manchesterworld.uk

Manchester City wrongdoing 'should have consequences'

Downing Street has insisted the guilty verdict against Manchester City is “serious”, after Andy Burnham was accused of making a “frankly extraordinary” intervention in support of the football club’s owners.

Prime Minister Andy Burnhamplaceholder image

Prime Minister Andy Burnham

A No 10 spokesperson issued the statement after the Prime Minister said he would be “really concerned” to see the current owners sell up.

Conservative shadow sport minister Louie French had accused Mr Burnham of “publicly backing the owners” amid a probe into the club’s funding over recent years, describing his comments as “frankly extraordinary”.

But Oasis’s Liam Gallagher, a Man City fan, appeared to welcome Mr Burnham’s intervention on Wednesday, writing on X: “There’s only 1 ANDY BURNHAM.”

City were found guilty of charges related to breaches of financial rules between 2009-10 and 2017-18.

The Premier League said an independent commission found City arranged “sham” commercial deals with a number of its sponsors during the period, which were part of a disguised funding scheme, whereby those companies were only required to pay a portion of the relevant sponsorship fees.

The commission found that the remainder was funded by Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd (ADUG), which owned the club.

Mr Burnham told 5 News earlier this week that “it’s only right that Manchester City and Manchester City supporters have that opportunity to continue to contest the situation, if they don’t think it’s fair”.

He said the side, majority owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, faced “very serious charges”.

Speaking to the BBC, the Prime Minister and former mayor of Greater Manchester said he was “not getting directly involved in the process”.

Asked if he was worried about the current owners selling the club, he said: “I would be really concerned to lose them.

“They’ve been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester.

“Obviously, the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is.”

Asked also if his dealings with the club would stand up to scrutiny, Mr Burnham said: “I do actually thank the City Football Group and the wider ownership for the money that they didn’t just put into the Etihad and the campus around it but also into the city – but yes, of course.”

A No 10 spokesperson on Thursday said: “As the Prime Minister made clear, the initial judgment is serious and there can’t be any suggestion that anyone is above the rules.

“He also stressed that it is an ongoing independent process.

“It is essential that it is allowed to run its course and the outcome respected.

“Wherever wrongdoing is established, those responsible should face the appropriate consequences.”

Mr French earlier said: “Andy Burnham’s intervention in support of Manchester City’s owners is frankly extraordinary.

“The club face unprecedented allegations and fans are horrified by what they are reading in the papers, yet Burnham is publicly backing the owners even as the investigation continues.

“Fans will rightly ask whether political pressure is being applied here and how it relates to the owners’ well-reported investments in Manchester.

“Football must be governed independently, with the rules applying equally to everyone.

“Fans deserve confidence that no club or owner is above those rules.

“Burnham’s comments are therefore completely out of touch with fans and the wider public.

“The Government must keep politics out of football and ensure the Premier League’s independent commission can do its job free of outside influence.”

Dame Meg Hillier, the Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons Treasury Committee, has called for HMRC to say whether it is looking at the tax implications of the case.

In a letter, the Hackney South and Shoreditch MP pointed to part of the Premier League’s decision, that City “utilised devices to disguise the true extent of certain club liabilities”.

She asked HMRC permanent secretary JP Marks whether his organisation was “aware of these findings (pending appeal)” and whether it had requested an unredacted version of the decision.

Read full news in source page