PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Bald fraud]

Don’t mess with Abu Dhabi if you are the Premier League or a team that play in red with American owners. The U.K. Tax Payer should be more concerned about securing £10 billion worth of investment from the UAE rather than a desperate witch hunt over accounts that are 14 years old because the likes of United and Liverpool can’t hack they ain’t top dogs anymore.

Absolutely spot on!

 

[BAB.DAB]

Grow a brain and read what I said.

Instead of what you wanted to hear.

Will do.
Keep posting on the united thread

 

[NMB]

This is an interesting paragraph from the article:

We asked Manchester City whether they had any comment in relation to the fact such correspondence exists and that if they are not state-owned or funded, then why are the UK government concerned about jeopardising relations between the UK and UAE? Manchester City did not comment.

Should the athletic not be asking that question to the UK Government? Think they are skating on very thin ice.

Classic journalist trick. We asked X if it was true he is a paedophile? X did not comment. The next level is to keep asking until X says “of course not” leading to the headline “X forced to deny claims that he is a paedophile”

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Or will going back 30 pages just show a discussion about which Rainbow character was the creepiest?

Richie Blackmore?

 

[Blue Llama]

So has something new developed/happened?



Or will going back 30 pages just show a discussion about which Rainbow character was the creepiest?

It was Bungle obviously.

 

[meltonblue]

The Premier League are essentially accusing a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family of submitting fraudulent accounts over a prolonged period in the UK, something that is vehemently denied. Of course that is going to be brought up at a diplomatic level.

Got to be honest, that’s not a good thing at all.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

This is an interesting paragraph from the article:

We asked Manchester City whether they had any comment in relation to the fact such correspondence exists and that if they are not state-owned or funded, then why are the UK government concerned about jeopardising relations between the UK and UAE? Manchester City did not comment.

Should the athletic not be asking that question to the UK Government? Think they are skating on very thin ice.

Fucking state of that. Twats. We may be owned by Sheikh Mansour as a private business concern, but his familial association to the ruling family makes it fucking obvious that the Abu Dhabi Government might voice concern about what’s going on, and not least because the British media has spent the last 15 years desperately trying to tie our name to the Abu Dhabi state and, in the event of a guilty verdict getting handed down by the kangaroo court, will throw a ton of shit at them (the AD state) irrespective of whether we are actually a vehicle for sportswashing or not

 

[Blueboy73]

It was Bungle obviously.

Nah Zippy was the best :)

 

[Centurions]

So has something new developed/happened?
...

Despite the attention grabbing headline in the Tweet above, not really.

 

[fallowfield]

People are still losing their minds here and getting it wrong.

This is what the article says

"The UK government has admitted its embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) in London have discussed the charges levelled at Manchester City"

It's not the UK govt and Abu Dhabi talking.

It's internal foreign office chat/enquiries about a big UK issue involving UAE senior figures.
Of course the foreign office and the embassy are talking about it. You'd expect they've discussed it quite often.

WOW.

That's it.

And as for the insinuation or assumption that the UK govt could or would intervene with an already appointed 3 man Premier league adjudication panel.......leave that to the tin hat brigade

 

[Chris in London]

Just heard tomorrow's groundbreaking revelations in the Athletic.

Apparently a FOI request has revealed that the subject of the war in Ukraine DID COME UP during recent UK government meetings with President Zelensky.

Further information shows that in their last meeting with UNISON, the government DID chat about pay disputes. More to follow.

Any updates on the rumours that bears have been defacating in forested areas?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

People are still losing their minds here and getting it wrong.

This is what the article says

"The UK government has admitted its embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) in London have discussed the charges levelled at Manchester City"

It's not the UK govt and Abu Dhabi talking.
It's internal foreign office chat/enquiries about a big UK issue involving UAE senior figures.
Of course the foreign office and the embassy are talking about it. You'd expect they've discussed it quite often.

Yes but it's quite unusual for the Foreign Office and A UK Embassy to discuss issues that might have a local element.

Imagine if the media ever got hold of a story that the FO and the UK Embassies in Kyiv & Moscow once discussed the war in Ukraine.

 

[KS55]

It has been for a long time - started with all the Japanese inward investment in the 1980s and this is why the direct investment from Abu Dhabi is so important as you say. It has long been a key ingredient of UK economic policy. I can't believe the government would want to prejudice this and there are many other economies which are currently more vibrant than that of the UK to attract such investment.

A negative balance of trade has to be met by the equivalent amount of foreign investment for the uk balance sheet to balance.

 

[KS55]

Absolutely.

But all the usual suspects will pick-up on the question posed in the Athletic with glee and will be set in stone forever and repeated ad infinitum.

"We asked Manchester City whether they had any comment in relation to the fact such correspondence exists and that if they are not state-owned or funded, then why are the UK government concerned about jeopardising relations between the UK and UAE?"

One assumes that the Athletic are not cognisant of 30 or more major projects in the UK funded and/or managed by AbuDhabi companies.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

because it is still law - enacted just means when it was firt passed or became law .... Some Acts go back to to the 1200's https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/oldest-legislation-that-is-still-in-use-today/#:~:text=Statute of Marlborough 1267: This,be resolved by a jury.

I think you’ve misinterpreted his question.

 

[KS55]

It was blindiingly obvious at the last football-related Commons Select Comittee that the Government and committee members from all parties have got Richard Master's card marked. They gave him a very hard time over the breakaway superleague proposals. They ridiculed him and stopped just short of calling him a liar.
Preston MP Sir Mark Hendrick, is very well connected in football governance circles has has been so for decades. He described the PL allegations agains City as a "drive-by shooting by the red-shirt clubs." You can be absolutely sure the Government and other members of that Commons committee are totally in the loop about the bad faith shown by the Premier League with their highly political investigation into City. Don't foget that all political parties are pushing for an indepedent regulator because they don't trust the people at the top of the PL.

I believe that Hendrick is a blue.

 

[KS55]

For the Premier League, you mean. We don't know the content of the emails or discussions but the fact that the UAE government have seen fit to talk to the British government about this shows how serious they believe the accusations to be. In essence, a UK-based company is questioning the legitimacy of a company owned by prominent businessmen and political figures from the UAE and they're stepping in to find out why.

Has the UAE gov held talks about this?

 

[Beaker]

Yeah, but if the Abu Dhabi Government contacted the British government, in order to influence an ongoing investigation or to make it go away, then that doesn't look very good, does it?

Especially if we are adamant that City are not state owned, so why is the Abu Dhabi government getting involved in a football matter?

If the intention was to have their day in court, you wouldn't be knocking on the door of number 10, as some people on here have mentioned, threatening to cancel Billions of investment.

If that is the case, then the charges have to have some merit.

Except nowhere in the article does it state the Abu Dhabi government contacted the British government. It’s the foreign office in London talking to the British embassy in Abu Dhabi, so essentially one arm of the British government talking to another.

Your misinterpretation of what has been written feels almost deliberate, it’s no surprise that posters on here are suspicious of your motives.

 

[KS55]

Yeah, but if the Abu Dhabi Government contacted the British government, in order to influence an ongoing investigation or to make it go away, then that doesn't look very good, does it?

Especially if we are adamant that City are not state owned, so why is the Abu Dhabi government getting involved in a football matter?

If the intention was to have their day in court, you wouldn't be knocking on the door of number 10, as some people on here have mentioned, threatening to cancel Billions of investment.

If that is the case, then the charges have to have some merit.

Very convoluted thinking. Just rest easy.

 

[Shaggy]

Grow a brain and read what I said.

Instead of what you wanted to hear.

Read what you said ?