Manchester City‘s central appeal argument has been brought into question by a statement their main sponsor Etihad Airways submitted to the US government in 2015, according to Sky Sports News.
City lodged their appeal at 7pm on Thursday, 1 October, against an independent commission’s finding that they were guilty of almost all charges relating to breaches ofPremier League financial rules between 2009-10 and 2017-18. The club confirmed the move on Friday, the deadline for an appeal.
The commission found City used “sham” sponsorship agreements as part of a “disguised funding scheme”. Multiple reports placed the inflated revenue figures at £830.69m, whileThe Athletic reports the scheme helped City inflate income and reduce costs to the tune of £900million.
City continue to deny any wrongdoing, and have said the club have ‘irrefutable evidence’ that will prove their innocence.
“The club’s firm position is that, on multiple grounds, the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe. The club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case.”
“The club’s firm position is that, on multiple grounds, the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe. The club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case.”
City are expected to argue that the extra money behind their sponsorship deals came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than the club’s owners. Premier League rules allow state-owned bodies to sponsor clubs.
Chief executive Ferran Soriano made the same case in a video to staff, describing the Premier League’s “conspiracy theory” as “based on a single false accusation, that the owners’ personal money was somehow and secretly put into the club via some sponsors from Abu Dhabi”.
The commission has already rejected that explanation. It said: “We concluded that it was an ‘explanation’ that the club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the disguised funding scheme.”
In May 2015, Etihad submitted a 60-page filing to the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in response to claims it received market-distorting state subsidies. Per Sky Sports News, it appears to contradict City’s line.
“The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”
“The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”
Etihad, whose sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government, added in the same filing that it was “financed through a combination of equity, shareholder and commercial loans”.
The airline is already at odds with the league. BBC Sport reports Etihad is considering legal action against the Premier League over the release of the findings, saying “it categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests the airline has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements”.
Under the Premier League handbook, a five-day hearing must be concluded within 12 weeks, with a verdict within 30 days after that. The deadline for the hearing is December 24.
However, Sky Sports News reports the process could drag into 2027 if City argue those rules, introduced this season, should not apply to a case charged in 2023 and heard in 2024.
Discover more from NAIRAVOICE.COM.NG
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
