Friday's revelation that the Premier League were expecting Manchester City to be found guilty on the majority of the 115 charges levelled against them was a watershed moment in English football history, perhaps the first of many in rapid succession. While the decision of the independent commission -- yet to be formally confirmed by the league while City insist they await final word -- may go down as the historic moment where a dynasty ended. However, there is much fallout still to sift through.
For one thing, there are still the sanctions to be applied, but even those could change as Manchester City appeal the commission's decision. While that process continues, there will be questions over the future of City's expensively assembled squad, over the status of the squad and what action rival clubs might be inclined to take now to earn some measure of recompense for the damage they feel has been done to them. Given that City have publicly insisted that the process remains ongoing, we must consider an appeal as a prospect rather than a certainty, though it has long been expected across the industry that the club would challenge any guilty verdict.
Premier League rules mean that City will have 14 days to appeal once a verdict is announced. The fear for many will be that that tangles the English game up in many more months of litigation. The Premier League's rules seem to indicate that that should not be the case.
Rule W.86 states that an appeal should "not exceed five days in duration and be heard in one block". It sets a time limit after the appeal is filed of 12 weeks. Should that appeal go against City, who have always denied any wrongdoing, then they would not have the option to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, however, the option would be available to take the decision to arbitration.
Here City would have to argue that the independent panel had either acted beyond its jurisdiction, acted out of fraud, malice or bad faith, committed "procedural errors so great that the rights of the applicant have been clearly and substantially prejudiced", perversely interpreted the law and reached a decision that could not have been applied if they had applied their minds properly to the case. In short, the barrier for success at arbitration would be extremely high. Could City pursue further avenues beyond arbitration with the league?
An email published by Der Spiegel in 2018, decried by the club as "out-of-context materials purportedly hacked or stolen", relayed the view of the club's Simon Cliff as to how chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak would deal with UEFA's investigations into their finances. "Khaldoon [Al Mubarak] says he would rather spend £30m on the 50 best lawyers in the world and sue them [UEFA] for the next ten years than agree a financial penalty." If such a belligerent attitude persists at the Etihad Stadium, then there is plenty of time left for legal wrangling. Al Mubarak's first public statement following news of the verdict offered little indication as to what City's next step would be, beyond an insistence they were still confident their innocence would be proven.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
