Man City 115 appeal: What happens next as Premier League soccer returns amid 10-time champions' guilty verdict image
The Premier League returns this weekend. Manchester City are top of the table after five wins out of five under new manager Enzo Maresca.
The last of those was a rollercoaster 5-3 win over Sunderland at the Etihad Stadium, where visiting striker Brian Brobbey wrought muscular havoc as he plundered a hat-trick.
City ultimately prevailed in a thriller, with Anotine Semenyo twice on target. They benefitted from a couple of contentious refereeing calls, with some brave truth-tellers on social media declaring this was further proof of bias in City's favour from the Premier League. Those tinfoil hats don't fit so well now.
Manchester City 5-3 Sunderland feels like it occurred in another dimension. In some respects, it did.
Top flight football in England must plough on in the knowledge that its most successful team of the era – the winner of eight of the past 15 Premier League titles – has been found guilty of more than 100 breaches of the competition's financial rules between 2009/10 and 2017/18. Despite this, City strongly maintain their innocence and have lodged an appeal.
As the once simple and uncomplicated pleasure of soccer returns to our screens this weekend, the City case will recede – if only slightly – into the background. Here's a breakdown of where we stand and what happens next.
MORE: [Enzo Maresca 'trusts' Man City bosses after seismic Premier League verdict: 'What happens if we win the appeal?'](https://Enzo Maresca 'trusts' Man City bosses after seismic Premier League verdict: 'What happens if we win the appeal?')
What was Man City found guilty of by the Premier League?
The independent commission investigated allegations of financial impropriety at City spanning a nine-year period. Their statement on the matter detailed the following:
Manchester City arranged "sham" contracts (which misrepresented the true agreement between the parties) with a number of its commercial partners, as well as relying on "sham" agreements with others, to artificially inflate the club’s revenues and reduce its costs
The club filed misstated accounts and concealed the true state of its finances from its auditors and football regulators
Manchester City was significantly in breach of both the Premier League’s and UEFA’s spending limits
During the Premier League’s investigation, 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 one charge relating to non-cooperation that was not upheld is the only charge in the entire case against City that did not stick.
Of the so-called sham agreements, the Premier League said: "The purpose of these schemes was found to have been to artificially inflate the club’s revenues, and reduce its costs, by more than £900 million during the affected period, to appear to comply with financial rules."
How bad is the ruling for Man City?
On the face of it – there are ample redacted sections of the judgement and we await the full appendices that accompanied the initial release – very bad.
It is notable that the panel stated its belief that some of the 24 witnesses supplied by City lied knowingly
"We concluded that the majority of the witnesses of fact who gave evidence before us were doing their best to provide honest evidence and to assist us in our determination of the charges," the verdict read. "However, we concluded a) that evidence given by a number of important factual witnesses called to give evidence on behalf of the club was false in a number of key respects, and b) that certain of those factual witnesses had given evidence at the hearing that they knew to be untrue and so had been dishonest."
The Sporting News spoke to an eminent sports lawyer who believes City's aggressive defence of their position and subsequent comprehensive defeat before the independent commission puts them in an incredibly tough spot going into the appeal phase.
"They've played Russian Roulette with the club. What do they do now?" they said. "The panel thinks they're all liars. They lost absolutely comprehensively in the hearing. Once that happens, once the panel thinks your witnesses are liars, your excuses are concocted and that you've been creating sham agreement, then the whole thing caves in on itself.
"They really should have identified that the case had caved in. They obviously didn't. They've been caught on the hop. You have to ask how that's happened as well. It's just utter incompetence."
Khaldoon Al Mubarak and Ferran Soriano of Man City
Man City Premier League case: Timeline of what happens next
Late October/November: The Independent reported that the full judgment with appendices and the sanctions against the City could come as early as the end of this month. However, this part of the process, with requires a further hearing with the independent commission. is not set in stone. Given City or the Premier League would have the right to appeal the outcome of the sanction hearing, it might be prudent to reserve this part of the process until after City's appeal has concluded.
December 24: City lodged their appeal on October 1, and this must be concluded before a new three-person independent panel by Christmas Eve. The appeal will be a five-day hearing, heard on consecutive days and can take place at any time in this 12-week period.
Mid/late January: The panel must deliver its verdict 30 days after the appeal concludes. So, if the City appeal runs late into the 12-week block allocated, we will receive the verdict in the second half of January. If the appeal is concluded earlier, then the verdict will follow suit.
How will Man City try to win the appeal?
According to reports by several outlets, including The Times, City's appeal will focus on evidence that it believes proves its sponsorship deals with Abu Dhabi companies were funded by subsidies from the Emirati government and not their owner.
Despite City being widely referred to as a state-owned club, the panel accepts that they are owned in a private capacity by Sheikh Mansour. City believe documentation, including bank statements and wire transfers, should have been given greater weight by the panel, which found that such arrangements were "concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the disguised funding scheme”.
In their statement responding to the judgment and CEO Ferran Soriano's video message to club staff, City have also seemingly queried the impartiality of the process.
"Surprisingly for us and our lawyers after nearly two years, the commission has issued an opinion that supports the Premier League’s conspiracy theory," Soriano said.
“To do so, the opinion had to ignore the extensive evidence provided by the club in order to reach a conclusion that is clearly wrong. Our lawyers will now file an appeal that sets out the opinion contains clear, material errors of law, principle and fact and that it is unsafe.”
If City's appeal fails, further recourse to the High Court has been mooted, but it is unclear what form this might take and their grounds appear limited, beyond identifying something defective in the Premier League and the independent commission's overall process. This would also have to take place in open court, as the matter was ruled to be in the public interest when City lost a High Court hearing between the two parties in June 2021.
Another strand to the legal fallout is Etihad Airways, City's principal sponsor and Abu Dhabi's national carrier, seeking instruction from US law firm Quinn Emmanuel after no one from their company was called to give evidence before the independent panel by the Premier League. A hope expressed by some City supporters is that Etihad would be able to prove the legitimacy of its funding and therefore undermine the Premier League verdict against the club.
The sports law source who spoke to the Sporting News described Quinn Emmanuel as "the best in the business" but added: "The idea that the Premier League should have contacted Etihad for their version of events is just not the way it works. Etihad are aware of that and so are Quinn Emmanuel. I don't think that Etihad has any ability to sue the Premier League."
Does the Independent Football Regulator have a role in the Man City case
The new Independent Football Regulator (IFR) has powers to take action against unsuitable owners and directors.
The IFR's Owners, Directors and Senior Executives (ODSE) rules on 'Suitability', it states it must consider
"whether the individual, or a sporting entity where they are or have been a controller or in a position of responsibility, has
been the subject of disciplinary or enforcement action by any sporting authority or competition organiser, or
failed to comply with a direction, order, or other requirement set by any sporting authority or competition organiser.
If City's appeal fails, this would quite clearly put several members of their executive team, including Soriano, in the crosshairs of the IFR. Chairman Khaldoon Al-Mubarak has diplomatic immunity on account of his wider role as part of the Abu Dhabi government, and it is unclear how this would apply in the instance of disciplinary proceedings from a sporting arbitrator. However, a failed appeal could make his position untenable.
Christopher Davidson, author of Abu Dhabi, Oil and Beyond, told the Guardian this week: "I can’t see any reason why they would stick around and try to rebuild the reputation after this. It’s embarrassing the royal family now. I can’t think of any example where things have gone wrong [for Abu Dhabi] and they’ve just kept plugging money into it. I think they’ll play out the appeal – nothing to lose with that – but once that’s done, it’s all about how to get out before the owners are declared unfit, a far worse outcome."
Sheikh Mansour
So the IFR is likely to be dealing a little lower down the food chain at City if required. The regulator does have a mechanism to force a sale if a club's owners are deemed unsuitable, but the independent commission's ruling curiously might put Mansour out of harm's way.
"There was no direct evidence that XXXXX was aware of the Disguised Funding Scheme or authorised the operation of the Disguised Funding Scheme. We therefore concluded that the Disguised Funding Scheme was operated without XXXXX knowledge."
Although the name of the person in question is redacted, this is widely assumed to be Mansour, which would seemingly absolve him of direct culpability over how his fortune and assets were used to circumvent Premier League rules.
It would also be reasonable to expect the IFR to operate with caution around any areas that might lead to further litigation because it does not have deep pockets to match Manchester City in the way that the Premier League does.