According to the Daily Mail, Manchester City will argue in their appeal that sponsorship contracts deemed "sham deals" were partially funded by the Abu Dhabi government rather than the club's owner, and therefore the club did not breach rules.

An independent Premier League panel ruled in a sensational decision that Manchester City illegally injected over £900 million to circumvent financial rules. The majority of the £830.69 million was contributed by the club's owner to subsidise commercial contracts.

The panel determined that this "disguised equity funding" allowed Manchester City to illegally acquire numerous players and build the club's successful era at the Etihad Stadium. However, sources suggest Manchester City's defence will argue that these funds were actually paid by the Abu Dhabi government, which owns related sponsors, rather than the club's owner, Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), owned by Mansour. Manchester City believes the club did not breach rules because the funding came from the government rather than the club's owner.

Sponsorship deals with government-linked companies are common in the Premier League, particularly involving airlines, and such arrangements are not prohibited. Manchester City is likely to submit this argument to a new appeals panel, supported by what the club calls "irrefutable evidence" including bank statements and witness testimony. This significant ruling could result in Manchester City being expelled from the Premier League and stripped of titles already won.

The case involved over 700 pages of witness testimony, and despite the panel delivering its verdict nearly two years after the London hearing, Manchester City will argue that this case, which could shake football and overturn the club's achievements from 2009 to 2018, ultimately hinges on a simple question: whether the funds used for related sponsorship contract payments came from the sponsor, the sponsor's owner Abu Dhabi government, or the club's owner.

A series of emails sent by Manchester City executives and obtained by hackers are considered crucial evidence held by the Premier League. In these apparently highly damaging emails, executives discussed the flow of funds from Abu Dhabi United Group through sponsors to Manchester City. In an email sent in 2013, then-Manchester City Chief Financial Officer Jorge Chumillas asked Simon Pearce how the funding mechanism for the long-time major sponsor Etihad Airways contract actually worked.

In the email, Chumillas wrote: "I need to understand the mechanism of additional sponsor funding flowing in via ADUG. Is it 'ADUG shareholder → ADUG → Etihad Airways → Manchester City' or 'ADUG shareholder → Etihad Airways → Manchester City'?"

Other emails stated that funds were being "passed through" by the sponsor. During the period in question, of Etihad Airways' sponsorship contract, £8 million was borne by the airline itself, while the remaining £59.5 million came from Abu Dhabi United Group. In emails regarding a sponsorship deal with Abu Dhabi-based Aabar in April 2010, Aabar provided £2 million, with the note that "the remaining £12 million will come from other funding sources provided by His Highness." However, Manchester City continues to argue that the Abu Dhabi government, as a major shareholder in these companies, covered these shortfalls, and the funds did not come from the club's owner.

Manchester City will also emphasise that these emails reflect erroneous assumptions made by employees working in Manchester. The "irrefutable evidence" repeatedly cited by the club throughout the process specifically refers to government bank statements and witness testimony submitted during the hearing. These materials show that funds were transferred from government accounts to sponsor accounts and subsequently paid to Manchester City by the sponsors.

These materials apparently did not convince the original panel that heard the case. The panel stated in its verdict: "This explanation was fabricated after the fact to obscure and conceal the true nature of the disguised equity funding arrangements."

The amounts of the sponsorship contracts themselves are not at issue in this case, as the rule requiring contracts to be evaluated at "fair market value" was not enforced until 2021. Manchester City's deadline to appeal is Friday. While the published verdict is redacted, the panel is understood to have also found that Mansour, a member of the UAE royal family, was unaware of a series of contracts the panel called "sham deals."

In the appeal, Manchester City may argue that the claim that Mansour was entirely unaware of the approximately £830 million in equity funding cannot be sustained. The use of the term "sham deals" is also expected to be part of Manchester City's appeal grounds. The club may argue that this term is not merely descriptive of something suspicious but rather a legal term incorrectly applied in this case.

Manchester City's senior legal team may also question the time the panel took to deliver its verdict. They will point out that such cases should be decided within three months of the hearing, not 20 months, and that doing so allows judges to accurately recall evidence when drafting their decision. They will argue that due to excessive delay, the verdict is "unreliable."

Manchester City will also emphasise that while the club provided over 24 witnesses at the hearing, the Premier League could not produce a single witness who could corroborate that the alleged conspiracy actually existed. Manchester City declined to comment. The new appeals panel is understood to comprise a group of retired judges with extensive experience in appellate law.

According to legal experts, Sir David Pannick QC, the lead lawyer for Manchester City's legal team, specialises in appellate law. After the verdict was announced, Manchester City CEO Ferran Soriano sent a message to club staff indicating the club's next course of action.

Soriano stated: "The entire Premier League case against us is built on a false accusation: that the owner's personal funds somehow secretly flowed into the club through some Dubai-based sponsors. This is simply not true. We provided the Premier League panel with irrefutable evidence showing that such a situation could not have occurred and did not occur. This evidence includes bank statements, records of fund transfers, witnesses, and all materials clearly proving that the funds did not come from the owner."

Meanwhile, separate news revealed last night shows that Etihad Airways is considering legal action against the Premier League. In a statement, Etihad Airways said it "categorically rejects" the Premier League panel's conclusions. In a strongly worded statement, Etihad Airways said the Premier League had "never" contacted it throughout the process and it was not given the right to respond or the opportunity to "provide relevant information."

A spokesperson said the verdict has had an "adverse impact" on Etihad Airways, and the Premier League should "be held responsible for the consequences caused by the way these conclusions were presented."

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham also commented on the matter. The former mayor said he would be "very concerned" if Manchester City lost its current owner, who has made substantial investments in transforming the area of East Manchester near the club's stadium.

The independent football regulator has the authority to require owners deemed inappropriate to leave clubs. The regulator said yesterday that the panel's verdict "raises serious questions." It also reaffirmed its authority to "assess the suitability of owners, directors, and executives" and stated it would "exercise these powers as necessary." The Premier League declined to comment.

AI翻訳。

AFのPCサイトが新登場！パソコンでニュース、コメント、試合詳細、詳細データをご覧いただけます。アクセス：www.allfootballapp.com