According to the Daily Mail, Manchester City will argue in its appeal that the sponsorship agreements deemed "sham transactions" were partially funded by the Abu Dhabi government rather than the club's owners, thereby proving the club did not breach regulations.

An independent Premier League commission, in a shocking ruling, found that Manchester City had illegally injected over £900 million to circumvent financial regulations, with the majority—£830.69 million—injected by the club's owners to supplement commercial sponsorships.

The commission determined that this "disguised funding" enabled Manchester City to illegally acquire a group of players, ushering in the club's era of success at the Etihad Stadium. However, sources familiar with the matter revealed that Manchester City's defence argues these funds were actually paid by the Abu Dhabi government, which owns the relevant sponsors, rather than by the club's owner, Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). The latter is a private company owned by Sheikh Mansour. Manchester City argues that since the funds came from the government rather than the club's owners, the club violated no rules.

Sponsorship deals with government-backed companies are common in the Premier League, particularly with airlines, and such arrangements are not prohibited. Manchester City will likely present this argument to the new appeals committee, supported by what the club claims are "irrefutable proofs," including bank statements and witness testimony. This critical decision could result in Manchester City's expulsion from the Premier League and the stripping of previously won titles.

Although the case involves over 700 pages of witness testimony and the commission issued its decision nearly two years after hearings in London, Manchester City will argue that this case, which could void the club's achievements from 2009 to 2018, ultimately boils down to a simple question: did the funds used to pay the relevant sponsorship agreements come from the sponsor, the sponsor's owner—the Abu Dhabi government—or from the club's owners?

A series of emails sent by Manchester City executives was obtained by hackers, and these emails are believed to be central to the Premier League's case. In these apparently highly damaging emails, relevant executives discussed the flow of funds from Abu Dhabi United Group to Manchester City via sponsors. One email was sent in 2013. Manchester City's then-chief financial officer, Jorge Chumillas, asked Simon Pearce how the financial flow mechanism worked for the agreement with long-time main sponsor Etihad Airways.

Chumillas stated in the email: "I need to understand the mechanism by which the additional sponsorship funds flow through ADUG. Is it 'ADUG shareholders → ADUG → Etihad Airways → Manchester City', or 'ADUG shareholders → Etihad Airways → Manchester City'?"

Other emails mentioned that funds would be "reimbursed" via sponsors. During the period in question, £8 million of the Etihad Airways sponsorship deal was covered by the airline itself, while the remaining £59.5 million came from Abu Dhabi United Group. An April 2010 email concerning a sponsorship deal with Abu Dhabi-based Aabar specified that £2 million would be provided by Aabar, while "the remaining £12 million would come from other funding sources provided by His Highness." However, Manchester City continues to insist that the Abu Dhabi government, as the primary shareholder in these companies, covered these shortfalls, and the funds did not come from the club's owners.

Manchester City will also emphasise that these emails reflect erroneous assumptions made by employees working in Manchester. The "irrefutable proofs" repeatedly referenced by the club throughout the process specifically refer to government bank statements and witness testimony presented at the hearing. These materials show that funds were transferred from government accounts to sponsor accounts and then used by the sponsors to pay Manchester City.

These materials apparently failed to persuade the original commission hearing the case. The commission stated in its ruling: "This explanation was fabricated long after the event to mask and conceal the true nature of the disguised funding arrangement."

The actual value of the sponsorship agreements themselves is not at issue in this case, as the regulations requiring deals to be valued at "fair market value" only came into force in 2021. Manchester City's deadline to appeal is Friday. Although the public ruling is redacted, it is understood that the commission also found that Sheikh Mansour, a member of the UAE royal family, was unaware of this series of agreements that the commission called "sham transactions."

In its appeal, Manchester City may argue that the allegation that Sheikh Mansour was completely unaware of the use of approximately £830 million of personal funds is difficult to sustain. The use of the term "sham transactions" should also be part of Manchester City's appeal arguments. The club could argue that this is not merely a descriptive term for something that appears suspicious, but a legal term that was incorrectly applied in this case.

Manchester City's senior legal team could also challenge the time the commission took to reach its decision. They will point out that such cases should be decided within three months of the hearing, not 20 months, so judges can accurately recall the relevant evidence when drafting the ruling. Due to the prolonged delay, they will argue the decision is "unreliable."

Manchester City will also emphasise that the club provided no fewer than 24 witnesses at the hearing, while the Premier League failed to provide any witness who could corroborate the alleged conspiracy. Manchester City declined to comment. It is also understood that the new appeals committee will be composed of retired judges with extensive experience in appeals cases.

According to legal experts, Lord David Pannick QC, a prominent counsel on Manchester City's defence team, specialises in appeals law. Following the ruling announcement, Manchester City CEO Ferran Soriano sent a message to club staff, hinting at the club's next steps.

Soriano stated: "The entire case against us by the Premier League is based on a false allegation—that the owner's personal funds somehow, through various sponsors in Abu Dhabi, secretly flowed to the club. This simply is not true. We presented irrefutable evidence to the Premier League commission proving that such a situation could not have happened and, in fact, did not happen. This evidence includes bank statements, fund transfer records, witnesses, and all materials that clearly demonstrate the funds did not come from the owner."

Meanwhile, another report released last night indicates that Etihad Airways is considering legal action against the Premier League. Etihad Airways stated in a statement that it "firmly rejects" the Premier League commission's findings. In this strong statement, Etihad Airways declared that the Premier League "never" communicated with it during the entire process, and the company had no right to respond or opportunity to "provide relevant information."

A spokesman stated that the ruling "adversely affects Etihad Airways," and the Premier League "must be held accountable for the consequences caused by how these conclusions were presented."

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham also commented on the matter. The former mayor of Greater Manchester said he would be "very concerned" if Manchester City lost its current owners, who have heavily invested in transforming the east Manchester area near the club's stadium.

The independent football regulator has the power to require owners deemed unfit to leave their clubs. The agency stated yesterday that the commission's ruling "raises serious questions." The agency also reiterated its authority to "assess the fitness of owners, directors and executives" and "will exercise these powers when appropriate." The Premier League declined to comment.

Traduzido por IA.

O site do AF já está online! Acesse notícias completas, comentários, detalhes de partidas e estatísticas no seu computador. Acesse: www.allfootballapp.com