MUST - The Independent Manchester United Supporters' Trust

Tom Sunderland Mirror: The Glazer family could exercise a clause to force Sir Jim Ratcliffe into selling his substantial stake in Manchester United.

Glazers could force Jim Ratcliffe out of Man Utd as Sheikh Jassim given deadline The Glazer family could exercise a clause to force Sir Jim Ratcliffe into selling his substantial stake in Manchester United

Matty Hewitt Mirror: Sir Jim Ratcliffe's true stance on Glazers and apology after Man Utd sale talks. Sir Jim Ratcliffe has already made his stance clear on the Glazer family amid new Manchester United takeover talks.

Sir Jim Ratcliffe's true stance on Glazers and apology after Man Utd sale talks Sir Jim Ratcliffe has already made his stance clear on the Glazer family amid new Manchester United takeover talks

Between The Lines: Everyone Is Asking Who’s Buying Manchester United. They’re Asking The Wrong Question. The biggest dilution event in sporting history could fund a new stadium, eliminate debt and buy out five members of the Glazer family.

Everyone Is Asking Who’s Buying Manchester United. They’re Asking The Wrong Question. The biggest dilution event in sporting history could fund a new stadium, eliminate debt and buy out five members of the Glazer family.

Tom Cary Telegraph: Ainslie: I was told ‘Ratcliffe will burn your house down’. Exclusive: Ineos chief accused of threatening to destroy Olympian’s America’s Cup team in High Court battle.

Sir Ben Ainslie claims he was told Sir Jim Ratcliffe would “burn your house down” unless he handed over the team’s assets and intellectual property to the British billionaire’s Ineos empire.

The “hostile” threat was allegedly delivered by Jean-Claude Blanc and Rob Nevin, the chief executive and chairman of Ineos Sport, in Ainslie’s Barcelona office, in October 2024, just hours before Ainslie was due to try to make history in the America’s Cup against New Zealand.

Britain has never won the America’s Cup in its 175-year history and it was their first Cup match in 60 years. Ratcliffe, whose worth is valued at more than £13.5bn, backed Ainslie’s campaign by pumping millions into the project to try and aid that effort.

“We have a phrase at Ineos: ‘scorched earth’,” Ainslie claims Nevin warned him. “It means that if you don’t give Jim what he wants, he will burn your house down.”

The claim is one of several extraordinary allegations made by the defence against a High Court action pursued by Ratcliffe’s Ineos, which is attempting to force Ainslie’s Athena Racing team to hand over the “£180m boat” they built together for the last America’s Cup.

Ineos filed their claim in April, stating that “having provided approximately £174 million of funding for the design, construction and testing of a racing yacht and related assets, the Claimant is entitled under the Agreement to ownership of those assets following its expiry. Wrongfully and in breach of contract, however, the Defendant has refused to transfer these assets to the Claimant and has wrongly disputed its obligation to do so.”

The defence filing, which The Telegraph has seen, was submitted last Thursday at the High Court. It lays bare the extent to which relations between Britain’s most successful sailor and Manchester United’s co-owner deteriorated during and after the 37th America’s Cup (AC37).

Athena Racing accuses Ratcliffe and Ineos of:
Blowing up their relationship on the day of the opening America’s Cup race in Oct 2024
Applying “undue commercial pressure” with “hostile negotiating tactics” including a threat to “burn your house down”

“Reprehensible and improper” behaviour both “during the term of their Agreement and subsequently”
“False imprisonment” after allegedly locking Ainslie and his Athena colleagues inside their Northamptonshire offices after the two entities split

Breaching a non-compete clause by announcing plans to challenge for the 38th America’s Cup next year with former technical partners Mercedes F1

Procuring the Mercedes F1 team to breach their contract by locking Ainslie and his staff out of their own IT system and changing domain names

Denying them access to a simulator at their factory

Ainslie’s defence is filed against Ineos Racing Limited, although the four-time Olympic gold medallist states in the filing that “the Claimant [Ineos Racing] is ultimately controlled and directed, whether directly or indirectly, by Sir Jim Ratcliffe” and the Ineos Group.

The most explosive allegations in the filing come in a section entitled: “The Claimant does not come to equity with clean hands.”

In it, Athena claim that on Oct 12 2024, hours before the first America’s Cup race, Blanc and Nevin went to see Ainslie in his office and said Ratcliffe would only continue to back future America’s Cup campaigns if he transferred “all of [the team’s] assets and intellectual property”.

If he refused, his team would be destroyed. “Mr Nevin stated to Sir Ben: ‘This is what Jim wants. We have a phrase at Ineos: ‘scorched earth’. It means that if you don’t give Jim what he wants, he will burn your house down’ (or words to that effect).

“In response, Sir Ben attempted to defuse the situation by reminding Mr Nevin that the first AC37 race would be beginning shortly. Mr Nevin then reiterated and expanded upon his threat, explaining that the only instance in which Sir Jim had backed down from a dispute was one concerning the state of the People’s Republic of China.”

The filing, prepared by Meysan Partners UK LLP, adds that Ineos “must have been aware that it would distract Sir Ben from his preparation to the detriment of the Defendant [Athena], and to the detriment of the prospects of the America’s Cup being won”.

By this stage, Ainslie’s America’s Cup campaign was receiving prominent national coverage after Ineos Britannia became the first British team to win the Louis Vuitton Challenger Series. In an exclusive interview with Telegraph Sport at the time, Ratcliffe said he was committed to another bid with Ainslie “regardless of the outcome” of the AC37 challenge.

But Ineos announced a split from Ainslie in January 2025, with Ratcliffe issuing a statement to say they “could not find agreement on terms to move forward” and instead announced plans to launch his own bid without Athena. However, the latest documents now claim that the initial frictions between Athena and Ineos originated in May 2024, before the Barcelona showdown five months later where Nevin and Blanc allegedly confronted Ainslie.

The filing says “the threat was made without any contractual basis, but as a hostile negotiating tactic” and described the “manner, time and terms in which the threat was made” as “unduly aggressive and uncommercial.”

Ineos ‘imprison Ainslie and colleagues with chains and padlocks’
The filing also includes an allegation of “false imprisonment”, in January last year, immediately after their split, when Ainslie and his Athena colleagues allegedly found themselves locked inside their own Northamptonshire offices by an Ineos employee and two security contractors who turned up at the premises.
Shortly after the termination of the agreement with Ineos on Jan 17, 2025, Athena allege that an Ineos employee, Raymond Fellows, turned up at their Turweston site in Northamptonshire with a security contractor and demanded that the staff present hand over all assets and leave the premises. They declined. It is also claimed that the visitors demanded to search staff members’ bags as they left the premises at the end of the day, which was also rejected.

Fellows then allegedly turned up the next day with two security contractors and requested the keys for the site from the building’s landlord. This was also denied. “Shortly thereafter, and in circumstances where the site was routinely locked from the inside, Mr Fellows and his associates proceeded to chain and padlock the doors to the Defendant’s site from the outside, and affixed ‘No Entry’ signs. In so doing, Mr Fellows and his associates, at all times acting on behalf of the Claimant, imprisoned the Defendant’s employees in the site without any lawful authority. In the premises, the Claimant committed the tort of false imprisonment.”

Ainslie and Matt Robinson, his CFO, allegedly managed to exit via a fire escape and persuade them to “remove chains and padlocks”, by telling them they were “intimidating the Defendant’s members of staff and causing health and safety risks”.

Ainslie says this act “was conducted without any contractual or other lawful basis”.
Toto Wolff’s Mercedes dragged into legal row

Athena’s former technical partners, Mercedes F1 – in which Ineos owns a one-third stake – have also been dragged into the row, with Ainslie accusing Toto Wolff’s team of a “breach of contract”, albeit they infer this was at the behest of Ineos.

Athena claim both Ineos and Mercedes F1 breached a non-compete clause by announcing a bid to challenge for the 38th America’s Cup (AC38) in Naples next year following Ineos’s split with Athena. That challenge has since been shelved. They cite Clause 4.2.5(ii) of their agreement, which states that if Ineos chose not to continue with Athena, “it undertook not to enter a team in any subsequent America’s Cup campaign or appoint any other third party to run or operate a team in any subsequent America’s Cup campaign”.

Athena also claims Mercedes F1 locked them out of their own Office365 IT system for five months, denying them access to emails and data, and “misappropriating and using the Defendant’s passwords to transfer several domain names”. “MercedesF1 did not restore the Defendant’s access to its IT facilities until July 2025, following significant correspondence and the threat of injunctive relief by the Defendant,” Athena claimed in their filing.

Furthermore, Athena claim Mercedes F1 are still denying them access to their simulator, “which is believed to be held at [Mercedes F1’s] Brackley factory” in Northamptonshire, and other physical assets, in the build-up to AC38 in Naples next summer. Ainslie told The Telegraph last month that his team were competing in this America’s Cup with “one arm tied behind our back thanks to Ineos” because of the legal claim brought against Athena.

Athena Racing insist they own America’s Cup boat, not Ratcliffe
Much of the 41-page filing for the defence concerns the wording in the Agreement between the two parties regarding ownership of the assets, which effectively boils down to the Cup boat, the Ineos Britannia.
Ainslie’s team, now called GB1 and backed by private equity firm Oakley Capital, are planning to modify and use the boat in Naples next summer.

Athena are adamant that Ineos were always sponsors rather than owners of the team, and that any assets developed or bought using funds supplied by Ineos were owned by the team.

In their filing, they cite Clause 3.7.1 of the Partner Agreement which made a distinction between assets bought directly by Ineos and bought using funding from Ineos: ‘[A]ny other assets of any sort acquired by Athena using (or in respect of)’ the funding provided by the Claimant ‘shall be owned by Athena’ (clause 3.7.1). They add: “The clause was in absolute terms, and did not contain any temporal (or other) limitation.”

In their claim, Ineos do not dispute that Athena owned the boat during the term of the Cup, stating it was “commercially necessary or desirable that the assets acquired or under development for the purposes of AC37 should be owned by the Defendant during the currency of the AC37 campaign” as “this structure enabled the parties to obtain tens of millions of pounds’ worth of benefits and represented a key part of the funding of the campaign.”

There is also a lot of talk about ‘The Ineos Option’ which refers to Clause 4.2.3 of the Agreement, which gave Ineos the right to renew or extend the partnership at the end of each Cup cycle.

In the end, Ratcliffe chose not to take up that option, but there is a dispute over what that meant for the assets.
According to the terms of the agreement, Ineos was obliged to “cover… the costs involved in [the Defendant] winding down its operations and commercial commitments to a minimal level”. It could do this through the sale of assets. That is, unless Athena was “able to find financial support or sponsorship for continuing the America’s Cup campaigns”. Athena claims it never wound down its operations; therefore, “no obligation on the part of the Claimant to cover any such costs arose.”

Indeed, Athena says it “never had fewer than 38 staff” on its payroll and that Ainslie himself drew down £2.9m from his parent company Athena Holdco, to keep the team afloat while looking for new sponsors.

What happens next?
Ineos are likely to respond to the defence filing in the next month or so. It is unclear when the case will be heard, or even whether it will take place before next summer’s Cup.

Athena claims that Ineos “has not identified any financial or commercial interest in (much less a need for)” the AC75 boat, whereas it would “radically and irreparably harm the Defendant’s preparation and campaign for AC38” were it to be taken away from them.

A spokesperson for Athena Racing said: “Athena Racing will not be making any further comment. Our case is set out in the defence papers. Athena continues to focus on GB1’s preparations for the 38th America’s Cup in Naples next year for Britain.”

Ineos and Mercedes F1 have declined to comment.

Ainslie: I was told ‘Ratcliffe will burn your house down’ Exclusive: Ineos chief accused of threatening to destroy Olympian’s America’s Cup team in High Court battle

Mark Nichols Yahoo Fiance: The Glazer Family Fractures as Manchester United Hits a Financial High Note.

THE GIST
Our analysts just identified a stock with the potential to be the next Nvidia. Tell us how you invest and we'll show you why it's our #1 pick. Tap here.

A deep, multi-layered boardroom civil war is unfolding at Manchester United. After more than 20 years of controversial majority ownership, individual members of the billionaire Glazer family have entered internal discussions to sell down part or all of their remaining stakes.

The sudden willingness to explore a full exit has emerged just as an aggressive corporate restructuring program under CEO Omar Berrada and minority partner Sir Jim Ratcliffe successfully pushed third-quarter profits well past Wall Street consensus, forcing the New York-listed company to lift its full-year revenue guidance.

WHAT HAPPENED
A distinct rift has formed across the Florida-based Glazer family, according to a Bloomberg report published on Wednesday. Individual siblings held exploratory talks to liquidate their respective holdings, attempting to coordinate a united front to persuade the remaining family members to join them in a complete divestment. While the entire family is not yet aligned — with some members remaining fiercely opposed to giving up their ancestral equity — the news sent Manchester United's New York-listed shares climbing more than 11% in early trading to settle around $22.10.

The dramatic corporate friction lands alongside an explosive set of third-quarter financial results. Manchester United posted a record adjusted profit of £0.03 per share, completely shattering the flat consensus line compiled by analysts for the period ending March 31. Overall quarterly revenue rocketed 18.1% to hit £189.5 million (about $254 million), anchored by a massive 57.1% surge in broadcasting income to £64.9 million.

The club's nine-month operational performance flipped from a grim £3.2 million loss last year to a comfortable operating profit of £37.7 million, while year-to-date adjusted EBITDA climbed 29% to print at £187.5 million. Bolstered by this fundamental turnaround, executive management raised its full-year revenue outlook to a record window between £655 million and £665 million, while bumping up full-year adjusted EBITDA targets to a peak of £210 million.

WHY IT MATTERS
This sudden boardroom divide represents a classic tactical clash between backward-looking owners eager to cash out at a structural high point and a forward-looking operational team that believes the business transformation has only just begun.

On the pitch and the balance sheet, the narrative has shifted completely under the new management model. Following a brutal phase of structural stagnation, the club secured a vital UEFA Champions League berth via a highly resilient third-place finish in the English Premier League under manager Michael Carrick. The return to Europe’s elite competition acts as an immediate financial tailwind, automatically unlocking premium broadcasting increments and driving commercial sponsorship renewals up by 10.3% to hit £82.4 million.

But the real catalyst changing the valuation debate is the presence of Sir Jim Ratcliffe and his INEOS group. In February 2024, Ratcliffe deployed a massive £1.25 billion to purchase an initial 27.7% minority stake, taking absolute control of football operations. While Ratcliffe has faced intense local pushback from supporters over painful efficiency measures—including extensive corporate headcount reductions and ticket price increases—his aggressive cost-reduction programs are precisely what turned the club’s legacy loss-making operation into a cash-generating engine.

The Glazers' internal debate is inextricably linked to the massive capital requirements of the club's future infrastructure projects. The board is currently finalizing designs for a radical, state-of-the-art 100,000-seater stadium to replace an aging Old Trafford. Funding a mega-project of this scale requires billions of dollars in fresh financing.

Individual members of the Glazer family, who have spent two decades treating United as a private dividend machine while drawing intense fan protests, are highly uncomfortable diluting their own equity or taking on billions in high-interest debt to fund concrete foundations. They recognize that the club's current public market capitalization of $3.6 billion is a massive under-representation of its private market value, given the unique global voting rights wrapped inside their class of shares. The family is fully aware that a clean, control-block sale would demand a premium of well over £5 billion.

WHAT’S NEXT
The primary near-term catalyst to watch will be the upcoming extraordinary general meeting in early July, where shareholders will vote on the next allocation of the club's infrastructure fund. If the text passes, it will give Ratcliffe the green light to officially break ground on the new stadium project, permanently reshaping the club's asset base.

Traders should monitor the June 26 takeover deadline affecting external market components, but the real leverage remains internal. If the exiting faction of the Glazer family can successfully build a voting majority over the summer, an institutional bidding war will erupt, drawing immediate attention from sovereign wealth pools and private equity consortiums.

For now, the operational blueprint remains locked under Carrick and Berrada. As the club prepares for its Champions League return, any incoming buyer must accept that the key to Old Trafford now requires matching Ratcliffe's ruthless financial discipline dollar for dollar.

The Glazer Family Fractures as Manchester United Hits a Financial High Note The American billionaires are debating an exit from Old Trafford just as a radical business overhaul pushes the club’s earnings past expectations.

David Hellier, Giles Turner, Ruth David, and Ryan Gould Bloomberg: Glazer Family Members Are Studying Manchester United Stake Sale.

Some members of the billionaire Glazer family have been debating whether to sell their stake in Manchester United FC, after more than 20 years of ownership that has often been blighted by fan protest, people familiar with the matter said.

Several stakeholders in the US-based Glazer family have been studying the possibility of divesting part or all of their holdings in the English Premier League football club, according to the people. The internal discussions initially centered on stake sales by some individual family members, who are now hoping to convince others to join them, the people said.

Deliberations come as Manchester United’s owners face a potential multibillion-pound bill to redevelop the club’s famous Old Trafford stadium in the coming years. On the other hand, the club’s recent qualification for the lucrative UEFA Champions League comes with fresh earnings potential, providing incentive to remain invested.

The Glazer family as a whole hasn’t made a decision to exit, and different family members are still discussing the best path forward, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing confidential information. Some remain against a sale and it could be difficult to pursue a deal unless they come around, some of the people said. A representative for Manchester United declined to comment. The Glazers didn’t respond to a request for comment made through the club.

Any potential sale could attract interest from suitors including Middle Eastern parties, as well as wealthy individuals in the US. Buyers would likely face a steep price tag for such a high-profile sporting asset at a time when the cost of financing large M&A remains elevated.

Shares in Manchester United trade at around $21 on the New York Stock Exchange, giving the club a market value of around $3.6 billion, although any potential sale would far exceed that valuation due to the voting rights of Glazer shares.

Avram and Joel Glazer serve as executive co-chairmen at the club. Their siblings Kevin Glazer, Bryan Glazer, Darcie Glazer Kassewitz and Edward Glazer are all directors on the board.

The Glazers’ current deliberations come little more than two years after the family sold a roughly 29% stake in Manchester United to Jim Ratcliffe. That gave the UK billionaire and founder of chemicals group Ineos Group Holdings SA control of footballing operations. Glazer family members were split at the time over whether to sell some or all of the club. They ultimately opted for a deal with Ratcliffe over a full sale to a group of wealthy Qatari investors, which had offered more than £5 billion ($6.7 billion) for the club, Bloomberg News reported at the time.

A spokesperson for Ineos didn’t immediately respond to queries.

Fan Anger
Any sale of Manchester United would bring to an end one of the longest ownerships in top-flight English football — and also one of the most contentious, with the Glazers having faced distrust among hardcore supporters from day one.

The late Malcolm Glazer bought Manchester United in a 2005 leveraged buyout that left the historic club with massive debts. While early on-field success under the club’s legendary ex-manager Alex Ferguson helped keep fan anger at bay, things began to unravel after Ferguson retired in 2013. Since then, Manchester United has cycled through managers and superstar players with only a handful of trophies to show for it.

Despite Ratcliffe’s eventual arrival, Manchester United continued to struggle and in 2025 failed to qualify for a European competition for the first time in more than a decade. This added to a belief among some fans that a more radical change in ownership was needed. Things improved in the second half of last season, which resulted in qualification for the lucrative UEFA Champions League tournament. That achievement would likely boost the value of Manchester United in any potential sale.

Manchester United is one of the best-known and most successful clubs in world football. It has won a record 13 English Premier League titles and has consistently been able to attract the game’s biggest stars, including the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo, Paul Pogba and Zlatan Ibrahimovic.

In recent years, however, dominance of English football has shifted more to crosstown rivals Manchester City FC, which has won multiple honors since being taken over by Abu Dhabi investors in 2008. Manchester City has just won the Carabao Cup and FA Cup, but lost the race for the Premier League title to Arsenal FC, the London club backed by US billionaire Stan Kroenke.

Glazer Family Members Are Studying Manchester United Stake Sale Some members of the billionaire Glazer family have been debating whether to sell their stake in Manchester United FC, after more than 20 years of ownership that has often been blighted by fan protest, people familiar with the matter said.

Congratulations to fellow Red Luke Littler winning the Premier League Darts final 11-10, beating Leeds Utd supporter Luke Humphries.

Premier League Darts final: Luke Littler beats Luke Humphries 11-10 in incredible match at The O2 World champion Luke Littler produces one of his finest displays to exact revenge on Luke Humphries and regain the Premier League with a 11-10 success in one of the competition's greatest finals.

From John White's Manchester United's Then & Now FB page. CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?
West Ham United got relegated.
Tottenham Hotspur avoided relegation
Manchester City had an open top bus parade through Manchester today.
I can, because it all happened.
West Ham United
I detest them, I truly do. In season 1991-92 when we came so very close to winning the First Division Championship for the first time since the Halycon Days of Best, Law and Charlton in season 1966-67, Matt Busby’s fifth English League crown, they beat us in our fourth last game of the season 1-0 at the Boleyn Ground. They were sh*te that season and got relegated and playing some truly sh*te brand of football. They deserved to go down and I had a few celebratory drinks at their demise. Their fans are that thick that they called the ground Upton Park. Mind you the Arsenal fans were equally thick as they called their ground Highbury when it’s proper name was Arsenal Stadium. Both of these are more than Rafa Benitez material, they are a Fact.
And, I was at the Bolelyn Ground for the last game of the 1994-95 season when a win would have given us our third successive Premier League title. They drew 1-1 with us, Brian McClair scored for us and Andy Cole couldn’t buy a goal. Their goalkeeper, Luděk Mikloško, played the game of his life, and we lost the title by a single point to Blackburn Rovers. Their detrstful fans celebrated as though they won the Premier League instead of finishing in a mediocre 14th place.
Dicks. Take your pick the team or one of their former players. Imagine going through life when you can do nothing legally about anyone calling you Dicks!
I f*****g hate them and was delighted to see them get relegated yesterday. Well Done!
Tottenham Hotspur
They were pure sh*te last year finishing one place above the two sides who were relegated and they should never have beat us in the Europa League final.
In season 2024-25 they finished 17th in the Table with 11 Wins, 5 Draws and 22 Losses. This season they occupied 17th place again in the Table, the worst team in the Premier League for the second season on the bounce not to be relegated but unlike last season this one was a Fergie Squeaky Bum Time with that other sh*te club in London, West Ham United.
It was embarrassing as a neutral to see the Spurs’ fans celebrate not being relegated with 10 Wins, 11 Draws and 17 Losses. It was as though they beat Arsenal in a North London Derby. This year they pure cow manure.
Manchester City
F**k me three buses paraded through Manchester for each trophy they won, and I use the word “won” with a caveat to follow. So, one blue bus for their women’s Super League winners, not a competition I have ever, and will never, follow. Not being sexist when I say that as we have a Ladies’ Team just not interested and No, do not be cheeky, I respect that the players do not swap shirts. Behave!
A second bus for their Carabao Cup win. Really?
And, the Treble direct from the local Bus Depot. A coach for their FA Cup win, and I use the word “win” with a caveat to follow.
Do you remember the TV Series that ran on London Weekend Television from 1969-73, called “On The Buses?” F**k Me, the Bitter Blues did a re-run of the show today.
I was disgusted to see the BBC 24 Hours programme highlight the three buses roll through the streets of a Red City. Why? Were their Sports Journalists and Investigative Reporters on one of the buses or do they no longer care that Sh*tty City still have 115 Premier League charges to answer? Why does the BBC, I pay my TV Licence like all of my Fellow Reds do, not sure about that 10% Bitter Blues did part of the City not delve further into these outstanding Charges? Are they afraid the foreign owners of our sad neighbours will take legal action against them. If it smells like a fish and looks like a fish, then guess what?, it’s a fish! No need for Rocket Science or to give Elon Musk a call.
115 Charges. Count them!
I reckon Pep, the not so Golden Manager, because I reckon I could have won more than 20 trophies in 10 years. And, I use the word “won” with a caveat to follow. So, Pep is 13 trophies shy, bought or won is the Question, of the total won by the world’s Greatest Ever Football Manager, The Wizard of Football Management, Sir Alex Ferguson. Why then leave the Bitter blues despite the fact that he still had a year to run on his existing contract?
Do you want my thinking behind his decision to Cut & Run?
I genuinely believe it is all about the 115 charges. I am 100% convinced that this is the reason. Why? Because it could affect what he “won” with the Bitter Blues.
Pep Guardiola openly said that he trusts Manchester City behaved correctly as he prepared to leave before verdicts arrive on the 115 charges concerning alleged breaches of Premier League financial rules.
In February 2023, following a four-year investigation, the Bitter Blues were charged and referred to an independent commission over alleged breaches which are said to have taken place between 2009 and 2018.
They strongly denied all charges and have said their case is supported by a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence."
Yeah Right. And West Ham United used to have a sh*tty home ground named Upton Park! Porky Pies and Flying Pigs abound.
The Premier League claim that Sh*tty City breached rules requiring the club to provide "accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club's financial position."
But three years on, the outcome of those charges remains unknown, with the independent commission yet to publish a ruling.
Asked why he has defended the club so strenuously during his tenure, Guardiola said: "I trust them. I spoke with them and trust how they behave and how they did. What happened, happened."
Guardiola took charge in 2016 and while there is no suggestion that the Spaniard was aware of any alleged wrongdoing, there is a two-year overlap with the period in question and his tenure at Etihad Stadium.
The former Barcelona and Bayern Munich boss added: "There will be a resolution, but nobody from the staff, of the backroom staff or mainly the players and the manager was here."
The 55-year-old Guardiola will become an ambassador for City Football Group, of which Sh*tty City are a part, but plans to take a rest and will not return to coaching "for a while.”
Asked if he will come back to Manchester for a news conference once the outcome of the charges have been revealed, Guardiola said: "If you find me, yeah, but that will be difficult."
Wow!
Has he Gone Fishing?
Does that not just sound like ‘Yeah, they are Guilty of all 115 Charges but why ask me about them as I am no longer the manager of ManCHEATER Sh*tty?
While there is no suggestion that Guardiola was aware of any alleged wrongdoing, there is a two-year overlap with his tenure at Etihad Stadium, which began in the summer of 2016.
The charges relate to the:
alleged failure to provide accurate financial information, including details for player and manager payments, from 2009-10 to 2017-18 seasons
alleged failure to comply with Uefa's financial fair play (FFP) rules from 2013-14 to 2017-18
alleged breaches of Premier League's profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) from 2015-16 to 2017-18.
Sh*tty City also face multiple charges that they failed to co-operate with the Premier League's investigation between December 2018 and February 2023.
As manager, Guardiola has not been involved with the legal process. But he has not been able to claim that these charges only apply to a period before his arrival.
The charges are thought to relate to allegations first made in 2018 by German media outlet Der Spiegel, which published leaked internal City emails.
It claimed that the documents showed the club had inflated sponsorship revenue from state-owned airline Etihad and state-controlled telecoms firm Etisalat, by disguising direct investment from its holding company - Mansour's Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) - as sponsorship income, by channelling money through the companies' accounts.
This, it was alleged, was a means of getting around FFP rules introduced by Uefa in 2011, and PSR brought in by the Premier League in 2012, two similar systems of spending control designed to limit clubs' losses. City and the companies denied wrongdoing.
There then followed further allegations of misreporting financial information centred on documents that claimed to show secret 'off-the-books' payments to previous manager Roberto Mancini via consultancy fees from a club in Abu Dhabi, and giving players more money than was officially going through the accounts so that recorded spending was less than it actually was. Mancini denied any wrongdoing.
In short, City effectively stand accused of subverting Premier League rules that clubs had agreed to comply with, and of distorting the competition over multiple seasons.
Sh*tty City - who have always denied they are state-owned - said the emails were obtained illegally and were an "attempt to damage the club's reputation", insisting they were innocent.
But, note this. In 2021, Guardiola said he would walk away from City if he felt the club's hierarchy had ever lied to him. "They explain and I believe them," he said.
Well, he has walked away a year before he could have.
I smell a Dead Fish cast from the ship on the crest that Manchester City use in their emblem.
If any single one of the 115 Charges is Upheld then I am calling on the Premier League and the Football League along with UEFA, to grow a Set of Balls and strip them of any trophy they won/bought during the years under investigation.
Do a Tour de France ruling when they stripped Lance Armstrong of the seven Tour de France victories he “won” because he cheated and doped his body to perform better than it could do without using banned substances, and strip away ANY Trophy the Sh*tty Blues “won.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH8Edqi3TvA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH8Edqi3TvA See less

On The Buses Intro (1969 - 1973) On the Buses is a British television sitcom that was broadcast on I...