I think it’s highly unlikely that our ownership would endure a meaningful loss of face without significant economic consequences for Europe and the UK in particular.I don't think you or many others appreciate how influential our owners are.
The last attempt at a coup saw the French Prime Minister act as a conduit.
We are investing a further £1bn in Manchester, do you not think the council have leverage at Government level?
United, as a club, would certainly start to feel it - the trams would suddenly be of lesser Etihad reliability, building plans would be mothballed, the airport would lose jobs should, as you fear, we are beaten into existence and our owners throw in the towel.
Emirates Cup, Emirates shirt sponsors, Emirates Stadium, plenty roads lead back to influence in the UAE.
Qatar also have plenty of skin in the game, regardless of the friction between them and UAE.
This is about de-legitimising our achievements as a club, nothing else.
Save one Simon Jordan, what is it about these Simon's !?!?Duly noted and post edited..... ;-)
.....and for the record I would take delight (and subsequent sanctions) in pushing a custard pie into Simon Stone's face though.
You definitely have issues MarvinStay in your City bubble if you like for a little longer. We were all in it at some time but it will burst and then you'll be angry.
As long as we don’t bring back SwalesFuck the fuckers, let’s give away all our money, rebuild Maine Road with 4 completely different stands plus the gene kelly, let scum and dippers do the double over us every season, apart from the ones where we get relegated, then the normal order will have been restored and we can go back to being everybody’s second favourite team
So without any evidence (DS really don't count) you've decided that we're guilty and have already been sentenced?Stay in your City bubble if you like for a little longer. We were all in it at some time but it will burst and then you'll be angry.
I've never been one for conspiracy theories, but it's clear that there's a concerted attempt from powerful sources in football, abetted by compliant allies in the media, to saw City off at the knees. No coincidence that it comes when we've reached a point at which, on and off the field, we've created a set-up giving us a decent opportunity to be the most successful club in England over an extended period.
No one, as far as I've seen, has so far looked at what the accusations against us mean. The fundamental allegation which UEFA are now investigating is essentially that MCFC concealed shareholder funding from its auditor under the guise of bogus sponsorship contracts and then presented the auditor's opinions to UEFA with a view to avoiding or mitigating punishment for a breach financial regulations. When they say we're 'cheats', that's what they're saying we've done.
I'm going to get a bit legal here. Apologies for that, but I can't avoid it. There's an offence under section 17 of the Theft Act under which it's a criminal offence punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment if "a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another … makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular": https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/17. Further, section 18 of the same Act clarifies that "offence committed by a body corporate under section 17 of this Act is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence, and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly": https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/18.
To my reading, that quite clearly would cover MCFC knowingly providing false documents to UEFA to avoid a fine or get a lesser one. So, in other words, the corollary of the allegation made against us by Der Spiegel and widely repeated over several months throughout the UK media is that the City directors who dealt with UEFA have committed a serious dishonesty-based criminal offence for which the punishment can be a lengthy term in jail.
Let's look at who they're accusing of that. MCFC's directors include Simon Pearce and Khaldoon, both key figures in government circles in the UAE. But more than that, the offence applies to any "other similar officer of the body corporate". To my mind, though I can't find case law on the point, this is likely to include what under UK company law is called a "shadow director". And this makes it even more interesting.
A shadow director, in relation to a company, is "a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the company are accustomed to act". That will include Mansour - and, if our detractors are correct that Mansour is merely a front for the emirate of Abu Dhabi, it could go higher than that. And it seems to me highly likely that, given the reputational issues involved, that someone very senior in Abu Dhabi will have been involved in giving MCFC's directors a steer with respect to our FFP issues.
So will they have twigged back in Abu Dhabi that senior government figures and potentially even one or more members of the ruling family are being labelled criminal fraudsters by that august institution, the British press, egged on by our footballing enemies? Bet your fucking life they will. And that makes it personal.
Which gives rise to the question of how they'll react. Now, we've noted - to the frustration of many on here, including me - that our owner and stakeholders seem to dictate a rather nicey-nicey approach as a preference, even in situations where many fans might prefer us to show a bit more aggression. I don't know anything about Emirati business and culture so stand to be corrected by anyone who does, but I'm led to believe that they can, in contrast to their preferred mode of operation, they can be utterly ruthless when they feel they've been provoked.
In my opinion, that's where we are now. I don't, unlike one post I saw this morning, worry that our owners and stakeholders will lose heart. In my opinion, the gloves will come off. I'm not saying that we'll emerge unscathed, and, with the powerful forces ranged against MCFC, there's scope for us to suffer tremendous damage. But I doubt our owners/stakeholders will take this lying down.
I don't know how it will pan out, but I think it could get nasty. And I'd bet heavily that if, in the end, we do go down, we'll take others down with us.
I do. They are called Man Utd, Liverpool, and UEFA.You definitely have issues Marvin
Duly noted and post edited..... ;-)
.....and for the record I would take delight (and subsequent sanctions) in pushing a custard pie into Simon Stone's face though.
Will be all the sweeter when we win the quadruple
That assumes that the UAE really does stand squarely behind Man City. Personally I have always thought that City belong to Sheikh Mansour. ABu Dhabi and the UAE are not going to make economic sacrifices for Man City who are just one of their many Princes football clubs.I think it’s highly unlikely that our ownership would endure a meaningful loss of face without significant economic consequences for Europe and the UK in particular.
I still think this will all amount to nothing.
It’s the use of the word ‘flaunting’ that annoys me.
The press always add hyperbole to our stories to make them sound worse than they are, almost an implied guilt that we have done something wrong, ie flaunting, and have yet to be found out and punished for it.
Etihad have had incredible, far reaching benefits out of the deal with City. Both parties have benefitted enormously, in fact. The agreement has fulfilled all the manifest requirements of such an arrangement. Far more than many other sponsorship deals.Very informative.
As to the opinion that this could get personal as it were, I've been trying to say that albeit less elegantly. This could effectively end up with UEFA taking on Abu Dhabi. My dream would be AD bankrupting UEFA.
BTW, on the legal point, Etihad, for instance, might have had financial assistance from AD sources but no one should lose sight of the fact that they have had their name plastered over all things MCFC and they should be paying millions and millions for that.
That was an excellent post from @petrusha.Very informative.
As to the opinion that this could get personal as it were, I've been trying to say that albeit less elegantly. This could effectively end up with UEFA taking on Abu Dhabi. My dream would be AD bankrupting UEFA.
BTW, on the legal point, Etihad, for instance, might have had financial assistance from AD sources but no one should lose sight of the fact that they have had their name plastered over all things MCFC and they should be paying millions and millions for that.
That’s a highly simplistic view. Irrespective of the ownership structure of the club, a loss of face for City would be conflated with a loss of face for Abu Dhabi; without a doubt. To a significant extent, one entity is synonymous with the other. You only have to observe the advertising boards at the Etihad during a game to appreciate this.That assumes that the UAE really does stand squarely behind Man City. Personally I have always thought that City belong to Sheikh Mansour. ABu Dhabi and the UAE are not going to make economic sacrifices for Man City who are just one of their many Princes football clubs.