He’s had such an electric start to the season. I can’t imagine what we’d look like if we were still stuck with Savinho (no offence). What an upgrade!

Great team play from Manchester City, finished off by Erling Haaland. I really liked how the team worked together to create this chance.

What do you think was the best part of the move: the build-up or Haaland's finish?

Maresca called it. Finally scored since December last year

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

Boy is the guy good with his feet.

Hello, looking for some advice as the website really isn’t clear. My dad passed away in May, he bought the same 3 season tickets every year in his name, my name and my mums name. My half brother (not my dad’s son) used my mums season tickets every year as she never used it after I was born. We’ve had the same seats since the Etihad was built. We panicked after dad died because we desperately didn’t want to lose the seats so logged into his account and renewed all 3 tickets in his name (as if he was still alive), it would absolutely break our hearts if we lost his seat and there was no clear statement on what would happen to the seat if we were to declare he was no longer with us.

My brother has now decided he wants to own up mid season and transfer dad’s season ticket into his name. I have multiple problems with this but the main one is, I strongly feel like city will just take the ticket away. My brother doesn’t even have the same surname as my dad so ‘transferring it’ to family could be tricky. City could also be like you’ve committed fraud you’re not having the ticket. I feel like at the end of the season they’d maybe be more likely to listen and understand our position but mid season feels risky. My brother also plans to buy a champions league away ticket using dad’s ticket (he had a ridiculous amount of points).

Anyways I’m rambling, has anyone been in this position and would like to share what happened to them? Thank you in advance. X

“Manchester City’s claim to have “irrefutable evidence” that will overturn their guilty verdict on appeal is based on a trove of emails, letters and bank statements.

A re-examination of Abu Dhabi government documents, receipts and testimony from 24 witnesses – all of which the club believe were wrongly dismissed at the original hearing – will be central in attempts to force a full or partial acquittal or retrial, according to people familiar with the case.
City’s legal team will attempt to demonstrate “fundamental errors” in tests applied by an independent commission to the Premier League’s case that commercial revenue was artificially inflated by £920m. Sources with understanding of City’s case have told Telegraph Sport the club are bullish about their appeal, based on:

- Contemporaneous bank statements, government records and receipts they believe confirm the Abu Dhabi government as the source of funds for financing of deals

- More recent evidence from the Abu Dhabi government reaffirming** **the accuracy of the original records

- What they view as fundamental inconsistencies in the findings.

Such a position could effectively be a high-stakes challenge to any appeal panel to question the legitimacy of official Abu Dhabi government documents.

City lodged an appeal two weeks ago after the independent commission panel, which has never been individually identified, found the club guilty of more than 100 breaches of financial rules stretching back more than a decade.

Sources with understanding of the Premier League’s case, however, express ongoing confidence in the verdict. In a league statement on September 29, it said “the commission has ruled (and an appeal board has confirmed) that the commission’s decision is a ‘final award’”.

But in a short statement, the club said the commission’s ruling contained “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe”. The club added they had filed “a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence [that] exists in support of all of its positions”.

The club are also understood to claim that the Premier League has no “smoking gun” or witnesses to the alleged wrongdoing, and is relying almost entirely on leaked emails.

Crux of the matter

Central to City’s appeal argument is that the panel overlooked almost all of their evidence that sponsorship payments came from the Abu Dhabi government, the shareholder of the sponsors.

An appeal hearing date has yet to be set while a panel is appointed to scrutinise the evidence. In normal circumstances, the appeal commission has to return a decision, under Premier League rules, within 12 weeks. This gives a deadline of January 21.

A possibility is that the appeal panel could refer the matter back to a new commission for a retrial.
The independent commission ruled that City inflated commercial revenues and reduced costs by £920m, largely thanks to its ownership topping up “sham” sponsorship deals by more than £830m as part of a “disguised funding scheme”. The commission also found that the scheme was conducted without Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan being aware.

The verdict sent shock waves through English football, led to calls for a criminal investigation and has prompted protests from rival fans at City’s Premier League matches.

City’s case is that the money came from the Abu Dhabi government, rather than the club’s owner, and should therefore be treated as legitimate sponsorship revenue.

Telegraph Sport detailed earlier this month how, during a US investigation into state-owned airlines, 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.”

City have pointed to the remarks being taken out of context and that the airline at the time went on to say that Etihad funded the sponsorship “from its own liquidity”, which is consistent with their position.

Case for the defence

The club presented three pillars of evidence around state funding at the hearing, which their lawyers claim were not given sufficient weight in terms of government funding involving sponsorship deals.

Those pillars included contemporaneous documentation and bank statements from the Abu Dhabi government; letters from the government to the hearing confirming the accuracy of the original records; and witness evidence from club officials, senior figures at sponsors and government officials.

City are expected to argue that the Premier League relied almost entirely on leaked emails and produced no direct witness. City have publicly stated that the panel’s approach contains “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact”, making the resulting findings “unsafe”.

The commission previously “rejected that explanation” around government funding “as untrue”. “We concluded that it was an ‘explanation’ that the Club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme,” the panel said. City strongly dispute such a claim, believing proper tests were not applied.

What could happen next

Overturning the source-of-funds findings could have consequences for a substantial part of the case, as the accuracy of the club’s accounts directly affects the club’s compliance with the Premier League’s financial regulations. The extent of any impact would depend on which findings the appeal panel overturned and how the remaining charges were affected.

The appeal panel can examine the commission’s decision, the documents submitted and transcripts of witness evidence. Witnesses are not generally re-examined, making the process different from a full rehearing. Possible outcomes include upholding the findings, overturning some or all of them, or referring matters back for further consideration.

City also argue that the earlier Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling in 2020 supports their position, rejecting the suggestion that they escaped the Uefa case solely on a technicality that the case was time-barred and that specific findings were made by Cas that Etihad did not receive funds from Sheikh Mansour.

There is unhappiness behind the scenes with the timing and presentation of the Premier League verdict, according to people familiar with the club’s position.