Manchester City will attempt to prove their innocence by arguing that the government of Abu Dhabi – rather than the club’s owners – part-funded ‘sham’ sponsorship deals, Daily Mail Sport understands.
In a bombshell verdict, City were found by a Premier League independent panel to have illegally pumped in more than £900million to swerve financial rules, thanks largely to their ownership group topping up commercial partnerships to the tune of £830.69m.
That ‘disguised funding’ process, it found, allowed them to illegally sign the players that ushered in an era of success at the Etihad Stadium. However, those with knowledge of the situation claim that City’s argument is that the monies were actually paid by the government, which owns the sponsors, rather than the club’s owners Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) – a private company owned by Sheikh Mansour – and as such, no rules were broken.
Sponsorship deals with government-funded companies are commonplace throughout the Premier League, particularly in the case of airlines, and are not banned. That argument, aided by what the club claim is ‘irrefutable evidence’ in the form of bank statements and witness accounts, is likely to be made in front of a new panel when City appeal the seismic findings that could see the club kicked out of the Premier League and ordered to hand titles back.
Despite more than 700 pages of witness statements and a verdict delivered close to two years after a hearing convened in London, City will argue that the bombshell case that has rocked football – and could see their glittering era of success between 2009 and 2018 dismantled – comes down to one simple question: did the money used to fund the sponsorship deals in question come from the sponsors, the sponsors’ owners (the Abu Dhabi government) or the club’s owners?
A series of hacked emails sent by City execs are thought to have been the Premier League’s smoking gun. Within the seemingly-damning messages, officials discuss the flow of funds from ADUG through sponsors to City.
Man City will argue that the government of Abu Dhabi part-funded ‘sham’ sponsorship deals rather than its owners. Pictured (right) Man City owner and Abu Dhabi deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Mansour and Premier League chief executive Richard Masters (left)
In one, sent in 2013, City’s then chief financial officer Jorge Chumillas asks Simon Pearce about the mechanisms of the deal with longstanding major sponsor Etihad Airways.
‘I need to understand the mechanism by which additional sponsorship flows through ADUG,’ he writes. ‘Is it ADUG Shareholder->ADUG->Etihad->MCFC? Or is it rather ADUG Shareholder->Etihad->MCFC?’
Other emails talk of funds being ‘routed’ through sponsors with £8m of the Etihad deal being funded from the airline itself and the remaining £59.5m for the period in question coming from ADUG. An April 2010 email, on a sponsorship with Abu Dhabi-based Aabar, states that £2m will come from Aabar while ‘the remaining £12m will come from alternative sources provided by His Highness’.
However, City remain adamant that it was the government, rather than their owners, that made up the difference in its position as the major shareholder of each company.
They are expected to reinforce the point that the emails represent false assumptions made by Manchester-based staff. It can be disclosed that the ‘irrefutable evidence’ referred to throughout the process by the club relates to government bank statements and witness statements which were presented at the hearing – and show the money being transferred to sponsors from government accounts, which was then used by the sponsors to pay City.
These do not appear to have swayed the original panel, which found the explanation was ‘concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the disguised funding scheme’.
The level of the sponsorship deals themselves are not in question, with rules on agreements being subject to a ‘fair market value’ assessment only coming into effect in 2021.
City have until Friday to lodge their appeal. While the findings were redacted it is also understood that the panel found that Sheikh Mansour, a member of the nation’s royal family, was unaware of what they described as a series of ‘sham’ deals.
In the appeal, City are likely to argue that such a notion – that Mansour was unaware of around £830m of his own money being used – is implausible. The use of the word ‘sham’ is also thought to form part of City’s argument. They are likely to claim that ‘sham’ is not simply a word for something which appears suspect, but is instead a legal term and that, in this case, it has been mis-used.
City manager Pep Guardiola has spoken out in support of the club’s owners, and chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak, after the verdict over the 115 charges
High-powered lawyers acting on behalf of the club are also likely to question the amount of time it took the panel to deliver its verdict, pointing out that in such cases judgments should be delivered within three months (rather than 20) of a hearing concluding, so that judges can properly remember evidence when crafting their judgment. As a result of the time elapsed, they will say the decision is ‘unsafe’.
City will also point to the fact they provided no fewer than 24 witnesses at the hearing and that the Premier League failed to provide anyone who confirmed the existence of the alleged conspiracy.
While City declined to comment, it is understood there is a belief that a new panel will be made up of a group of retired judges who are experienced in appeal law.
Among their own defence team, Lord David Pannick KC – according to legal experts – specialises in appellate law.
In a message to club staff following the publishing of the verdict, chief executive Ferran Soriano hinted at what is to follow.
‘The whole Premier League case against us is based on a single false accusation – that the owner’s personal money was somehow and secretly put into the club via some sponsors from Abu Dhabi,’ he said.
‘This is just not true. Irrefutable evidence has been provided to the Premier League commission that shows it could not happen and that it did not happen. This includes bank statements, money transfers, witnesses, and everything necessary to categorically demonstrate the money did not come from the owner.’
Ferran Soriano (right) sent a video message to staff vowing to ‘clear the club’s name’ after the club was found guilty of breaking financial rules
Meanwhile, Daily Mail Sport last night reported that Etihad are considering legal action against the Premier League, saying it ‘categorically rejects’ the findings of the competition’s commission. In a strongly-worded statement they say that ‘at no time’ did the Premier League engage with them during the process and point out that they were never given a right of reply or an opportunity to ‘provide relevant information’.
A spokesperson added that the ruling has ‘created damaging implications for Etihad’ and warned that the Premier League ‘must take responsibility for the consequences of the way in which these findings have been presented’.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has also had his say, with the former Manchester mayor disclosing that he would be ‘really concerned to lose’ City’s owners, who have heavily invested in transforming areas of east Manchester close to the club’s stadium.
Football’s independent regulator, which has the power to kick out owners it deems unfit, said yesterday that the panel’s decision ‘raises serious issues’ and restated its powers to ‘assess the suitability of owners, directors and executives’, adding that it would ‘use these powers where appropriate’. The Premier League declined to comment.
