Gary

Kaveh details 3 reasons why Man City's appeal that the £830m came from Abu Dhabi and not the Etihad could fail: The first one is that they put that argument forward at the original hearing almost two years ago, and we know that it hasn't been accepted by the tribunal because the tribunal said that we believe that argument was concocted after the rule breaches. The second reason is because is Etihad Airways back in 2015, the U.S. government was looking into the funding of airlines, and Etihad provided the U.S. Department of Commerce, Transportation, and State in May 2015 with a submission 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 City Stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. So, in 2015, Etihad Airways, making it clear that they themselves paid for the sponsorship, not the Abu Dhabi government. The third problem I think is that in the Court of Arbitration for Sport a few years ago, when City were appealing against their ban from the Champions League for two seasons, their defense that the extra funding was the extra money was funded by the Abu Dhabi government was something they argued was not the case, so they said that was not the case at CAS. So that may prove to be contentious as well if City again try to argue that the extra funds came from the Abu Dhabi government and not the owners.