Manchester City chief executive Ferran Soriano says the guilty verdicts against the club are based on a ‘Premier League conspiracy theory.’
It was announced on Tuesday that City had been found guilty of all charges on Tuesday after inflating their financial position by more than £900million as a result of filing inaccurate accounts.
An independent panel found that the club had inflated revenue over a nine-year period as a result of ‘sham’ sponsorship deals, funded by owners Abu Dhabi United Group.
City say they will appeal the decision before Friday’s deadline with the Premier League keen to conclude the case as soon as possible.
The club are now awaiting details of the imposed sanctions.
Despite that, they continue to refute the breaches and maintain their innocence.
City are likely to be the subject of unprecedented punishments with an excessive points deduction, extended transfer bans and even expulsion from the Premier League all possible outcomes.
Soriano addressed the verdict on Tuesday evening in a video sent to employees, describing the decision as a ‘conspiracy theory’.
Fighting talk from Man City CEO
“I want to share some information related to the ongoing disciplinary process between Manchester City and the Premier League,” Soriano said.
“A document has been made public with an opinion of the Premier League commission that is negative to our interests.
“I want to explain exactly what this is, the next steps and how we are going to continue to defend the club, and finally be vindicated in this process.
“This has gone for so long that it is important to remind ourselves that the whole Premier League case against us is 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. This is just not true.
“Irrefutable evidence has been provided to the Premier League commission that shows that it could not happen and that it did not happen.
“This includes bank statements, money transfers, witnesses and everything necessary to categorically demonstrate that the money did not come from the owner.
“Every other false charge that has been thrown at us – and aggressively marketed and promoted – comes from the simple, central, and completely false accusation.
“Surprisingly for us, and for our lawyers, after nearly two years the Premier League Commission has introduced an opinion that supports the Premier League’s conspiracy theory.
“To do so, the opinion had to ignore the extensive evidence provided by the club in order to reach a conclusion that is clearly wrong.
“Our lawyers will now file an appeal that sets out the opinion contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact and it is unsafe. Remember we have been here before.
“In 2020 we were also wrongly ruled against for many of the same issues. We appealed to an independent body in CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) and we won.
“We will now be relentless in our work. We will focus on the independent appeal process and also all other legal avenues available to us in order to win the case, and we will take all necessary action to protect the club and seek compensation from any party that tries to damage it now, and in the future.”
Man City saga set to rumble on
It could be some time before this case is brought to a close once and for all with City’s appeal inevitable.
Sports lawyer Tom Murray said on Drive: “I think we’ll be looking at months and years as opposed to days and weeks.
“City have to appeal by the 2nd of October. On my calculations, that means they probably would have received this decision on the 18th.
“Once you’re into that appeals process, it’s not a rehearing, it’s a review process of the original decision. So what that means is there won’t be a series of new witnesses that are brought forward and re-cross examined.
“It’s very difficult to adduce new evidence. So to introduce new documents, unless you can demonstrate that these weren’t available at the time.
“So the appeal process should be shorter than the time is taken from, you know, from the decision in this case and the initial hearing, which was December 2024, this is determined.
“But I think we’re looking at a number of months, potentially another year before this is determined.”