Manchester City's Etihad Stadium
Manchester City have vowed to continue fighting the Premier League's decision to find them guilty of the charges levied against them in the long-running case
View Image
Manchester City have been found guilty of all charges related to serious breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules and the majority of charges in relation to its failure to co-operate with the league’s investigation.
The Premier League released a statement on Tuesday, which sent shockwaves through the sporting world. City responded with a statement of their own, vowing to fight the decision. The Blues will now appeal the decision.
City's charges related to the nine seasons between 2009/10 and 2017/18 and can be broken down into different categories.
54 charges related to failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information from 2009/10 and 2017/18.
14 charges concerned failure to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation from 2009/10 and 2017/18 including Roberto Mancini's contract.
Seven charges were to do with breaches of Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Regulations from 2015/16 to and including 2017/18. This is separate to City's legal victory over the Premier League regarding their unlawful PSR rules which were introduced after the scope of these charges.
Five charges accused City of failing to comply with UEFA regulations, including UEFA's Club and Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations. City beat UEFA in their 2020 battle over FFP breaches after taking their UEFA charges to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, although these charges are separate to that particular case.
Finally, 35 charges concern failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations from December 2018 to the present. Within this the Premier League say City committed multiple breaches of its duties of co-operation and utmost good faith towards the league (three of the four alleged breaches were upheld).
The Premier League verdict said: "We find that the Club did not breach duties of co-operation that it owed to the PL in the respects alleged in Charge 4(B): Appendix 34."