 1 had been breached because the article inaccurately reported that Etihad Airways was a family firm run by Sheikh Mansour’s brother; you said the airline was owned by the Abu Dhabi government, and was not a family firm. We note that Sheikh Mansour is a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi, and that the airline is owned by the Abu Dhabi government; in these circumstances, we did not consider that the article was inaccurate. As such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.
You also said that Clause12 had been breached because the article had racial undertones. IPSO is able to consider complaints from an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice; complaints from a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest; and complaints from third parties about accuracy. In the case of third party complaints, we will need to consider the position of the party most closely involved. In this instance, the concerns you raised under this Clause relate directly to the Manchester City owner. Since you are not acting on their behalf with their knowledge and consent, we were unable to consider this aspect of your complaint further.
You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us within seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made more than seven days following the date of this email.
We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.
Best wishes,
XXXXXXX
Cc Daily Star Sunday
