Man City appeal 115-charge verdict citing 'unsafe' ruling and £830m sponsorship dispute

Manchester City have lodged an appeal against the guilty verdict handed down by an independent commission in the Premier League’s 115-charges case, with the club arguing the ruling was unsafe and contesting the core finding that they disguised £830 million in equity injections as sham sponsorship agreements.

The commission’s report, released last week, found City guilty of almost all charges brought against them, concluding that club owners or executives secretly channelled funds into the club and concealed them as sponsorship income. City’s defence rests on the argument that the sponsors in question genuinely could not meet their contractual obligations independently and instead sourced the shortfall from the Abu Dhabi government — a distinction the club maintains places the arrangement outside the scope of the rules.

The appeal will be heard by a new three-person commission convened through the Premier League’s judicial panel. Under league rules, the hearing must begin within 12 weeks of the appeal being lodged, run over no more than five consecutive days, and produce a verdict within 30 days of its conclusion. Given the complexity of the original case, however, those timelines may be extended.

A separate sanctions hearing will also be required to determine City’s punishment, and it remains unclear whether that process will precede or follow the appeal. City retain the right to appeal any sanctions outcome as well, and legal experts have suggested the full proceedings could run past the end of this season and potentially continue for years.

Simon Bajkowski, the Manchester Evening News’ chief City writer, outlined the club’s position on the Talking City podcast. He noted that City had raised criticisms about the process and the way the Premier League constructed its case, and that the appeal centres partly on the length of time the original hearing took.

“City mentioned an unsafe verdict,” Bajkowski said. “Reading between the lines, it’s that it has taken so long for a verdict — and how can you be so sure that witnesses were untrue if you are thinking back two years to when they were on the stand?”

Bajkowski also pointed to the confidence City’s legal team carried out of the original 11-week hearing as a factor in the club’s decision to appeal. “The reason why it stunned people at City when they were found guilty of so many things is that these people are experienced in knowing how a case was going, and the feeling after those 11 weeks was certainly not ‘we’ve lost on every count.’ So there is a sense that a different set of eyes might have a different view.”

The case continues to cast a long shadow over English football as the Premier League prepares to resume.