Manchester City will argue the so-called 'tagged' sponsorship payments (totalling £830m) came from the Abu Dhabi Government not their owner (ADUG). This applies to State-controlled entities such as Etihad and Etisalat. Yet Etihad has previously refuted AD Government funding as "false". City can point to an internal report written for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi in 2010 which concluded the Abu Dhabi Government did indeed cover the sponsorship of Manchester City. The report was not intended for external publication. In their UEFA case, City denied the Etihad (or any other) sponsorship funds came from any other source other than a direct payment. Sheikh Mansour provided a letter which read: "I have not authorised ADUG to make any payments to Etihad, Etisalat or any of their affiliates in relation to their sponsorship of MCFC." In 2015, the 'Partnership for Open and Fair Skies' wrote to the US departments of Commerce, Transportation and State arguing Etihad gained a competitive advantage due to receiving huge sums from the Abu Dhabi Government. They allude to the internal report referenced above, which appears to confirm this. Yet Etihad's response was: "The assertion that the Abu Dhabi Government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally 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. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues." Etihad's denial the Abu Dhabi Government helped pay for their sponsorship goes against City's core argument, according to the verdict, that "AD Sponsors had from time to time applied for financial assistance from the AD Government towards their liability to pay the Recorded Sponsorship Fees." Due to redacted names, multiple sponsors, and the phrase 'from time to time', City could make a case for other sponsors, but Etihad's on-record denial doesn't help the club's position, according to multiple legal sources spoken to. Worth also reiterating, the panel, having reviewed the evidence already provided, already concluded any notion the Abu Dhabi Government not ADUG paid the tagged sums was "concocted well after the event".

Five iconic things that should make immediate comeback in modern football | @maxbscott talksport.com/football/46146…

I want every single @ManCity fan to know I am here; more than ever. I am, always have been, always will, be behind my club, my owner, my chairman, Ferran, the players, staff, Enzo and you, our unique supporters. Let me be clear: we will get through this together. I love you all 🩵

Premier League will suggest Manchester City punishment to independent panel Deciding on penalty may be difficult as relegating club would remove stars like Erling Haaland from competition. Plus, Roberto Mancini says charges aren’t his issue ✍️@Lawton_Times, @martynziegler thetimes.com/sport/football/…

Manchester City’s reiteration of their “confidence and intent in proving the club’s innocence” given their “comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence” is incredibly at odds with their own behaviour and the intensity in which they blocked the Premier League’s process of investigation at every step since December 2018. The scale of their obstructing was revealed in a July 2021 British court judgment. City simply refused to supply information and documents requested by the league, which then issued a disciplinary complaint in August 2019. The club challenged the disciplinary process and the commission that was set up. The league proposed an ad hoc procedure of appointing a new commission, but City objected to that too. The PL were forced to bring legal arbitration against the club, to be decided by a tribunal of three senior lawyers. City countered the PL had no power to do that, and challenged the impartiality of the tribunal. That was rejected and the club were again ordered to submit all the documentation and info. City then appealed to the high court to strike the tribunal down. In March 2021, a judge ruled against the club and that her findings should be published. City unsuccessfully fought against it being made public knowledge; the judgement published in July illustrated just how hard and long they resisted providing information. With all that confidence, intent and irrefutable evidence, why the YEARS of non-cooperation and active, intensive blocking?