
A leading lawyer has explained why Manchester City face an “uphill struggle” to overturn the guilty verdict against them for breaching Premier League financial rules.
City were found guilty of breaching the majority of the charges brought against them by the Premier League following a review by an independent commission.
The club was also found to have used “sham” agreements to inflate revenue figures and reduce costs, arranging disguised funding agreements worth up to £900million with commercial partners between 2009 and 2018 – a period in which City won three Premier League titles.
What punishments are City facing after being found guilty of breaching Premier League rules?
The club could face several sanctions, including suspension from playing in the league, points deductions, having matches replayed, expulsion from the league, being ordered to pay compensation to other clubs, automatic relegation and even the stripping of titles.
Advert
Despite the guilty verdict, City maintain their innocence and have appealed, with a result expected within 12 weeks.
The 10-time champions say they have a “comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists” to support their position.
City also say the ruling “contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe”.
READ NEXT: Man City’s ‘irrefutable evidence’ leaks in appeal against Premier League's guilty verdict
How likely is it that the guilty verdict will be overturned?
Leading sports lawyer James Severn, a member of the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA) and a partner at Penningtons Manches Cooper, told BBC Sport that City face “substantial hurdles” if they are to stand even a slight chance of having the verdict changed.
City will argue that the sponsorship amounts they received were legitimate rather than artificially inflated.
“City will need to identify a material error of law, principle or fact, or serious procedural unfairness, which materially affected the Commission’s decision,” Severn said.
“The Appeal Board nevertheless has broad powers to allow or dismiss the appeal, vary the decision or make any other order it considers appropriate.”
The sponsorship deal with one of City’s main sponsors, Etihad Airways, is a point of contention in the case. The club had previously made clear that the Abu Dhabi government had not paid for its sponsorship.
This was revealed in a 2015 US court document. City are expected to argue that the document’s lack of full context is evidence that inconsistent evidence has been used.
When the verdict was made public, Etihad Airways issued a statement saying it had never been "given the opportunity by the Premier League to be represented, to provide relevant information, or to ensure the accuracy and fairness of information relied upon".
“The 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,” Severn added.
“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.”
City may also argue that emails obtained from the Football Leaks files were relied on too heavily by the independent commission.
Severn explained: “If City can demonstrate the Commission fundamentally misunderstood the emails, failed to consider their proper context or reached conclusions inconsistent with other contemporaneous documents, that could amount to a material factual error.
“City’s difficulty is that the Commission heard extensive witness and documentary evidence but nevertheless made serious findings of sham arrangements and disguised owner funding.”
City return to Premier League action at home against Ipswich Town on October 17.
READ NEXT: Man City punishment date confirmed as key figure speaks out on guilty verdict
Topics: Premier League, Football News, Man City