Man City reject 'Red Cartel' explanation over Arsenal dinner meeting
Manchester City's hierarchy have reportedly rejected an explanation over a 2017 dinner meeting involving Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal, fuelling suspicions among City supporters that a so called 'Red Cartel' has been working to bring the club down. City are currently appealing the independent commission's verdict that found them guilty of 114 financial breaches.
According to ESPN, City chief executive Ferran Soriano has referenced a 'conspiracy theory' at the top of English football as he rejected the commission's findings, with the comments said to be directed as much at the hierarchy of Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal as at the Premier League itself. ESPN also reported that while City have declined to comment on the cartel claims directly, sources close to the club say senior figures have no doubts about the intent of their rivals to create difficulty for them.
The Friday Injury Tracker
Who's out, who's back and what it means for the next two games.
A source with links to City was quoted by ESPN as saying: “From day one, United, Arsenal and Liverpool have been terrified of losing their ability to dominate everything from the Premier League to the transfer market. Chelsea was already a problem for them under Roman Abramovich, but Sheikh Mansour came along [in 2008] and changed everything again, and the red clubs have been in a battle against City ever since.”
The 2017 photograph
The center of the theory is a photograph taken in October 2017 at a New York restaurant co-owned by Robert De Niro, showing Liverpool owner John W. Henry, former Manchester United executive Ed Woodward, Joel and Avram Glazer, and Ivan Gazidis, Arsenal's chief executive at the time. The meeting took place seven days before a Premier League vote on future broadcast revenue, with Tottenham, City and Chelsea excluded, a split that could be explained by ownership structure, since United, Arsenal and Liverpool were all American owned at the time, unlike City (Abu Dhabi), Chelsea (Russian) and Spurs (British). That explanation has reportedly never been accepted by City.
United, Arsenal and Liverpool were three of only four clubs, alongside Tottenham, that instructed lawyers to formally reserve the right to seek compensation from City should they be found guilty back in 2024. The Telegraph has reported that those four clubs were also given the guilty verdict early and are among those pushing for serious sanctions should City's appeal fail.
Wenger's past comments
Arsene Wenger's public criticism of City's financial dealings in 2011, six years before the dinner in question, has also been cited as part of the broader narrative. Wenger said at the time: “We must have done a bad deal. It raises the real question about the credibility of the financial fair play. That is what this is all about. They give us the message that they can get around it by doing what they want. It means financial fair play will not come in. It is as simple as that. I can understand how they do it but it raises the real question. The difficulty and the credibility of the financial fair play is at stake. Plus, if the financial fair play is to have a chance, the sponsorship has to be at the market price. It cannot be doubled, tripled or quadrupled because that means it is better that we don't do it and we leave everybody free. That can be defended as well, but if they bring the rules in they have to be respected.”
City's appeal hearing is ongoing, with the commission required under Premier League rules to deliver a decision by January 21. The possible sanctions range from points deductions to relegation, though the final outcome remains unclear until the appeal process concludes.
