In true Nick Harris style, he’s gotten himself confused and completely misinterpreted what the email in question states.
He *thinks* it shows that Diaz was unofficially at the club prior to turning 16, in contravention of the rules and that City covered it up.
What it *actually* shows is that City had agreed to sign him at 16, subject to FA approval.
It also shows that Diaz was coming over to train with the club, which is allowed, so long as the club inform the FA - which the emails say they did - and Cliff advises that he should return to Malaga periodically so as to not be ‘permanently’ in Manchester.
It also suggests that the club would have to enable the Diaz family moving to Manchester ‘for non-football reasons’ - ie the same thing every family of every foreign kid in English football academies has to do and every club has to navigate.
Net result - City and Malaga had agreed a deal for Diaz to join at 16 and were in the process of confirming with the FA. Diaz was training in Manchester, which is allowed and the club registered this with the FA. Harris has either mistakenly or deliberately misread the text in the email. You decide.
*edit to add* as mentioned before, I have a loose connection to the Diaz’s and so know he 100% wasn’t here ‘permanently’ before turning 16. I could expand, but Harris reads this forum religiously and I don’t want to do the work for him.