PJYoung said:

---

I can't believe anybody is legit trying to defend this so thank you for that.

Fascinating.

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I'll patiently wait for anyone to put forward a legitimate argument that what City did was "unfair" in terms of football. They didn't spend beyond every other club. They didn't use ill gotten money. They did what Man United could have done without breaking any rules.

Tell me, what is unfair.

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I'll patiently wait for anyone to put forward a legitimate argument that what City did was "unfair" in terms of football. They didn't spend beyond every other club. They didn't use ill gotten money. They did what Man United could have done without breaking any rules.

Tell me, what is unfair.

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Abu dabi gov runs Etihad
Etihad is a legit sponsorship. If they have absolute proof that the full amount of sponsorship money they reported came from Etihad and the gov and not the ownership group, then that is legal.

---

#MCFC’s key defence in its appeal over the Premier League guilty verdict was denied by its own title sponsor Etihad Airways in an extensive submission to the US government in 2015

With @SamWallaceTel

⬇️https://t.co/GEYJT2cm7C

— James Ducker (@TelegraphDucker) October 2, 2026

Quote:

---

Manchester City's key defence in their appeal against the Premier League guilty verdict is undermined by statements made by their own title sponsor Etihad Airways to the US government in 2015.

City's appeal is based on the claim that commercial contracts were not topped up by the club's owners as an independent commission has found but were instead paid for by the Abu Dhabi government. City argue that this arrangement would be within Premier League rules.

That claim, however, directly contradicts statements submitted by Etihad to the United States' Department of Commerce, Transportation and State during an investigation into state-owned airlines.

In that submission, Etihad Airways stated: "The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad's sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City's stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity."

Later in the evidence to the US government, Etihad added: "We are government-owned and have been since our founding. We are and have always been clear that we do not receive any subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, and that we are financed through a combination of equity, shareholder and commercial loans. Our shareholder [The Abu Dhabi government]'s equity and loans are not subsidies under any applicable definition; they are the means by which the Abu Dhabi government has sensibly invested in a successful business model."

City's argument is also contrary to the position the club took in their 2020 appeal against Uefa charges in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, when they maintained that all sponsorship liabilities were met by the sponsors in question.

City formally announced on Friday that they are appealing against the guilty verdict. The club maintain that "a body of irrefutable evidence" exists that will prove the commission's findings to be untrue.

---

Quote:

---

The Commission described City's strategy, "The club appreciated from the early days of ADUG's ownership that very significant funds would be required if the steps needed to realise Sheikh Mansour's ambitions were to be fulfilled."

As a result, the owners provided 1.3 bln of funding in the first ten years of their tenure via new capital or loans.

However, the Commission said that "this was not a sustainable model", so City needed to (very substantially) grow its commercial revenues, especially if it wanted to comply with financial fair play rules.

If we add the 831m of disguised equity funding to the reported figures, then City actually benefited from an amazing 2.1 bln of owner funding in that decade, i.e. more than 200m a year.

To place this amount into perspective, the next highest amounts of owner funding in England's top flight were Chelsea 367m, Brighton 311m and Leicester City 197m.

Put another way, City's actual 2.1 bln was more than the funding at every other Premier League club combined, which only added up to 1.7 bln.

While there can be sympathy for a club playing catch-up with the elite, it's a different story when that club aims to blow everyone else out of the water.

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Dre_00 said:

---

So yeah, what they did was pretty horrible

---

horrible!!!! so horrible!!! They spent their own money.

That entire article is just framing it to LOOK like City outspent everyone when it's just that they put more of their own money that wasn't revenue than the others. Overall they didn't outspend. Chelsea has spent more in the past 10 years. City is not some crazy outspender compared to the other top teams, they are right there with them, they just did far more with the money spent. Whether it's money from the owners pockets or from revenue, who cares, it's THEIR money.

If this was about "safety of the clubs from bankruptcy" and how unsafe it was ,then , like I said, the complaints wouldn't be "oh they cheated, they shouldn't have had those players". It would be "what they did was dangerous because if they sold the club then it might go bankrupt and they should be punished for violating rules that prevent that".

This is all sports tribalism of envious fans of other teams and outraged fans of red cartel teams that think no other teams should be allowed to outspend their historically glorious team.

---