I missed this, but came across the exchange when going through the thread looking for something else. Apologies for responding only so belatedly.
Anyway, I think it must be you he's referring to, having constructed an artificial story around the facts to make himself sound like a great investigative reporter. I remember you sharing the link to that information with me at the time and then you discussing it on here. It stretches credulity for him to claim that he had a "whistleblower" at the same time alerting him to remarkably similar information about Etihad funding only GBP 8 million of the City sponsorship.
But Harris presents the information with a crucial difference from the way it was disclosed in the documents that you found. As you've said, those were filed in the New York District Court with regard to the Open Skies case and, in them, it was said that it was the Abu Dhabi government that was footing the bill for all but GBP 8 million of Etihad's City contract. Mr Sporting Intelligence (arf!) follows up by averring without qualification that: "... the rest [of the sponsorship money] was being paid in disguised – and banned – funding via other entities controlled by Sheikh Mansour".
As we've done to death on here, the Abu Dhabi government and all manifestations thereof including agencies or other bodies under its aegis are most definitely not "controlled by Sheikh Mansour". Moreover, although ownership has recently passed to ADQ, a sovereign investment fund, the Abu Dhabi government was then Etihad's sole shareholder. It's not an uncommon practice, in jurisdictions all over the world, for a significant shareholder to meet certain of a company's expenses. It categorically isn't a corollary that such a move inevitably evidences wrongdoing, and it's irrelevant in the context of UEFA's FFP.
So has fearless Nick, through his "whistleblower", uncovered an example of a state-owned Abu Dhabi company perjuring itself in an American court by filing documents giving a false account of its financial practices to disguise Mansour's funding of City? That would be a hell of a scoop, for sure.
Let's be honest, though: the chances are vanishingly small. It's not remotely tenable that the executives at Etihad would risk the potentially calamitous consequences of the company taking such a course of action, with no ostensible benefit to its position in the case at hand, simply to protect our high-profile but ultimately rather minor cog in Abu Dhabi's colossal investment wheel.
So why would the estimable Nick make such an incendiary claim? Well, one possibility is that his "whistleblower" misled him and he, in good faith, took the source's word. As the assertions were of highly dubious veracity, did he act in good faith, merely being gullible? Maybe so. It would presuppose that his knowledge of the financial and business side of sport is overwhelmingly shakier than he groundlessly flatters himself, but he's demonstrated this on countless occasions in the past. Even a High Court judge declined to designate him as an "expert" in the field!
But there's another, more troubling possibility: are we dealing with something more malign? Surely Harris couldn't, shamelessly and intentionally, be a serial purveyor of manifest untruths, could he? The circumstances surrounding his claims over the Etihad contract suggest that if he isn't a liar, he's just thick. I'll leave it to you to decide which one is closer to the mark, noting only that they aren't mutually exclusive.
I've banged on at length about this, as I'm wont to do, but I make no apology for it. The episode shows exactly what City have been up against for many years. The club claimed that the CAS cased resulted from an "organised and clear" attempt to cause the club irreparable damage. Reptiles like this guy and Delaney were egging UEFA on with glee, trying to set a media agenda with fundamentally flawed reporting. It's crucial we don't forget what they are.
TL, DR - Nick Harris is a ****.
I thought he made the plane as back up for one of the trolly dollies.I thought Maguire had made the plane as back up for Kane!
I need to stop slapping my thigh now and take the dogs out.
Don't read the comments!Had a tear in my eye watching that, well done Jack and Finlay, and Iook forward to seeing the goal celebration soon .
CTID
You have conjured up a horrible image.I thought he made the plane as back up for one of the trolly dollies.
It’s very simple really. Loss making companies sometimes call on shareholders to re capitalise them. Where the company is fully nationalised, the new funds will come from the gov. In the civil aviation world it is almost axiomatic that nationalized flag carriers will make a loss as prestige is pursued more than profit. Hence Etihad funding.I missed this, but came across the exchange when going through the thread looking for something else. Apologies for responding only so belatedly.
Anyway, I think it must be you he's referring to, having constructed an artificial story around the facts to make himself sound like a great investigative reporter. I remember you sharing the link to that information with me at the time and then you discussing it on here. It stretches credulity for him to claim that he had a "whistleblower" at the same time alerting him to remarkably similar information about Etihad funding only GBP 8 million of the City sponsorship.
But Harris presents the information with a crucial difference from the way it was disclosed in the documents that you found. As you've said, those were filed in the New York District Court with regard to the Open Skies case and, in them, it was said that it was the Abu Dhabi government that was footing the bill for all but GBP 8 million of Etihad's City contract. Mr Sporting Intelligence (arf!) follows up by averring without qualification that: "... the rest [of the sponsorship money] was being paid in disguised – and banned – funding via other entities controlled by Sheikh Mansour".
As we've done to death on here, the Abu Dhabi government and all manifestations thereof including agencies or other bodies under its aegis are most definitely not "controlled by Sheikh Mansour". Moreover, although ownership has recently passed to ADQ, a sovereign investment fund, the Abu Dhabi government was then Etihad's sole shareholder. It's not an uncommon practice, in jurisdictions all over the world, for a significant shareholder to meet certain of a company's expenses. It categorically isn't a corollary that such a move inevitably evidences wrongdoing, and it's irrelevant in the context of UEFA's FFP.
So has fearless Nick, through his "whistleblower", uncovered an example of a state-owned Abu Dhabi company perjuring itself in an American court by filing documents giving a false account of its financial practices to disguise Mansour's funding of City? That would be a hell of a scoop, for sure.
Let's be honest, though: the chances are vanishingly small. It's not remotely tenable that the executives at Etihad would risk the potentially calamitous consequences of the company taking such a course of action, with no ostensible benefit to its position in the case at hand, simply to protect our high-profile but ultimately rather minor cog in Abu Dhabi's colossal investment wheel.
So why would the estimable Nick make such an incendiary claim? Well, one possibility is that his "whistleblower" misled him and he, in good faith, took the source's word. As the assertions were of highly dubious veracity, did he act in good faith, merely being gullible? Maybe so. It would presuppose that his knowledge of the financial and business side of sport is overwhelmingly shakier than he groundlessly flatters himself, but he's demonstrated this on countless occasions in the past. Even a High Court judge declined to designate him as an "expert" in the field!
But there's another, more troubling possibility: are we dealing with something more malign? Surely Harris couldn't, shamelessly and intentionally, be a serial purveyor of manifest untruths, could he? The circumstances surrounding his claims over the Etihad contract suggest that if he isn't a liar, he's just thick. I'll leave it to you to decide which one is closer to the mark, noting only that they aren't mutually exclusive.
I've banged on at length about this, as I'm wont to do, but I make no apology for it. The episode shows exactly what City have been up against for many years. The club claimed that the CAS cased resulted from an "organised and clear" attempt to cause the club irreparable damage. Reptiles like this guy and Delaney were egging UEFA on with glee, trying to set a media agenda with fundamentally flawed reporting. It's crucial we don't forget what they are.
TL, DR - Nick Harris is a ****.
So perhaps Pep is trying a "reverse clarkie" on the media whores?Just a thought, does anyone think city let journalists, media etc write shit about us knowing its aimed at our rival fans, Liverpool, United mainly. Knowing that as long as we get it right on and off the pitch and are getting it right big time, knowing what the United and Liverpool business models are. That the implosion will be bigger, so just like United last 10 years their fans have become more upset with the glazers all a while watching us getting better and stronger fuelled with all this fake knowledge about state owned, ffp and more bollocks that gets written, it makes the fume greater so therefore more pressure on their own owners creating a bigger implosion.
It got me thinking when pep said United are back, was he saying that knowing (just like they did) that the media will jump on it and write more puff pieces bigging them all up, the fans lap it up, so when It doesn't work out the outcry is bigger all a while watching us supposedly getting away with it off the pitch causing more fume, bigger implosion. Hopefully it will happen to Liverpool next couple of years.
Potentially a bad faith actor being paid by a third party for their own nefarious purposes. People can fill in the blanks themselves as to who.Excellent.
I would add a third possibility, though. He is just a chancer who sees City-bashing as a revenue stream and a way to stay relevant. He isn't much of a financial analyst, and he certainly isn't an investigative journalist. So something must keep him in the game.
Sounds like Liverpool's back four.Don't read the comments!
It affirmed my belief that half of twitter contributors should have been euthanised at reaching the age of adulthood whilst 90% of the remainder should have been smothered at birth.
A fucking cesspit of humanity with the IQ of amoebae and the human emotional empathy of a mixture of Goebels, Himmler, Geoffrey Dahmer and Ian Brady.
The turning point for Jack was when he became English. All the drink driving and collapsing on the streets of Ibiza ceased.Stop posting stuff like that, I'm quite happy hating the ****.
He also lifted your thread wholesale when you found the High Court documents about the PL’s so called investigation into City. Then added some of his usual bile and presented it as a world exclusive in the Mail on SundayI missed this, but came across the exchange when going through the thread looking for something else. Apologies for responding only so belatedly.
Anyway, I think it must be you he's referring to, having constructed an artificial story around the facts to make himself sound like a great investigative reporter. I remember you sharing the link to that information with me at the time and then you discussing it on here. It stretches credulity for him to claim that he had a "whistleblower" at the same time alerting him to remarkably similar information about Etihad funding only GBP 8 million of the City sponsorship.
But Harris presents the information with a crucial difference from the way it was disclosed in the documents that you found. As you've said, those were filed in the New York District Court with regard to the Open Skies case and, in them, it was said that it was the Abu Dhabi government that was footing the bill for all but GBP 8 million of Etihad's City contract. Mr Sporting Intelligence (arf!) follows up by averring without qualification that: "... the rest [of the sponsorship money] was being paid in disguised – and banned – funding via other entities controlled by Sheikh Mansour".
As we've done to death on here, the Abu Dhabi government and all manifestations thereof including agencies or other bodies under its aegis are most definitely not "controlled by Sheikh Mansour". Moreover, although ownership has recently passed to ADQ, a sovereign investment fund, the Abu Dhabi government was then Etihad's sole shareholder. It's not an uncommon practice, in jurisdictions all over the world, for a significant shareholder to meet certain of a company's expenses. It categorically isn't a corollary that such a move inevitably evidences wrongdoing, and it's irrelevant in the context of UEFA's FFP.
So has fearless Nick, through his "whistleblower", uncovered an example of a state-owned Abu Dhabi company perjuring itself in an American court by filing documents giving a false account of its financial practices to disguise Mansour's funding of City? That would be a hell of a scoop, for sure.
Let's be honest, though: the chances are vanishingly small. It's not remotely tenable that the executives at Etihad would risk the potentially calamitous consequences of the company taking such a course of action, with no ostensible benefit to its position in the case at hand, simply to protect our high-profile but ultimately rather minor cog in Abu Dhabi's colossal investment wheel.
So why would the estimable Nick make such an incendiary claim? Well, one possibility is that his "whistleblower" misled him and he, in good faith, took the source's word. As the assertions were of highly dubious veracity, did he act in good faith, merely being gullible? Maybe so. It would presuppose that his knowledge of the financial and business side of sport is overwhelmingly shakier than he groundlessly flatters himself, but he's demonstrated this on countless occasions in the past. Even a High Court judge declined to designate him as an "expert" in the field!
But there's another, more troubling possibility: are we dealing with something more malign? Surely Harris couldn't, shamelessly and intentionally, be a serial purveyor of manifest untruths, could he? The circumstances surrounding his claims over the Etihad contract suggest that if he isn't a liar, he's just thick. I'll leave it to you to decide which one is closer to the mark, noting only that they aren't mutually exclusive.
I've banged on at length about this, as I'm wont to do, but I make no apology for it. The episode shows exactly what City have been up against for many years. The club claimed that the CAS cased resulted from an "organised and clear" attempt to cause the club irreparable damage. Reptiles like this guy and Delaney were egging UEFA on with glee, trying to set a media agenda with fundamentally flawed reporting. It's crucial we don't forget what they are.
TL, DR - Nick Harris is a ****.