Previously in this saga
- So what might happen to ManC when they are found guilty
- So what exactly is Manc’s plan to show that they have not broken any rules?
- If Man City win their case then the whole of English football will be shaken
- Which club is up for the Crazy Cock Up Cup?
- When the BBC calls Man City contracts a sham, it is time to take notice
By Tony Attwood
This seems to be a story that is running faster than I can type, as we now have the headline City sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against the Premier League.
That is the Guardian’s headline and by “City” they mean of course “ManC”. So today I began to wonder what Manu think of it all, after years of being top dogs, no one wants to talk about them any more. Yesterday’s news and all that…
Of course at the heart of everything is the airline which ‘categorically rejects’ anything and everything it feels like rejecting, in the belief, perhaps built on years of dominance by its overlords, that it can say what it likes and be believed. Quite a good position for a shirt sponsor.
So what can we say? They blame the other lot. The other lot blame someone else. Someone else blames the club. The club blames the other lot… oh hang on….
But does any of the bickering make any difference to anyone? I doubt it because it seems to me (and all this is of course just the opinion of one guy with a computer) the only people who believe what is coming out of Manchester City and its main sponsor, are Etihad Airways and Manchester City.
Anyway according to some, Etihad Airways are apparently about the sue the Premier League because it published the commission’s view on the 100+ findings of financial rule breaches without permission. Although it may be that Etihad hasn’t quite got the idea of freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
And it also makes me wonder… how would I feel if some sort of neo-right wing anti-democratic religious foundation took over Arsenal? (Which is not to say that is who I think has taken over the Mancs.) I have supported the club since my dad took me to a reserve match when I was eight or nine years old (they used to get quite good crowds for the reserves in those days, so it felt to me as a child like the real thing.)
But it is a real question. As I think I might have mentioned in passing before I have been an atheist for many, many years, so I am not especially moved by religious beliefs – my relationship such as it is, is with Arsenal, not any religious issues. But I guess to the ManC supporters the religious issue must be quite important, since that’s what its owners say.
Anyway we’ll see if that affects anything. For the moment Etihad has said it “categorically rejects” the guilty verdicts. And in what I thought was an interesting twist they said the independent commission’s report had “damaging implications” for the airline, although I don’t quite see how that could be. I’m not flying Etihad but then I wasn’t going to anyway.
But the fact is it was the independent commission that found City guilty of “artificially inflating their revenues by £900m through “sham” sponsorship contracts that were secretly funded by the owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group.”
And it is true that Etihad has been the shirt sponsor for years, but the airline is still a state-owned part of the UAE and the main shirt sponsor and more recently the ground sponsor. Although we are told now that “Etihad categorically rejects” any idea that it has “ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements. The Premier League’s public communication of the commission’s findings, following a period of selective leaks and reporting, has further created damaging implications for Etihad despite the airline not being named in the redacted published findings.”
Now to me, a total non-lawyer, that sounds like a preliminary to Etihad suing the Premier League not least for issuing an “opinion” as fact in relation to an organisation that was never named.
That in turn looks like it could be a way to put the whole issue into a court case that doesn’t stop the Mancs carrying on as now.
Now I must be clear here – I am just running a blog expressing my thoughts – I have no influence and no legal background or inside knowledge, and if I have got anything wrong in my rather vague and roundabout reviews, I will of course publish any response and clarification from other parties at once while saying as loud as possible, “I AM NOT AN EXPERT NOR A FOLLOWER OF ANY RELIGION.” Wat I am writing here is what I think I have understood – it is of course up to you to judge if I am on the right tracks or not – as indeed with every other blog that ventures into this arena.
Anyway it seems the Mancs have got a bit worked up about things as they are now saying that, “Etihad is deeply concerned by the way this matter has been communicated publicly. The lack of clarity and transparency, together with the selective disclosure of information, has created damaging implications for Etihad despite the airline not being named in the published decision. The Premier League must take responsibility for the consequences of the way in which these findings have been presented.”
This takes us onto the freedom of the press and individual commentators like me, to talk about ongoing events which are not actually as yet matters being heard in court. I rather feel my right to discuss such matters is pretty much a fundamental part of my rights as a UK citizen.
You see as I understand things, there is no on-going court case at the moment, so we are perfectly free to discuss what seems an interesting case. No one can reasonably see Untold as anything other than the opinion of a few supporters following with interest matters in that affect the club we support. So I do hope no one suggests we shouldn’t be having our say, at least until matters get to court – which now seems inevitable (but again that’s just my opinion.)
