UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham has rejected the suggestion that he made light of Manchester City’s guilty verdict, insisting the case's football issues kept separate from any broader investment questions.
Elliot Anderson joined Man City from Nottingham Forest this summer.More Videos
Manchester City’s financial case has had a political dimension from the outset, and that element has been impossible to ignore since the Premier League announced a guilty verdict last week. Now, the man at the centre of the latest controversial thread has now sought to set the record straight.
Andy Burnham, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and former mayor of Greater Manchester, has faced persistent questions over his handling of the saga.
Commentators initially jumped on his suggestion that City’s owners would be a big loss to the Manchester area should they be forced to sell up, and some inferred that Burnham may step in to influence proceedings.
In an interview with the BBC, he pushed back on accusations that had treated the independent commission’s findings lightly.
Downing Street has hastily moved to clarify UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham's position on Manchester City being found guilty by an independent commission of breaching the Premier League's financial rules.cityxtra.co.ukDowning Street has hastily moved to clarify UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham's position on Manchester City being found guilty by an independent commission of breaching the Premier League's financial rules.
Downing Street Clarifies UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham's Comments on Man City Guilty Verdict
Burnham: The findings of the verdict against Man City need to be considered with great care
Burnham insisted he had not “downplayed” how serious the verdict was, instead stressing that the matter must be treated with the utmost rigour.
“They are findings that need to be considered with great care and seriousness,” the Prime Minister said. "And then, the process that considers them needs to be fully independent.”
He was keen to emphasise his consistency on the point. “And I said that last week, I’ll repeat it again today, and I think it’s incumbent on everybody now to let the process run its course," the Everton fan added.
Football and investment must be separated: Burnham
Burnham’s message clearly tried to centre the dividing line between a sporting case and the wider economic picture - a nod, perhaps, to the diplomatic considerations owing to Manchester City’s Abu Dhabi ownership.
Supporters on both sides of the debate are keen to see the case judged purely on footballing terms, though it remains to be seen whether that can actually materialise.
“I think it’s important to separate the football issues from wider investment,” he said. “The football issues have to be looked at fully, and that is without question. And obviously, the process then allowed to run its course without further wider comment being made.”
Why has the UK Prime Minister come under scrutiny?
His statement is the latest instalment in a fortnight in which Burnham’s every word on City has been pored over. The former Greater Manchester mayor drew criticism for saying he would be “really concerned” to lose the club’s owners, remarks that went down poorly amid reports the UAE had threatened to pull billions in UK investment over the verdict.
Those reports centred on a flagship ‘technology corridor’ between Oxford and Cambridge, for which the Government has been courting financing from Abu Dhabi, leaving Burnham in the unenviable position of having to balance diplomacy with the footballing world’s thirst to see City punished.
Manchester City themselves deny all wrongdoing and have appealed the ruling, while rival clubs are reported to be wary of political interference in a case that has long since spilled beyond the pitch. Some in the league are fearful that pressure from high up could, however subtly, influence an outcome that is supposed to rest on the evidence alone.
Burnham has made his position plain: let the process play out, independently and free of interference. Reports, of course, continue to disagree on whether or not events will actually be allowed to play out that way.