By Tony Attwood
Manchester City’s appeal against their being found guilty of over 100 financial offences comes down to its view that the testimonies of a couple of dozen witnesses, which they think were dismissed in the previous examination of their case, should be accepted.
The original commission gave a ruling that the club exaggerated its revenues from commercial sources while reducing its costs through incorporating into its accounts a set of sponsorship deals worth £0.8 billion in order to make their accounts look as if they accorded with Premier League rules.
Questions have since arisen as to whether all of the documents showing that the government was the source of its funding were legitimate.
It is however being reported that the Premier League has stated that the club is suggesting the ruling of the League depends on leaked emails and thus is unsafe, as the rest of the evidence counters what the leaked emails say.
There are now just a few days before the deadline at which point it will be decided to that the club’s interpretation is correct, the League’s interpretation is correct, or that the hearings should start all over again. Meanwhile the essence of the case is still the same: were the accounts of the club made to look ok, because of what is called as “disguised funding scheme” which was organised without Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan being aware. The club argues the money came from the government, not the club owner, and that such funding is allowed.
However it was reported in the Telegraph earlier this month that the club has said, “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is false.” Which seems a contradiction of the new position.
Primarily however the issue is not about new evidence but how much “weight” was given to the evidence concerning state funding at the initial hearing. The club says the inquiry only considered leaked emails and thus the findings are unsafe. The commission said that the club’s explanation was “concocted” after the event.
In recent comments people associated with the club have suggested that the rest of the Premier League “don’t like City winning” and so the whole case is motivated by jealousy.
However there is little discussion being had anywhere as to what happens after the case is completed – for there can be only two possible outcomes: the club is guilty or the League has screwed up.
If ManC is guilty of a large number of infringements then points deductions and/or relegation would seem appropriate, but if the the case shows that the club has committed multiple infringements then this might seem insufficient. For such a relegation would of course be overcome within one season, assuming the club gains promotion.
But given the number of offences of which the club was found guilty it could be argued that the club should be removed from the League and would need to apply to election to League Two. It is thought that clubs in that League would accept City for the benefit of the extra crowd money having them in the season would bring.
However there is an argument that says, again because of the enormity of the cheating of which the club is accused, that it should not be allowed back into the League at all. In that case it is suggested it could form an international league with other clubs that are funded in the same way as it is. Such games would undoubtedly attract significant TV and sponsorship funding, which of course the Leagues would not get, and might leave the leagues in a worse position that now. But some argue that fans would show solidarity with the traditional leagues without ManC.
Of course such speculation depends on multiple factors but it does illustrate the complexity of the possible outcomes – for it is not just a case of one panel of experts making a ruling, but also of the ManC club accepting the ruling, and accepting any punishment it got. For much depends on whether that punishment had the unfortunate consequence of reducing the income of the clubs that have committed no offence while leaving ManC unaffected because of the massive wealth behind it.
I am convinced that most if not all administrators of the Premier League knew what was going on at Manc’s long before what was happening became public knowledge.