Get the biggest city in your inbox
Der Spiegel’s new accusations involve a blatant error that calls into question the balance of his investigation.
The German newspaper has a new batch of pirated emails that, he says, show Manchester City cheated on the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The people have already refuted the accusations in one and are contemplating their options.
The original emails, which were rejected through the CAS as evidence that the City Council had channeled the owners’ investments disguised as sponsorship payments, contained fundamental errors.
Der Spiegel and UEFA have speculated that “His Highness” – discussed in an email – refers to the city’s owner, Sheikh Mansour.
The city explained to CAS that, in fact, it was a reference to Sheikh Tahnoon, then head of the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority.
They also included, as evidence of irregularities, an email from city board member Simon Pearce dated 2010, even before fair play monetary regulations were applied.
Now, it turns out that the new batch of emails also makes big assumptions, the most atrocious about an email sent to Pearce through a user whose call has been drafted, regarding a corporate box at Etihad Stadium.
Der Spiegel said: “In 2016, Pearce wrote that the investment firm Aabar would soon be a component of Mubadala’s sovereign fund and then place it under his control.”
The complaint was based on an email, published on the newspaper’s website, showing Pearce, who is the city’s star witness at the CAS hearing and also a key figure in Abu Dhabi’s government investment vehicle, Mubidala, in response to an email requesting that Aabar have a company. box at Etihad Stadium reinstalled the following season.
Pearce’s brief reaction to email says: “I’m fine, given the practicalities, is that you’re not getting used to it. Aabar will be part of Mubidala in the coming months, so I can use it.”
This was interpreted through Der Spiegel as an indication that Pearce was talking about Aabar power, while the most apparent explanation is that he was talking about the use of the corporate box.
Other emails are also open for interpretation, as are those rejected through the TAS for offering evidence.