There's a lot of speculation being thrown about, but aside from the distraction angle, I don't see hw we NYCFC gets implicated in a way that directly hurts us or indicates NYCFC broke any rules applicable to NYCFC.
The rules Man City is accused of breaking come down to overstating income and understating costs, and relatedly violating regulations on profit and sustainability. For NYCFC to have been a party to that would mean that NYCFC overpaid for scouting, or loan fees (for eg Herrera), and was underpaid for players we sold to MC like Harrison or Mix. I just find it implausible that NYCFC has been subsidizing MC this way, and if that has happened, stopping that is good for NYCFC.
So the only way I see this hurting us is if the CFG owners get so fed up with having to confine their flagship franchise of Man City within PL or UEFA rules that they just stop playing altogether, either by letting the clubs languish or selling the whole lot. Seems very unlikely. Maybe they put a pause on spending overall to make it look like they are chastened. But even there, how does reducing spend on NYCFC help Man City's books?
We might engage in the same made up Etihad sponsorship numbers game as Man City, but we're not subject to profit/loss rules or general spending restraints. We just have a salary cap which does not go up just because we pretend Etihad gave as fair market sponsorship rates but actually overpaid. As a newish growing league I expect it is considered completely normal for clubs to overspend and lose money for the first [XX] years to build stadiums, a fanbase, etc.
mgarbowski doing some ridiculously obscure data analysis we never knew we absolutely wanted until he posted it. 
Shwafta engaging the bot poster in the Vegas Baby thread. 
