Downing Street distances itself from Burnham's sympathetic remarks on Man City verdict

Downing Street moved to clarify Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s position on Manchester City’s Premier League financial rules verdict on Thursday, after his remarks to the BBC a day earlier drew widespread criticism and raised questions about political interference in an ongoing independent process.

A No 10 spokesperson said: “As the Prime Minister made clear, the initial judgement is serious and there can’t be any suggestion that anyone is above the rules. He also stressed that it is an ongoing independent process. It is essential that it is allowed to run its course and the outcome respected. If wrongdoing is established, those responsible should face the appropriate consequences.”

The clarification came after Burnham told the BBC on Wednesday that he would be “really concerned” if City’s Abu Dhabi owners sold the club following the independent commission’s guilty verdict, crediting them with being “a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester.” He also drew a parallel between City’s case and the handling of Everton’s disciplinary proceedings — Everton being the club he supports — suggesting he was wary of rushing to judgement given that experience.

“I remember people proclaiming Everton guilty at the time and with hindsight I think more people would say that wasn’t fair, the way that was handled,” Burnham said. “So it would be wrong of me to leap to one side given the experience that I’d had before becoming Prime Minister.”

The remarks prompted criticism on social media, and shadow sports minister Louie French called on the Government to “keep politics out of football.” City are expected to appeal the verdict before Friday’s deadline, with the case set to proceed to both an appeal board and a sanctions hearing.

Separately, the chair of the Treasury Committee, Dame Meg Hillier, has written to HMRC permanent secretary JP Marks asking whether the tax authority is aware of the commission’s findings — specifically its references to “sham” arrangements allegedly used to conceal liabilities to staff. Hillier asked Marks whether HMRC had requested an unredacted copy of Tuesday’s published decision.

“While I acknowledge that taxpayer confidentiality may inhibit what you can disclose, I would welcome reassurance from HMRC that you are seized of the importance of these issues and the public interest in the case,” Hillier wrote, adding a further layer of institutional scrutiny to what is already one of English football’s most consequential disciplinary proceedings.