According to Sam Wallace and James Ducker of The Telegraph, Manchester City's current appeal against the Premier League's independent commission ruling directly contradicts a document that Etihad Airways submitted to the U.S. government in 2015, regarding a key claim in Manchester City's appeal.

One of Manchester City's central arguments in its appeal is that additional funds in commercial sponsorship contracts were not provided by the club's owners, but rather came from the Abu Dhabi government. Manchester City contends that if these funds originated from the Abu Dhabi government, rather than from the club's owners, such an arrangement would not violate Premier League rules.

However, The Telegraph notes that this claim contradicts a statement Etihad Airways made in 2015 during a U.S. government investigation into state-owned airlines.

In a 60-page document, Etihad Airways declared: "Claims that the Abu Dhabi government financed Etihad Airways' sponsorship of Premier League club Manchester City are false. In 2011, Etihad Airways signed a 10-year sponsorship agreement with Manchester City, which included the naming rights to Manchester City's stadium. Etihad Airways used its own liquid funds to pay for this sponsorship."

The document was submitted to then U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, and U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, accompanied by a five-page cover letter signed by then Etihad Airways President and Chief Executive Officer James Hogan.

Etihad Airways also stated in its submission to the U.S. government: "We are a state-owned enterprise and have been since our inception. We have always made clear that we do not receive subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, and our financing comes from a combination of equity, shareholder loans, and commercial borrowing. The equity and loans provided by our shareholder—the Abu Dhabi government—do not constitute subsidies under any applicable definition, but rather represent how the Abu Dhabi government makes a legitimate investment in a successful business model."

The Telegraph also noted that Manchester City's current position differs from the club's stance when it appealed UEFA charges to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2020. At that time, Manchester City insisted that all payment obligations related to sponsorship contracts were assumed by the respective sponsors.

However, it is understood that Manchester City does not believe these statements made by Etihad Airways to the U.S. government at that time weaken its appeal. Rather, Manchester City believes these materials could strengthen its defence.

Manchester City's legal team is expected to argue that Etihad Airways received funds from the Office of the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi for Abu Dhabi promotion. Once these funds entered Etihad Airways, they became part of the airline's own "liquid funds." Therefore, Manchester City contends this is not the same as the Abu Dhabi government paying Manchester City directly on behalf of Etihad Airways.

Manchester City officially announced on Friday that it would appeal the independent commission's guilty verdict. The club insists there is "an irrefutable body of evidence" that the commission's findings are false.

The Telegraph compared several key disputed statements. In May 2015, Etihad Airways told the U.S. government that its sponsorship of Manchester City was not financed by the government. In July 2020, then Etihad Airways Chief Executive Officer Hogan took the position that the sponsorship "was not financed by the government" in the Court of Arbitration for Sport case regarding Manchester City's sponsorship agreements. By September 2024, when Manchester City defends itself against Premier League charges, it will argue that the relevant sponsorship funds came from the Abu Dhabi government.

Meanwhile, other Premier League clubs are pressing for any sanctions against Manchester City to be implemented this season if the club is ultimately found guilty. Reports suggest possible sanctions could include relegation, points deduction, and fines, with some also calling for Manchester City's Abu Dhabi owners to sell the club. However, with Manchester City's appeal ongoing, final sanctions have not yet been determined.

The FA has also previously indicated possible action. Before Manchester City officially announced its decision to appeal, the FA stated: "The independent commission's ruling has significant implications for the integrity of football. We are carefully studying this ruling and its implications and will take action as appropriate. Given that proceedings between the Premier League and Manchester City Football Club are ongoing, we do not intend to make further comments at this stage. However, we will follow developments closely."

During the international break, Manchester City's Premier League rivals have commented little publicly. Aston Villa manager Unai Emery spoke on Friday, saying that if Manchester City's appeal fails, it would cause "some damage."

Emery said: "We are all constrained by the rules. To comply with financial fair play regulations, we have to sell players and also consider how to structure contracts for new signings. Club owners often have considerable financial resources, but the purpose of financial fair play rules is to ensure financial balance, meaning you can only spend money you generate, not artificially inflate revenues."

"If other clubs have genuinely artificially inflated their revenues, and these things are now exposed, then clearly it will cause some damage. This must be decided by the courts and relevant authorities."

Emery also added: "I regret it because that team played such beautiful football. Under Guardiola, there were moments when they were truly unstoppable."

The incident was initially triggered by whistleblower Rui Pinto's disclosure of a large cache of documents, which prompted the Premier League investigation. The Telegraph reported that Pinto has been under witness protection for six years, but this protection is about to be lifted. His Portuguese and French legal teams issued a joint statement saying: "His situation is now extremely dangerous. The threats against him are not merely theoretical; he was attacked in Lisbon in April of this year."

Pinto was previously convicted on five counts of unlawful access to computer systems, three counts of breach of communications privacy, and attempted extortion, and received a suspended four-year sentence.

Traducido por IA.

¡El sitio web de AF ya está disponible! Consulta noticias, comentarios, detalles de partidos y estadísticas en tu ordenador. Visita: www.allfootballapp.com