Manchester City will face a hearing on charges of 115 alleged breaches of Premier League rules in mid-September, with relegation the most serious potential sanction that could be applied.
The Premier League launched an investigation into City’s finances in 2018 following a series of articles from German outlet Der Spiegel focused on Football Leaks documents.
It included allegations of owner-investment disguised as sponsorship revenue, as well raising concerns over former manager Roberto Mancini’s contract and player remuneration, notably Yaya Toure.
City were eventually hit with 115 charges of alleged breaches in early 2023, mostly relating to the club’s finances between 2009 and 2018.
There are 54 counts of failure to provide accurate financial information over the nine years under the spotlight, 14 counts of failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments over the same period.
It is five counts of failure to comply with UEFA rules on Financial Fair Play (FFP), as well seven breaches of Premier League Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) from 2015 to 2018, and 35 counts of failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations from 2018 to 2023.
ESPN report that the hearing in front of an independent panel is set to commence from 16 September, assuming there are no last-minute complications. It will last around two months and the hope is that a final verdict, including a possible appeal, will be reached by the end of 2024/25.
City have always strongly denied alleged wrongdoing and claim to have “irrefutable evidence” to support that position.
In theory, there is no limit to the powers of the independent panel hearing the case in terms of possible sanctions that could be applied in the event of perceived guilt. City could be heavily fined, be hit with a massive points deduction or even kicked out of the Premier League altogether.
City have previously had a two-year ban from the Champions League and other UEFA competitions overturned on appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Part of that ruling concluded that alleged disguised owner-investment via a third party company was time-barred, while another claim of similar alleged disguising involving a different sponsor was considered unsubstantiated.
Time-barring does not apply to the September hearing. It also cannot be appealed to CAS, but the losing side has the chance to a fresh appeal hearing if there are believed to be grounds for one.
