It's honestly disappointing that a major reporter at Sky Sports of all places can discuss City's case without providing the full context behind Etihad's 2015 statement. 🤦‍♂️ That statement doesn't necessarily contradict City's argument. Here's why: Etihad said it funded City's sponsorship from its own liquidity, explaining that this liquidity involved equity, shareholder loans and commercial loans. Equity is capital invested by shareholders, shareholder loans are repayable funding, and commercial loans are borrowing from lenders. But here's the key distinction: who paid the sponsorship and where the money originally came from are two different questions. Etihad paying from its own liquidity doesn't automatically establish the original source of every pound in that liquidity. City's reported argument is that the disputed money came from Abu Dhabi government assistance to the sponsors, rather than ADUG or Sheikh Mansour directly funding the sponsorships. City have reportedly presented bank statements and witness evidence to support their explanation. These positions aren't necessarily contradictory. Etihad could have made the sponsorship payments from its own accounts while the underlying funds had another source. Establishing whether that is what actually happened requires examining the financial evidence, not simply quoting the statement about who made the payments. And to be clear, this doesn't prove City are right. But for sure the 2015 statement doesn't, by itself, prove they're wrong either. The Appeal Board needs to assess the actual money trail and determine whether the evidence supports City's explanation. That's the context missing from a narrative that treats Etihad's statement as a straightforward contradiction of City's argument. Facts matter, but so does the context in which they're presented.