Man City's 115-charge appeal: leading lawyer gives verdict on their chances
Share This Post
Manchester City have been found guilty of breaching Premier League financial rules and have appealed the verdict.
A leading lawyer has outlined why the club face an "uphill struggle" to overturn the ruling.
An independent commission upheld the majority of the charges brought by the Premier League. It also found that City used "sham" agreements to inflate revenue and reduce costs, setting up disguised funding arrangements worth up to £900million with commercial partners between 2009 and 2018, a period in which the club won three Premier League titles.
What punishments could City face?
Potential sanctions include suspension from the league, points deductions, replayed matches, expulsion, compensation payments to other clubs, automatic relegation and the stripping of titles.
City maintain their innocence and have appealed, with a decision expected within 12 weeks. The 10-time champions say there is a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists" to support their position. They also argue the ruling "contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe".
How likely is the verdict to be overturned?
James Severn, a leading sports lawyer, member of the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA) and partner at Penningtons Manches Cooper, told BBC Sport that City must clear "substantial hurdles" to have even a slight chance of changing the outcome.
City are expected to argue that the sponsorship sums they received were legitimate and not artificially inflated.
"City will need to identify a material error of law, principle or fact, or serious procedural unfairness, which materially affected the Commission's decision," Severn said.
"The Appeal Board nevertheless has broad powers to allow or dismiss the appeal, vary the decision or make any other order it considers appropriate."
The sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways, one of City's main backers, is a key point of contention. The club had previously stated that the Abu Dhabi government had not paid for its sponsorship, a fact revealed in a 2015 US court document. City are expected to argue that the document lacks full context, which they say shows inconsistent evidence was used against them.
When the verdict was published, Etihad Airways issued a statement saying it had never been "given the opportunity by the Premier League to be represented, to provide relevant information, or to ensure the accuracy and fairness of information relied upon".
"The bank statements, government records and contemporaneous payment documents could be powerful evidence if they establish a clear audit trail showing the disputed funds came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than the owners," Severn added.
"However, if that evidence was already before the Commission, which nevertheless concluded that the arrangements were a sham, City will face an uphill struggle to demonstrate the finding was materially wrong."
City may also contend that the commission relied too heavily on emails obtained from the Football Leaks files.
Severn explained: "If City can demonstrate the Commission fundamentally misunderstood the emails, failed to consider their proper context or reached conclusions inconsistent with other contemporaneous documents, that could amount to a material factual error.
"City's difficulty is that the Commission heard extensive witness and documentary evidence but nevertheless made serious findings of sham arrangements and disguised owner funding."
City return to Premier League action at home against Ipswich Town on October 17.
