Revealed: Man City lawyers’ FFP-busting trick won’t work this time around
Man City will be unable to use many of the same defences that saw them survive their legal battle against Uefa this time around, Football Insider has been told.
The Premier League announced on Monday (5 February) that they have referred over 100 charges against City relating to alleged breaches of financial rules between 2009 and 2018 to an independent commission.
If found guilty, the top flight theoretically has the power to relegate City, retroactively strip them of titles, and issue an unlimited cash penalty.
City have since issued a response, stating that there is “irrefutable evidence” in support of their position and that they “look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all.”
The rap sheet is the result of a four-year investigation into City’s financial conduct that continued after City’s victory at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in after similar charges were brought against them by Uefa in 2020.
City had a two-year ban from the Champions League overturned and their fine reduced from €30m to €10m.
CAS heard during the case that Sheikh Mansour had funnelled £30m into City over two seasons via backdoor payments through commercial partner Etisalat.
But the court ruled that those allegations were time-barred and that the evidence was therefore inadmissible.
But the time-bar rules will not apply in this case and City will not be able to take an appeal to CAS if the commission finds against them, explains international sports litigation expert and former FA-registered lawyer Dr Gregory Ioannidis.
Ioannidis, who is now Course Leader of the Master’s Programme LLM International Sports Law in Practice at Sheffield Hallam University, told Football Insider: “The rules do not provide for time-bar, nor do they provide for appeal to CAS.“
That is contrary to the position that some legal theorists have taken, namely that the Premier League’s rules fall under UK law and are therefore subject to the statute of limitations.
Some have suggested that City could be retroactively stripped of titles, as Juventus were in 2006’s Calciopoli scandal.
“That depends on the seriousness of the alleged offence and whether it can be proven,” claims Ioannidis.
“The standard of proof is to the ‘comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal, which is below the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ but above the civil standard of the ‘balance of probabilities.’
It has also been speculated that the fact that financial documentation may have been obtained via subterfuge could mean the evidence is inadmissible, but Ioannidis is sceptical that City could successfully use this in their argument.
“Sometimes, disciplinary sports tribunals apply the relevant rules of evidence in a more relaxed manner, as long as the evidence in question has probity and relevance.”
“It is possible this could spark a chain reaction [of legal action] from clubs who have, say, missed out on Champions League qualification.
“But any third party would have to show a legal interest in the case and that any decision taken will affect such third party.
“In terms of how long proceedings might take, each case must be considered according to its individual facts and characteristics, so it won’t be prudent to consider precedent in terms of the time limits.
“Sport disciplinary tribunals are usually fast in terms of their decision-making. However, it would all depend on the amount of evidence against the accused.
“The number of witnesses and their testimonies the tactics and strategies the accused will deploy in order to delay proceedings, the admissibility of evidence and many more will be considered.
“I would personally find it difficult for this matter to be concluded before the end of the season.“
In other news, Man City fear Rodri could push for summer move to giants.