Manchester City face “substantial hurdles” in their attempt to overturn findings that they breached Premier League financial rules, according to leading lawyer James Severn.
An Independent Commission found City guilty of all charges relating to the 2009-10 to 2017-18 seasons, including allegations that “sham contracts” were used to inflate sponsorship agreements by £830m.
The club has rejected the findings, saying it is “innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League” and has “irrefutable evidence” that the ruling contains “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe”.
City’s appeal will argue that disputed payments came from the United Arab Emirates government, acting as a shareholder in the sponsoring companies, rather than from the club’s owners. The club will also point to alleged inconsistencies in the Commission’s judgment and maintain that the sponsorship income was legitimate.
Severn, a member of the London Solicitor Litigation Association and a partner at Penningtons Manches Cooper, said the appeal was not simply a chance to ask a new panel to reach a different conclusion.
“City will need to identify a material error of law, principle or fact, or serious procedural unfairness, which materially affected the Commission’s decision,” he told BBC Sport.
“The Appeal Board nevertheless has broad powers to allow or dismiss the appeal, vary the decision or make any other order it considers appropriate.”
Evidence and the role of Etihad Airways
Etihad Airways, one of City’s principal sponsors, previously said in documents connected to a US investigation in New York in 2015 that the Abu Dhabi government had not paid for its sponsorship of Manchester City.
City is expected to argue that the statement did not provide the full context and should not be treated as proof of inconsistency. The club says government documents support its position, although Severn warned that evidence already considered by the Commission may have limited value on appeal.
“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,” he said.
“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.”
Etihad said it had never been given the opportunity by the Premier League to be represented, provide relevant information or ensure the fairness and accuracy of the evidence used. Severn said that complaint alone did not prove procedural unfairness because Etihad was not the respondent and was unlikely to have had an independent right to participate.
Challenge to Football Leaks evidence
A central part of City’s case is likely to be an argument that the Commission relied too heavily on emails obtained through the Football Leaks files. Severn said a material factual error could be established if City showed the emails were misunderstood, taken out of context or contradicted by other contemporary documents.
However, he noted that the Commission had considered extensive witness and documentary evidence before finding that sham arrangements and disguised owner funding existed.
Kieran Maguire, professor of football finance at the University of Liverpool, said the Commission appeared to believe that “the documents were retrofitted to fit the crime”.
He said City could argue the process was flawed because the Commission members were selected by the Premier League, but described that prospect as “remote”.
City have appointed Mark Howard KC, while Etihad Airways has instructed Quinn Emanuel. Maguire said City may pursue a “mess and noise approach”, seeking to discredit the process rather than focusing only on the evidence.
Although Premier League regulations require an appeal to be heard within 12 weeks, or by Christmas Eve, Severn said the scale and complexity meant the outcome might not be known for some time.
