Manchester City have officially lodged an appeal, a process that may take an indefinite amount of time due to the league's new rules, which the club’s hierarchy is likely to contest. However, there is no need to wait for a verdict, as their defences already seem to be faltering.
Below is a detailed breakdown of the ten main arguments underpinning the club's defence, alongside explanations of why none of these are likely to absolve them from punishment.
The Red Cartel Rules
There’s a persistent conspiracy theory among fans suggesting that Arsenal, Liverpool, and Manchester United used their historical clout to impose stringent financial regulations, potentially squeezing out rivals. But one must ask: why would they do this? During Pep Guardiola's reign, the Premier League has reached a whole new financial stratosphere. These rules may seem unfair, but they are part and parcel of league legislation.
What about Chelsea?
Many are baffled as to why Chelsea received a mere £10 million fine for secretly paying agents £47 million. Sure, the Londoners breached regulations, but they won titles in 2014 and 2016 as a result. There are two key differences, though. Firstly, Chelsea's hierarchy reported the violations themselves and cooperated fully during the investigation. Secondly, £47 million pales in comparison to the staggering £900 million that City are accused of concealing.
State Funding
The club’s CEO has promised to provide irrefutable evidence of their innocence. Their defence is set to claim that the sponsorship deals were funded by the Abu Dhabi government rather than the club’s owners at ADUG. However, leaked emails suggest otherwise. Back in 2013, the club’s financial director directly inquired about how funds were transferred from owners to sponsors.
Even the sponsor Etihad undermined this line of defence back in 2015 with a letter to the US government.
The claim that the Abu Dhabi government financed Manchester City's sponsorship is false. We are funded through equity and loans, not subsidies.
Disconnect with Etihad
The club has expressed outrage that an independent panel reached a conclusion without consulting their main sponsor. However, the crux of the matter was whether the club had submitted accurate financial data. The panel evaluated the documents provided by the football club directly, rendering an audit of sponsors irrelevant.
Sheikh Mansour's Ignorance
Lawyers intend to build a defence based on the idea that owner Sheikh Mansour was oblivious to any fictitious transactions. Having attended only two matches in 18 years, the alleged £100 million annual contributions are a mere fraction of his £20 billion fortune. While for him this amount may seem negligible, it's a far too flimsy excuse legally.
Dispute Over 'Fictitious'
The club's lawyers are dissatisfied with the panel labelling their contracts as fictitious, insisting that the term has been misapplied. However, the legal definition of the word aptly describes the situation: a document or transaction deliberately created to create a false impression in the eyes of third parties — exactly what has taken place.
Revenues Post-2018
Supporters assert that sponsorship revenues have only skyrocketed since 2018, implying no foul play. However, the investigation is limited to the period before 2018 simply because that was when leaked internal documents emerged via hackers. No one knows what might be uncovered if subsequent years were investigated.
Panel Bias
The club's hierarchy have repeatedly referred to the investigators as the Premier League panel, hinting at bias. In reality, this is a completely independent group made up of highly experienced lawyers. The appeal will be reviewed by a different set of independent experts who have no ties to the league hierarchy.
You Can't Buy Success
Players are adamant about defending their achievements. Rodri stated that their successes have been earned through hard work, not purchased. Nobody questions the commitment of the players and coaching staff. However, the issue lies in the means used to acquire and retain such talented players. It's perhaps the players who should be annoyed with their hierarchy for allowing their victories to be forever tainted.
What about Liverpool?
Defenders of the club often cite a 2013 incident when Liverpool had to pay £1 million in compensation for hacking Manchester City’s scouting system. However, the data stolen led to transfers of Mamadou Sakho, Iago Aspas, Simon Mignolet, and other players, rendering those deals punishment enough for Liverpool.
