In the first few games of this season, Viktor Gyokeres looked like a little boy lost. Hardly seeing any game time, completely out of form and questions over his future. Then the international break happened.
Kai Havertz had started Arsenal’s Premier League campaign as the manager’s preferred option through the middle, scoring twice in his opening five league appearances. Then away with Germany, he picked up a hamstring injury that is likely to see him miss the next few weeks.
What the international break took from Havertz, it gave to Gyokeres.
Gyokeres scored in 4 goals in 4 games for Sweden during this international break and has now found the net in seven consecutive Nations League matches, setting a competition record.
Not only was he finding the back of the net, he looked sharp, ready and focused. And that is exactly what Mikel Arteta needs.
With Havertz out, it is difficult to imagine a better time for Gyokeres to rediscover his swagger and Saturday’s meeting with Leeds could therefore represent something of a reset.
Gyokeres knows where the goal is against Daniel Farke’s side, having scored three times against Leeds last season. More importantly, he now has the confidence that comes from consistently putting the ball in the net.
But Arteta does have another option.
Mikel Merino has already shown that he can operate as a makeshift striker, and his qualities are arguably closer to Havertz’s than Gyokeres’. He can link play, hold the ball up, bring others into the game and arrive late in the box. And last night he scored twice as Spain came from behind to beat Croatia.
Merino could be particularly useful if Arteta wants Arsenal to continue playing in a way that relies on combination football rather than simply looking for runs in behind.
The contrast between the two is fascinating.
Gyokeres offers power, pace and that instinctive striker’s movement. He wants to run beyond defenders and attack the spaces between centre-back and full-back. Merino, meanwhile, can provide a more connective presence, giving Arsenal another body between the lines and allowing the likes of Bukayo Saka and Eberechi Eze to benefit from his movement.
Ideally, Arsenal won’t have to choose between the two for too long.
But with Havertz unavailable, this is their moment.
For Gyokeres, it is a chance to remind everyone why Arsenal signed him in the first place.
For Merino, it is another opportunity to demonstrate just how valuable his versatility can be.
And for Arteta, it is another test of the depth and adaptability he has spent years building into this squad.
The international break has created an unwanted problem.
Now Gyokeres and Merino have the chance to turn it into an opportunity.
The simple answer is no. If you want, you can now stop reading.
In the last few weeks we have seen some laughable claims from Man City fans. The most hilarious is that City lawyers deliberately lost the case with the aim of either winning an appeal, or presenting their case to a higher authority. It is crazy that people with this underdeveloped thought process are allowed a vote.
Another claim by City fans is that their club is aiming to “burn down the Premier League” and will “take the red cartel with them” if found guilty. Again, this is just crazy talk with no foundation or evidence.
City fans are presenting two main points that they believe to be true:
1) That the UAE will fly in and present evidence that sponsorship to the likes of Arsenal provided by Emirates was funded by the UAE government, therefore making Arsenal as guilty as Man City.
2) That they UAE will force the cancellation of all sponsorship deals, such as the Emirates deal with Arsenal, which will leave Premier League clubs in financial turmoil.
So lets look into these claims.
Financial support of sponsors
The key to Man City’s charges around financial irregularities is that they were aware that sponsorship money was being subsidised and failed to correctly report the true source of funds.
If it is found that Emirates, or any other UAE based organisation, was receiving funding from the UAE Government, the Government of their Emirati, or any other source, it only becomes an offence if the club they were sponsoring were aware.
Arsenal, for example, can not be charged for failing to report the true source of funds if club executives were not aware that Emirates were being funded by the Dubai Government, or any other organisation. You can not report what you do not know.
Now, if like Manchester City, an email trail is found and that Arsenal was aware of being in a similar situation, the club could be in trouble. But this raises two points.
Firstly, why would Arsenal, and other Premier League clubs, allow the Premier League (which they are all members of) to pursue with the push for charges if they knew they were guilty of the exact same thing?
And secondly, the UAE has two flagship airline carriers – Emirates and Etihad Airways. Having already seen Etihad’s name dragged through the mud, why would they also want to see the same happen to Emirates? It would make zero sense.
Likewise, it should be remembered that Emirates is owned by the government of Dubai’s Investment Corporation of Dubaiwhilst Etihad is owned by the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund ADQ.
In the competitive world of airlines, Etihad and Emirates are direct rivals, both aiming to be the premier carrier for the UAE, and have different ownership based in different Emirati. It would make no sense for Emirates, Dubai or the UAE to come out and say “Emirates were doing the same thing with Arsenal”, when Emirates could be a big beneficiary of all of this.
UAE could force organisation to cancel contracts
This really shows that many of those on social media do not have a club what they are talking about. Emirates, for example, could not simply decide to break their contract with Arsenal.
Arsenal announced an extension of the emirates deal earlier this year, extending the contract to 2033. That contract will likely be hundreds of pages long, and contained within it will be agreements on how the contract can be cancelled (mutual termination, poor performance, branch damaging scandal, etc) and the punishments if either party breaks the contract without just reason or agreement.
If a sponsor terminates the agreement without a valid contractual basis, it would likely constitute a breach of contract. The football club could claim damages for the breach. Damages might include the loss of expected revenue from the sponsorship and any additional costs incurred in finding a new sponsor.
Also, as above, why would Dubai owned Emirates cancel their contract with Arsenal to punish the Premier League for the Manchester City case? Again, this makes no sense.
The UAE would unlikely look to encourage Emirates, or anyone else, to cancel contracts. The UAE is made up by its seven emirates. Abu Dhabi, serving as the capital, would not want to appear to be controlling all decisions in the benefit of themselves. This could lead to the break up of the country.
UAE and the likes of Dubai are more likely to double down on Emirates and other sponsors. They will look to protect them, ensure contracts are water tight and that they can continue promoting the region through sponsorship. They will not want what is happening to Manchester City to impact other deals.
Manchester City fans really have shown a level of delusion following the judgement. The mental gymnastics their fans are doing to save face is incredible. From “this was the plan” to “lets burn it to the ground”. It shows a like of intelligent thinking, and is mainly as a result of group think.
Come January, once the appeal is heard and punishment confirmed, their fans are in for a huge awakening. But what will really happen?
The loyal local fans will just crack on with things, as they did when the club was relegated two divisions. The global fans in Nigeria, Asia, etc, where the majority of the noise is coming from, will just pick a new team to support.
Let’s get it right, Manchester City’s defence of the 115 was nothing short of a disaster.
114 of the 115 charges stuck, the Premier League labelled it a “sham”, and key witnesses and irrefutable evidence on behalf of Manchester City either did not materialise or could not be proven.
Manchester City’s sole defence of the entire situation is that it was not Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) that subsidised the huge sums paid to Man City by sponsors, But the Abu Dhabi Government (AD).
This line of defence directly contradicts what Etihad Airways told the US Government back in 2015.
And this is exactly why the Man City case has fallen the way it has.
Whilst City may have claimed that the sponsorship money was subsidised by AD, and not ADUG, they were unable to provide any evidence. Neither AD, Etihad, or alternative organisations would have been able to provide proof of where funding comes from because it would have completely contradicted that 2015 investigation.
City fans across social media are claiming that lawyers defence is “genius” and that they are playing 4D chess. This is laughable.
You do not go into a hearing, a court case, or anything else, with the aim of losing so that you can win on appeal. It does not happen. And it is ludicrous that anyone is claiming that City lawyers were hoping to lose so that they could “expose the Premier League on appeal”. Especially when you consider the cost of those lawyers.
High up executives at Man City, ADUG and AD know exactly the predicament they are in – and there only two paths out.
Man City or Etihad Airways. The will have to choose a fighter.
The evidence needed to exhonorate Man City throws Etihad under the bus with the US Government.
If evidence is presented to show that Etihad were funded by AD, then the US will reopen their 2015 investigation. That could have huge implications for not only one of the biggest airlines in the world, who are also AD’s flagship brand, but also for those who presented the evidence in 2015.
Not only would presenting the evidence in support of City be an existential threat to Etihad, it would likely lead to criminal proceedings for those who then lied in the evidence above.
The alternative for AD is to back Etihad, and it is Man City who are then pushed under that bus.
Without AD or Etihad being willing to corroborate Man City’s claims, the Premier League can rightly disregard Man City’s claims of where the funding came from.
The question ultimately for AD is do they want to sacrifice Man City to the Premier League to protect Etihad, or do they want to sacrifice Etihad to the US Government in an attempt to protect Man City.
And that leads us to where we are now. The bullying stage.
AD and ADUG can not keep their two flagship operations clean. One will have to fall. So in an attempt to get two favourable outcomes, they are now using political, legal and PR posturing to bully the Premier League and UK Government.
Firstly we have Etihad threatening to sue the Premier League.
The headline is that they have hired “the world’s most feared litigation law firm” in Quinn Emanuel.
Firstly, the chances that they have only just hired Quinn Emanuel are laughable. Major companies like Etihad will likely have major global law firms on retainers. We’ve all watched Suits. We all know how this works.
Secondly, I am not really sure what the basis of any case by Etihad against the Premier League could be built on.
It is an independent commission panel that heard the case, and made the judgement. Not the Premier League. The PL merely presented their case, their evidence. And when it came to evidence around where the funding came from, everything that mentioned Etihad came from Man City or ADUG emails. You can no sue someone for presenting the facts as they appear.
If Etihad are to sue anyone, it would actually be Man City, as it is them that have made the claim that their sponsors, including Etihad, were subsidised by AD. If this as an untrue statement by Man City, then that is where the lawsuit sits.
As for the posturing by the UAE, there is zero chance that they will pull investment in the UK due to the decision against Manchester City.
A move like this would have huge ramifications across the globe. It would show to the world that the UAE and the Emirati that make it believe that they are above the law in whichever county they have organisations, companies or sports teams operating. It sends out a sign to governments worldwide that they believe their organisations can operate however they want, and if they are sanctioned then government level investment will be pulled.
This position is not a position of strength.
Whilst on the short term, the UK may lose out on investment, it would not be a catastrophe.
In the grand scheme of things, the UAE is not one of the biggest investors in the UK. The are no where near the US, India or France. The billions they claim that they will pull from the UK is only around 0.3-1.4% of the foreign investment in the UK. Although it must be said that is public money. There is also a private side, such as the millions pumped into Manchester by ADUG.
Whilst pulling investment would not be catastrophic for the UK, it would be a catastrophic decision by the UAE.
As we briefly outlined above, why would any foreign government want to do investment deals with the UAE if the UAE show themselves as willing do drop their investment due to one of their organisations have been sanctioned? It would lead governments being less willing to make deals with UAE. And we all know those deals are massive for the UAE as they attempt to invest the email money before the income dries up.
The estimation is that oil in the UAE will dry up in 80 years. Due to this they have a global investment strategy with the aim of reducing the reliance on oil – in 1980, 55% of the UAE GDP was based on oil, that is now just 23%.
UAE need to continue investing in both themselves (tourism) and foreign countries to ensure they survive once the oil runs out. If they fail to do so, the area will just become a desert. Pulling investment in the UK would directly damage this strategy, especially if other countries decide the UAE are no longer trustworthy enough to strike big deals with.
Etihad will not sue the PL. The UAE will not pull their investment in the UK. It is just bullying and PR.
The hope is to force the hand of the PL or UK Government into coming to a settlement. The aim is to also paint Man City as victims in all of this. To continue the sportswashing of the blue side of Manchester.
And whilst the bullying will not be successful, we are seeing the PR side of the project become a success. City fans from Manchester to Lagos, and across Asia are ignoring the facts and trying to paint City and ADUG as victims.
Abu Dhabi, and by extension the UAE, basically now have millions of online warriors who will go out to battle for them, who will defend them no matter what they do. And that is what sportswashing is all about.
We have also seen the success of this sportswashing already in the way UK Primer Minister Andy Burnham came out swinging for Man City’s owners. He has since had his wings clips, although there could now be political ramifications followings calls to investigate the Labour leader’s relationship with the Manchester City owners.
Having triggered the appeal, it must now take place in 12 weeks. The verdict must be delivered within 30-days of the appeal ending.
Regardless of the verdict, Man City’s online warriors will continue to fight for their owners. They will paint City and ADUG as the victims. They will claim it was always the goal to take the PL to the High Court, Supeme Court, The Hague, Nuremberg, the Earth Supreme Court or Wizengamot. And that this is all part of the bigger plan to spend millions dragging the reputation of their club through the mud.
And my final point of all this is all this posturing only deals with the sponsorship related charges.
The claim that sponsors funding came from AD, and not ADUG, does not defend the PSR breaches, nor the lack of cooperation charges. And these alone can lead to huge point deductions, life bans for the officers and executives who failed to cooperate, and even the expulsion of Manchester City.
