Some thoughts from “afar”.

Utd’s Q3 report is released on 6 June, will break down the financial position in detail of that — but regardless the owners can’t use FFP as an excuse. Chelsea is in the CL because they spent 2x > Utd, PSG won the CL because they spent 2x > Utd… 1/n Been pretty checked out recently, to be honest, but sometimes that gives a bit different perspective. Here are some thoughts:
-Bruno’s leaving? Don’t believe it for a second. Just chatter and agents doing their thing just in case. You know the feeling.
2/n

🚨💣The FACT about Manchester United’s financial position and state is that the club — only — is restricted by lack of support from the owners.

Chelsea spent 2x as much and generates less revenues; but made it by selling its women team intra group. 1/n
nytimes.com/athletic/62897… That results in £200m ’pure profit’ which vastly exceeds more than 4 years of CL football, taking into account increased wages from playing in the CL.

In addition, Chelsea sold its hotels for £76m. 2/n
skysports.com/amp/football/n…

There is one reason and one reason only why this case is not settled yet. When the PL launched the procedure for the 115 charges, City made sure that it got stuck in the courts for almost 3 years challenging every technical aspect it could to delay it.

A summary:
November-December 2018: The Premier League write to City requesting certain information and documents in relation to potential breaches of their rules — known as the information claim. City object to the request — after what has been published by Der Spiegel/the Football Leaks.
21 August 2019: The PL issue a complaint against City, since it has still not received the documents and information it has the right to receive under the Premier League Rules and which City refuse to give the PL access to. City responds by challenging the PL's disciplinary system, challenging a technicality (only highly regarded barristers could be elected for the commission).
22 October 2019: With the documents and information not forthcoming, the PL begin arbitration against the club seeking a declaration that they are contractually obliged to provide them. The club try to stop the arbitration by arguing to the tribunal involved that the PL had no power to start it. They also claim that the tribunal does not appear impartial.
26 June 2020: City issue an application in the Commercial Court repeating their argument that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction on the information claim and is tainted with “bias”.
2 November 2020: City’s claim that it has no obligation to to pass on the requested information and documents to the PL — is rejected. It’s clearly stated in the rules that they must do so. The order to provide them is however postponed pending the outcome of the Commercial Court case.
17 March 2021: In the Commercial Court, Mrs Justice Moulder more or less summarily dismisses the club's challenge to the jurisdiction and impartiality of the tribunal, dismantling the City’s lawyers arguments clearly hinting that it was felt that it had abused the public court system. She refuses permission to appeal her judgment.
24 March 2021: Mrs Justice Moulder said her judgment should be published, in order to reveal the lengths to which City had attempted to resist passing on information to the PL. City successfully seeked permission to appeal the decision to make the information public in the Court of Appeal. So we get another delay (I think you are starting to get the drift by now, it’s an appeal of an appeal of an appeal about a pure nonsense technicality. On a side
30 June 2021: The Court of Appeal opens its hearing into the club's appeal against publication. The Court of Appeal handed down its decision dismissing the appeal.

So it took the PL almost three years to just have it sorted out that it has the right to receive the information the Premier League Rules clearly states that City must submit to the PL. After this, we know that City made another challenge of the impartiality of an experienced barrister in no way connected to the Premier League, in KC Murray Rosen. How much delay this caused is unknown.

During this time, City was also sentenced by UEFA for failing to produce requested information and delaying procedures.

I am sure we all come across City PR people, at twitter, during City’s PCs, and so forth, telling us that the reason no decision have been made against City is because it is quote “complicated“. Decide for yourself! Lastly, in this entire shambolic procedure and abuse of the game of football, one person have done more than all fancy pundits, journalists and experts combined — to protect the integrity of the game — and should be singled out and that is Justice Dame Clare Moulder. Without her…

Despite what seems to be attempts for interference on the governmental level, she took the bold decisions set out above without which it’s perfectly possible that we still wouldn’t be aware of the charges and that still would have been caught in some court somewhere.

🚨🚨🚨Very remarkable that the @FA_PGMOL selects Michael Oliver for the FA Cup Final -- despite it appearing to be a possible breach of the FA's "Regulations for the Registration and Control of Referees".

🔺A referee has an obligation to decline an appointment if he has a "material interest" conflicting with his duties.

🔺Does Michael Oliver have a material conflict of interest? Oliver has -- this season -- accepted what reportedly was a well paid assignment from Manchester City's owner.

Is this material? A Premier League referee can of course not be on the payroll of an owner of a PL club playing in one of the game he is reffing. An auditor who works as a referee on the side and has a client that is a football club, cannot ref a game involving that team. It is different if your cousin's son play for a team or something like that, in which case it could be argued that it is not material. But it speaks for itself in relation to the Premier League, that a ref can't work for one of the owner of a PL club.

What was Oliver paid for his work in the UAE? Say that it was first class tickets to Abu Dahbi, three nights in a five star hotel, and £5,000 for "90 minutes of work" -- I cannot see how anyone could find that it is not 'material'. What would the threshold be, "you can accept payments from an owner of a PL club as long as it is under £50k?"

If Michael Oliver becomes the public enemy No 1 of City after awarding three incorrect penalties to MUFC -- does he get another offer to call games for the UAE Pro League next season?

So what is the problem? Is there any question-marks if the UAE Pro League is controlled by City's owner, Sheikh Mansour, who is the deputy prime minister of the UAE and a core member of the ruling royal family?

It is generally stated that it is not possible in the UAE to separate different parts of government even from the private business sector. KC Murray Rosen -- who is the chair of the PL's Independent Disciplinary Commission handling the City Case -- could for this reason never accept an assignment from the UAE to say prepare a draft for a new constitution or whatever, while being in charge of the City case. It wouldn't even be considered for three seconds. A government official in charge of a large multi billion public procurement for which Sheik Mansour have made a bid, could never accept well paid side job from the UAE while considering Mansour's bid, without facing grave risk of breaking the law. It is unthinkable that this would be accepted. I am not an expert on English law, if anyone familiar with these issues in the UK think I am on thin ice here, let me know.

🔺So why did Howard Webb tell Michael Oliver that he could take the job? And does it matter? First of all, I think Howard Webb should answer this question. Maybe he didn't know that City was owned by the deputy prime minister of the UAE? He was a good ref, maybe geography, politics or whatever isn't one of his strengths... I just cannot imagine that Webb even would consider telling a Michael Oliver that it was OK for him to say accept an offer of 20k from the Glazers to fly to Florida and call a charity game arranged by the Glazers.

But I don't know know the reasons for why he accepted it, I am just speculating.

But does it matter if Webb gave a green light? Of course not, it is completely irrelevant, at least as far as I can tell. Michael Oliver must comply with the FA's fundamental rules for referees. Howard Webb appears to have zero authority to set aside these rules.

And I have said it before, I am very surprised that a PL ref even would consider accepting an assignment from the owner of a PL club. How can they not realize how problematic that is?

🔺But surely, Michael Oliver -- will -- be impartial? But it is completely irrelevant. This is because the Conflict of Interest rules does not exist exclusively to ensure impartiality, it is deemed to be just as important to safe guard the integrity of the game. Let say that it came out that Howard Webb while being a PL ref had been paid 5m by J.P. McManus for a side gig while McManus was the majority owner of Manchester United -- it would significantly damage the integrity of the game, regardless if Webb called every game in an impartial way and never felt any obligation towards Mr. McManus.

🔺From my viewpoint, this is clearly a very problematic issue and I have to say that I think that it is remarkable that the the PGMOL -- in light of the above -- still appoints Michael Oliver to referee the FA Cup Final when Manchester City is playing in it.
Anyone savvy should set up an online petition to get Oliver removed, PGMOL doesn’t have to pick the one referee who appears to quite possibly have a conflict of interest to be VAR for the FA Cup Final.

💣💣🚨🚨With the Everton decision at hand, it is now possible to -- with far greater certainty than before -- predict the outcome of the Manchester City case.

In my view, it must now be expected that MCFC will get EXPELLED from the PL!! ⚠️

A 🧵. What is MCFC charged for? The below table summarize the charges, they can be sorted under 5-6 categories, I would say that it is 32 charges, some will say 115 since each "X" regards several provisions in the PL Rule Book.

Some of these charges are really complex -- but not all!

🤔I see so many comments questioning ETH’s XI.

A 🧵on why those decisions were — completely irrelevant — and what indisputably cost us the game.

Can anyone disagree with the below?? And can anyone give even a suggestion of what ETH could have done different??? Comment 👇. At the 16:15 mark, MUFC were in the games. It then changed completely. Why? After failing to play up from the back ONCE — MCFC controls the play for 4:07. At the 20:22 mark, when the ball goes out of play 👇, nobody would say that the game is even.

🚨🚨💣💣 #MUFC's Q4 report is out, part II. What is our FFP status? A 🧵 looking at (a) how much we can spend in January and (b) how much we can spend during the summer of 2024. Lets dive into it! 🔰 🔺First of all, what we spend in January, will impact our profit from the 23/24 season. In the summer of 2024, PL and UEFA will determine if we are compliant with their FFP provisions against this and other seasons.

🚨💣A 🧵 covering all relevant questions on the takeover of #MUFC! I think it is safe to say that we now can answer what will happen to:
🔺 the Management Personnel;
🔺the Transfer Budget;
🔺 Old Trafford and Carrington; and
🔺 MUFC's position in a MCO.

Lets dive into it!💪 🔺IS IT DONE?
No. The proposed structure is complex and 'custom made' for this deal. A lot of details must be agreed on between Ineos and the Glazers. Before an agreement is in place, I would not trust the Glazers.⚠️

🚨🚨💣💣 Nine months into the sale process, its clear that the Glazers won't accept the bids made by 9-2 and Ineos during the spring! The sale of the club is entering a new phase. This is a 🧵looking at a handful -- of what must be seen as incontestable -- FACTS, at this point, that EVERY MEDIA OUTLET got wrong! During the coming months, we can't afford to keep making blunders like this. ⚠️ 👇 🔺1. Media's Truth: "Qatar buying Manchester United is a 'an end point for football'."

🟢Fact: Its very hard to come to ANY OTHER CONCLUSION that 9-2 from a "moral" point of view, is a much better option than Ineos.

A foundation named 9-2 controlled by Sheik Jassim has made a bid for MUFC. Basically NOTHING points towards 9-2 being a front of a state bid for MUFC. They have de facto needed a long time between bids to secure additional funding and there have been numerous reports of 9-2 struggling with showing proof of funds and getting the formalities in order.

Sheik Jassim is clearly a banker, who has been a board member for Credit Suisse and who today is the Chair of the Board of Qatari Islamic Bank, which is independent of the state of Qatar. 8 of the 10 biggest shareholders of the Qatare Islamic Bank are Nordic pension funds and Americans. The Qatar Investment Authority is a shareholder in the bank, but only owns 17.2% of the shares. Sheik Jassim has himself invested heavily in the bank, and owns a 5% stake worth 800m.

But Sheik Jassim is a Sheik and he is a Member of the Royal Family? Of course the Royal Family and Qatar are always the same thing? A simple googling shows that the Royal Family of Qatar has 20,000 members! An Al-Thani Sheik bought Malaga, and have since gone bankrupt. Was that also the state of Qatar making an investment?

Another simple googling shows that Sheik Jassim is only a VERY distant relative to the Emir of Qatar. His Grandfather's Grandfather was a little BROTHER to an Emir of Qatar.

But isn't Sheik Jassim's father a puppet of the regime? Jassim's dad, "Hamad bin Jassim" (aka HBJ), is a former price minister between (07'-13') and a famous Qatari business man. But one of the first thing the current Emir did when he came into power was to kick out HBJ from all former positions. And all you need to do is check his Wikipedia page to find out that it wasn't entirely without friction.

But HBJ, who today lives in London, has built his own investment business and there is no reason to doubt that Jassim is acting in the capacity of a wealthy banker and with support of his immediate family when making a bid for MUFC.

Perhaps we have the benefit of hindsight right now, but why exactly did EVERYONE assume that 9-2 = equal to the Qatari state? And everyone did do it.

Jassim was part of the Royal Family, but nobody checked up what that meant? People claimed that he had "unlimited wealth" and someone that wasn't backed by the Qatari state wouldn't have that? Why do we think 9-2 has unlimited wealth?

Sure, its a big investment, but if he gets 100% of the shares of the club for 4.4-5bn and 9-2 has pledged to invest a little less than £1.6bn in the Club, its £6.6bn investment in total. 9-2 could easily recuperate like half of that by taking on minority investors, utilizing their Qatari connections to entering into partnerships regarding redeveloping OT, the land owned by the club and so forth. The rest can easily be be financed by 9-2 loaning money.

But, wait, wouldn't 9-2's bid be depth free? Yes, they wouldn't tack any debt onto the club. The notion that Sheik Jassim, a banker, who have worked his entire life financing transactions -- think he was like 18 when he first got a job as an investment banker -- wouldn't include any debt in a big investment is just absurd. Reports from El Pais have the Qatari Islamic Bank funding the takeover.

INEOS on the other hand is perhaps the biggest proponent of Fracking in Europe. We don't have to get into what that means here -- but it IS not allowed in Europe for a reason.

When you look into it more deeply, Jassim comes across as a very wealthy and pretty innocent banker and Ineos do have big environmental issues. Right? Is it not a MASSIVE BLUNDER by the media to get this wrong?? Let me know what you think! 👇

🚨🚨We have established that #MUFC's budget under UEFA's FFP rules stretch up to 200m. In this 🧵, we review how the finances perform under PL's FFP rules, and conclude that the club is in a bind. ⚠️ But could this still be a glimmer of light amidst all the darkness? Tag along!👇 MUFC has to comply with two set of rules, UEFA's new Financial Sustainability Regulation and the PL's Handbook, which contains "Profitability and Sustainability" provisions which mechanically is similar to UEFA's Football Earnings Rule, but the accepted deviation differs.

🚨🚨💣💣Is #MUFC’s spending limited to £100-120m considering the new Q3 results and subsequent events? No! It should be closer to £200m! And how much could we spend if 9-2 or Ineos succeeds with getting #GlazersOut in the near future? Answered 👇. A 🧵. (1/11) So what have changed? Why 200m instead of 100-120m? Had we missed top 4, we would have to sell players just to not breach FFP. Finishing third in the PL and playing a record number of games have had a significant impact. But that is not news. (2/11)

🚨💣 As more information have become public regarding the details of the bids made for MUFC, during the last 24h, this 🧵 reviews in detail what we know about the bids. Who is in the lead? Is it too close to call? Spoiler: It certainly is (!). (1/14) 🚨💣👇 twitter.com/i/web/status/1… To speculate on who will win the auction, it is (sadly) only relevant look at it from the Glazers' perspective. Pledges to invest in the club or to pay money to minority owners on the NYSE are in all likelihood irrelevant to the Glazers. (2/14)

💣🚨New improved bid from 9-2! Good news? Who is in the lead? A word of optimism including a little caution and some other thoughts in this 🧵, tag along! 👇 (1/n) dailymail.co.uk/sport/football… For anyone wanting #GlazersOut, it's good news. The previous reported bids have been serious but neither have perhaps been as good as reported. Nobody want a penny more than necessary paid to the Glazers, but without improved bids, the risk for delay has been significant. (2/n)

🚨💣Chelsea FC is reportedly forced to sell players, not only because their squad is too big, but to comply with the FFP rules of the PL and UEFA. Can we verify if this is the case? And if so, how much must they sell for? And by when? A 🧵. 👇 Long technical 🧵, so a "Summary":
(a) Best guess is that CFC must sell players for app. 30-60m before 30 June under PL rules, but it is very hard to say with any certainty.
(b) It seems to be almost a certainty that CFC will breach UEFA rules in 24'.

Rumors have #MUFC looking to sell Antony Elanga this season. This is a topic I have had a strong opinion on all season. Why? A🧵.👇

https://twitter.com/centredevils/status/1663842446143520768

I like Antony Elanga a lot, as a proud Swede, and I think his play this season to a large extent has been marred by poor confidence. But I 100% think he should be sold, not loaned out. Why? He does not at all fit into ETH's system. (2/n)

🚨This 🧵takes a look at potential scenarios for MUFC's the summer transfer window and analyze the FFP impact of different alternatives. Sometimes described as a circus, there isn't a champion in modern time that hasn't been built on transfers. Some interesting stuff 👇.💣(1/51) To analyze a club’s transfer window, many questions must be answered. What is the transfer budget? How much can the club spend on different squad positions? Long-term depth chart. What type of players are the club looking at? Which players can the club get?(2/51)

🚨The reports have #MUFC “launching a £55 million swoop” for Chelsea forward Mason Mount. This had me thinking -- is £55m a lot? How many players can we have that cost 150m, 100m, 75m, 50m and 25m? In this 🧵, the potential cost structure of a squad is broken down. Which are the limiting factors? Perhaps the most relevant one is the new Squad Cost Rule in UEFA's new Financial Sustainability Regulation. Under this rule, we can only spend 70% (its implemented in 3 steps, first year its 90%, second year 80%) of our earnings on our squad.(2/n)

🚨 Several sources have lately reported that #MUFC's transfer budget will be just £100m due to "FFP" reasons -- besides what can be raised from from player sales. In this 🧵 we look at the reason for this and how we could potentially spend up towards 300m (!) with player sales.💣 Under the new "FFP" rules, UEFA's Financial Sustainability Regulation (i.e. "FSR") United's spending can be limited by two rules, the Football Earnings Rule and the Squad Cost Rule. (2/n)

If Barca has paid absurd sums of money in an absurd way to the person making these kind of reports on single referees -- deciding their future -- I wonder if it is not the nail in the coffin for the Club in its current shape. These are recent events, (1/n)

https://twitter.com/ActualiteBarca/status/1638599325788807180

...just getting a slap on the fingers in terms of suspension from the CL for 2 years cannot be enough, and with Barca's debt situation, that alone seems like a death stroke. So what is the background? Very brief: It is undisputed that Barca paid €7,000,000 to the VP of ...

(1/18) Conflicting reports from the Athletics have Ineos’ bid for #MUFC “only” resulting in that no new debt being loaded onto the club, while Bloomberg reports that Ineos’ banks “would cover MU’s debt of around $800 million”. In this 🧵, we look at how the debt will be handled. (2/18) This is the debt the Club have, and the debt consists of issued (1) Senior Secured Notes, (2) a Loan Facility and (3) Revolving Facility.

(1/22) A big topic lately is if #MUFC need an owner with ‘super wealth’, like Qatar, or if the club could get back to the top if owned (indirectly) by one of the wealthiest individuals in the UK, Sir Jim Ratcliffe. The answer is given in this 🧵. (2/22) But wait a minute, some will say, we do not know what a SJR ownership will pertain. Some details about his bid are known, but it is true that others aren’t. However, looking at what we know and the context, filling in the blanks shouldn’t be impossible at this point.