PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Ric]

Feels a bit of a non-story? Two embassies talking to one another about a shared interest? You'd be surprised if that wasn't the case?

Or am I missing something?

Not really.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Feels a bit of a non-story? Two embassies talking to one another about a shared interest? You'd be surprised if that wasn't the case?

Or am I missing something?

Yes. It's not UAE and UK diplomatic channels talking to each other. It's simply the UK Foreign Office and our man in our UAE Embassy talking to each other, as you'd expect about an issue that involved someone senior in the UAE government, and which might possibly impact the UAE's relations with the UK. .

For example, I know of one incident where the US Embassy in London sent a report to the State Department about a UK politician who was in a sensitive post.

 

[cleavers]

Feels a bit of a non-story? Two embassies talking to one another about a shared interest? You'd be surprised if that wasn't the case?

Or am I missing something?

No.

 

[meltonblue]

Fair enough mate. I’d say this was a fairly exceptional circumstance though. If Mansour believes the club are being treated unjustly, as he clearly does, then it was perhaps inevitable that he’d use whatever leverage available to him. He was never going to just stand back and let a multi billion pound asset potentially get fucked over.

And I do get that and ultimately football is a dirty game behind the scenes nowadays. I don’t think there ever should be leverage, be it in the game or political though. I’ve spent years arguing that about our rivals, it’d be hypocritical of me to change that view now!

 

[wolviedinho]

Because it shouldn’t be discussed at all at that level, to me that being an inevitability helps the argument for anyone saying not just a state but anyone with links or direct association to a state or ruling body also shouldn’t be owning a football club.

I’ve never agreed with that, but that’s because I believe their private ownership should be completely separated from their state role.

That’s not possible now the premier league has attacked Mansour’s credibility as owner of MCFC. The discussions taken place between both countries does not make the club state owned in any shape or form. His role in Abu Dhabi and his ownership can be both interlinked but also independent.

If people are saying that to you anyway then I wouldn’t bother trying to argue. I had a full blown argument with a rag family member and once I laid it out and took away the rivalry he backed down and now he does not utter 1 word about ffp. I did pour myself a treble to toast my success -:)

 

[SilverFox2]

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

In a recent post you highlighted King Charles as a business partner to our owner. I think it involved land used for wind farms for electricity generation.
We should be proud that Sheikh M has contacts so important as The King.

Pretenders in the form of our Club enemies can only dream of such connections as they dream of winning the treble.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

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.

If a prominent UK citizen was accused of impropriety in the UAE, the UK government would be putting pressure on the UAE authorities to make sure their citizen was treated fairly and given a fair hearing. This is the exact same thing just reversed.

What makes it more serious is that a member of the UAE royal family together with one of the UAE’s most prominent businessmen have been effectively accused of allowing one of their companies create fraudulent accounts. He hasn’t been accused in court but by a tribunal appointed by a football league. The UAE are understandably deeply concerned.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Because it shouldn’t be discussed at all at that level, to me that being an inevitability helps the argument for anyone saying not just a state but anyone with links or direct association to a state or ruling body also shouldn’t be owning a football club.

I’ve never agreed with that, but that’s because I believe their private ownership should be completely separated from their state role.

The UK and the UAE have a pretty close relationship and have for many years. If one of the most high ranking and powerful people in the UAE is being stitched up, along with his business interests, by an entity based in the UK, then of course it's going to go diplomatic at Government level. It's naive to think otherwise.

 

[youngbob]

Has the UAE gov held talks about this?

Got corrected shortly after. Had misread the original headline.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

You can imagine it, the UAE Attaché, during a run of the mill ball, quietly asked why the UK were going after the owner of the PL. The Attaché would shit themselves, wondering where that billion pound deal was going, to the UK or elsewhere.

And then the Pope stepped in, and we all know what he said.

 

[bluwes]

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.

Oh look a Ryanair Paddy joins to post derogatory posts about City. Am I surprised

 

[oldhamblue]

This story is months old. The UK govt. signed a trade deal with Abu Dhabi in excess of £100 bn.

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.

Abu Dhabi recently signed a trade deal with the UK worth over £100 BN. The Premier League is one of the UK's most successful worldwide exports with Manchester City as its most successful club in recent times. Strengthening the brand of the PL worldwide.

Do you honestly believe this deal was concluded without the implicit understanding the charges against Gods own club would would not be upheld. This is how business works and this country is being governed by the biggest bunch of crooks and cronies we've ever seen

 

[Winchester]

More plot twists and turns,
We await FFP THE Movie

 

[paulchapo]

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.

Not necessarily. We are not state owned but our owner IS an influential member of their government. As such our situation is almost bound to come up in discussion. I doubt our government can make the charges go away. If, however, our owner showed them irreputable proof they were mainly a load of rehashed bollocks, put out there to damage our reputation, they may have said "Can you bang a few heads together to sort this out asap?"

As for having our day in court we never wanted to be in this position in the first place. We had our day in court at CAS and thought that was the end of it. The usual suspects of course weren't happy with that and pushed the premier league to do something.

Regarding the charges if some do stick what are we really guilty of? Bribing the officials, cheating on the field? No. Trying to navigate an ever changing bunch of rules made up to stop us and making a few mistakes in the process? Maybe. We will see.

 

[Phil1]

I think we should be nice to @The Shallyman as hes obviously been hurt the poor, sad, silly ****.
I’m glad you’re around to see your club fall apart whilst we go from strength to strength x

 

[JewelZee]

And I do get that and ultimately football is a dirty game behind the scenes nowadays. I don’t think there ever should be leverage, be it in the game or political though. I’ve spent years arguing that about our rivals, it’d be hypocritical of me to change that view now!

When its leverage being applied by one's accusers all bets are off as far as I'm concerned...when need be one needs to fight fire with fire...If someone show's up to what's supposed to be a fair fight but brings their dog along, if I have a bigger, nastier dog then you can be damn sure I'm going bring my pup into the fray, simple as...

 

[west didsblue]

I suspect there’s a bit of scene setting being put in place to ease the humiliation of the inevitable climb down by the Premier League. Not that it’s needed because the denizens of RAWK, the Caff and other outposts of delusion amongst opposition fans just know we are guilty because they just know.

 

[meltonblue]

The UK and the UAE have a pretty close relationship and have for many years. If one of the most high ranking and powerful people in the UAE is being stitched up, along with his business interests, by an entity based in the UK, then of course it's going to go diplomatic at Government level. It's naive to think otherwise.

Right but that can work both ways and that’s exactly why people might have an issue with it. If Newcastle for example (whose deal I will always argue should never have been allowed) had charges on them for something and went diplomatic about it, then being completely honest I’d be saying that’s one of the key reasons why they shouldn’t have allowed them to buy it in the first place.

I completely get it in terms of complete distrust in the PLs motives for bringing the charges in the first place. I just think there’s other ways to combat that than anything diplomatically, that to me should be a last resort and I don’t think we should be near there yet or ever have to be really.

 

[Nascent Blues]

Not necessarily. We are not state owned but our owner IS an influential member of their government. As such our situation is almost bound to come up in discussion. I doubt our government can make the charges go away. If, however, our owner showed them irreputable proof they were mainly a load of rehashed bollocks, put out there to damage our reputation, they may have said "Can you bang a few heads together to sort this out asap?"

As for having our day in court we never wanted to be in this position in the first place. We had our day in court at CAS and thought that was the end of it. The usual suspects of course weren't happy with that and pushed the premier league to do something.

Regarding the charges if some do stick what are we really guilty of? Bribing the officials, cheating on the field? No. Trying to navigate an ever changing bunch of rules made up to stop us and making a few mistakes in the process? Maybe. We will see.

Don't feed the rag troll.

 

[Phil1]

Right but that can work both ways and that’s exactly why people might have an issue with it. If Newcastle for example (whose deal I will always argue should never have been allowed) had charges on them for something and went diplomatic about it, then being completely honest I’d be saying that’s one of the key reasons why they shouldn’t have allowed them to buy it in the first place.

I completely get it in terms of complete distrust in the PLs motives for bringing the charges in the first place. I just think there’s other ways to combat that than anything diplomatically, that to me should be a last resort and I don’t think we should be near there yet or ever have to be really.

I think in life if cunts are out to get you then you bring every bit of back up you can to put it right. Yeah it’s not ideal when it comes to football and if we’ve done wrong then we are fair game. If we haven’t Though..,