Manchester City has reportedly outlined their plans for its appeal against the 114 guilty verdict of the Premier League in the latest development in the saga that has rocked English football.
Manchester City will reportedly prove its innocence by intending to prove that funds from what the Premier League labelled as ‘sham contracts’ were actually funded by government grants from the Abu Dhabi government.
The Daily Mail revealed that Manchester City officials will attempt to prove that sponsorship revenue was not directly from Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) – the investment vehicle of owner Sheikh Mansour and controlling owner of City Football Group – but was paid in part by government grants which own the sponsors in question.
The commission found that Manchester City received over £830m in follow-up sponsorship payments by ADUG in what has been described by the Premier League as ‘sham contracts’ in its statement released on 29 September, finding the club guilty on all financial regulatory charges.
However, what the club appears to be arguing is complaint with Premier League financial rules.
Government-funded sponsorship deals are allowed, which, in the case of Manchester City, points to the three sponsorship companies outlined to have been found to be inflated by ADUG funding: Aabar Investments, Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority, and Etisalat.
Etihad Airways, despite not being named in the commission’s findings and not called by the commission to provide evidence, would also fall under the ability to be backed by government grants as part of the sponsorship figure.
Manchester City and its lawyers are expected to lay down what they have consistently described as “irrefutable evidence” during the appeals process to back its argument by providing bank statements and witness accounts to the hearing.
Ferran Soriano, CEO of Manchester City, said after the Premier League’s ‘sham’ statement on Tuesday: “The whole Premier League case against us is based on a single false accusation – that the owner’s personal money was somehow and secretly put into the club via some sponsors from Abu Dhabi.
“This is just not true. Irrefutable evidence has been provided to the Premier League commission that shows it could not happen and that it did not happen. This includes bank statements, money transfers, witnesses, and everything necessary to categorically demonstrate the money did not come from the owner.”
The club will have to argue that the sponsorship revenue came as part of a government grant from the Abu Dhabi government, which owns the four aforementioned sponsors, against what the commission found that the sponsorship revenue was inflated by ADUG.
A new three-person panel, separate from those selected to the independent commission, will make up the appeal board. Manchester City have until Friday 2 October to lodge its appeal.
What else will Manchester City appeal?
Manchester City is also expected to argue in its appeal that it would be “implausible” for Sheikh Mansour to have not known that £830m of his money via ADUG was used to fund the sponsorships.
The commission found that Mansour, whose name was redacted in the 40-page commission filing, was not aware that funding of up to £830m from 2009-2018 was used to inflate sponsorship revenue.
The club is also expected to argue over the definition of ‘sham’, which was routinely used to describe Manchester City’s contracts. The club is likely to claim that ‘sham’ is not a word deemed to be suspect, and will argue the legal terminology, believing it to be misused, according to The Daily Mail.
The time it took for the independent commission to finalise its verdict, which was 20 months, will also be argued by the club’s lawyers as it significantly exceeded the typical three-month timeframe for similar related cases, with the time elapsed deemed to be ‘unsafe’.
