Sport journalists Dale Johnson, Dan Roan, Laura Scott, and Sami Mokbel have examined the current position of Manchester City as the club prepares to challenge its legal outcomes.
Legal experts have warned that Manchester City face substantial hurdles if they want to overturn their guilty verdict for breaking Premier League financial regulations.
City were found guilty on all charges concerning financial rules breaches spanning from the 2009-10 to the 2017-18 seasons, alongside accusations of establishing sham contracts to inflate sponsorship values by £830m.
The club maintains they are entirely innocent of these accusations, arguing that they possess irrefutable evidence proving the ruling contains clear material errors of law, principle, and fact, rendering the decision unsafe.
As part of their ongoing appeal, City intend to argue that specific payments originated from the United Arab Emirates government acting in the capacity of a shareholder, pointing out inconsistencies within the initial Commission judgement to prove sponsorship amounts were legitimate rather than topped up by owners.
James Severn, a member of the London Solicitor Litigation Association and partner at Penningtons Manches Cooper, explained that the appeal process is not simply an opportunity to invite a fresh panel to reverse the verdict.
City will need to pinpoint a material error of law, principle, or fact, or demonstrate serious procedural unfairness that directly impacted the Commission’s initial decision, Severn noted, while acknowledging the Appeal Board holds broad powers to allow, dismiss, or vary decisions.
Manchester City have maintained an active sponsorship partnership with Etihad Airways since May 2009, a relationship that sits at the very centre of the current legal dispute.
Etihad Airways previously stated that the Abu Dhabi government had not paid for its sponsorship of the club, a claim stemming from court documents tied to a 2015 United States investigation in New York.
City intend to argue that these past statements lack proper context and do not prove any evidence inconsistency, remaining adamant that official government documents fully support their overall defense.
Severn cautioned that if these bank statements, government records, and payment documents were already accessible to the Commission, they may hold limited utility during an appeal unless they establish an undeniable audit trail.
Shortly before the appeal confirmation, Etihad issued a statement complaining they were never given an appropriate opportunity by the Premier League to be represented or ensure the fairness of relied-upon information.
However, Severn stated that this complaint does not automatically establish procedural unfairness, pointing out that Etihad was not the formal respondent and likely lacked an independent right to participate, though either party could have presented such evidence to the Commission.
