30-point deduction, lifetime ban for officials, potential expulsion – the potential punishments Manchester City are facing

1 Reply

I go away for a few days and all hell breaks out!

Whilst away, the Manchester City verdict was leaked, the Premier League made a statement and Man City made their own statement. In between there were videos to staff, and more doubling down by City officials on their defence. Plenty has already been written on this, so we won’t dwell too much on what has already happen.

Looking to the future, the big question now is “what will Man City’s punishment be?”. Before we get to that, Man City have until Friday 2 October to appeal. They will appeal. And their “irrefutable evidence” seems to be that money given to sponsors was from the Abu Dhabi (AD) government, and not Man City’s owners, Abu Dhabi United Group.

Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan is the founder of ADUG, who own 81% of Manchester City.

He is also a current vice president and deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, as well as the minister of presidential court and member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi. He is the brother of the current president of the UAE, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and is married to Sheikha Manal bint Mohammed Al Maktoum, daughter of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai.

Previous leaks of internal documents show that the Abu Dhabi government manages the accounts belonging to ADUG. ADUG insists it is separate from the Abu Dhabi government. This will be key, but only for some of the charges.

So what will Man City’s punishment look like?

Breaching Premier League Profitability and Sustainability regulations (2015-2018)

Manchester City have been found guilty of 114 breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules. 7 of those cover a breach of the Premier League Profitability and Sustainability regulations between 2015-2018.

Whilst the 7 charges may be the one of the smallest, they are perhaps the easiest to judge and may be in the most impactful. They are also an aspect of the case that Man City’s irrefutable evidence can not defend.

In recent years, Everton got a 10-point deduction for a PSR breach. This was reduced to 6-points on appeal as they self-reported the breach. A second breach saw them get a 2 point deduction. Nottingham Forest have also received a four-point deduction for breaching Premier League profit and sustainability rules.

So that sets the baseline for a breach at 2-10 points, with mitigating circumstances including how much they breached the rules for, whether they self-reported, and whether they cooperated with the Premier League. We can strike those last two off as we know City did not report themselves, nor did they cooperate.

The 7 breaches cover 3 seasons. You do not get multiple point deductions for multiple breaches in a season. They are batched together when the authorities consider the severity of the breach. So for the 3 seasons of PSR breaches, I would expect a point deduction of 18 to 30 points minimum (IE along the lines of Everton’s biggest punishment, and what it was reduced to on appeal).

History as shown that PSR breaches lead to point punishments and not financial punishments.

Failure to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation (2009-2018)

14 of the breaches are a failure to provide accurate player and manager payments. We already know at least one of these relate to Roberto Mancini’s “double contract”.

ADUG will continue to maintain that having two separate contracts with two separate organisations is perfectly fine. That Mancini, and others, were paid by ADUG for their employment by Man City, and then paid separately for consultancy work outside of Manchester City.

Over the years there have often been rumours similar to this.

When David Beckham, for example, joined Real Madrid, there were rumours that Adidas were “covering” part of his salary as they wanted their most marketable player to be playing for their most marketable team. No evidence of this ever existed and it was always just paper talk / internet rumours.

There is, however, evidence of Mancini’s contract. And I imagine evidence of other contracts have been found.

If Man City can not definitively prove that the contracts were completely separate, the additional payments will be added to those years for PSR / FFP reporting. If that creates an new breach in a new season not already accounted for, it will see the above punishment for PSR breaches extended beyond the initial 3 seasons.

Additional punishments will likely come in the form of huge fines.

Chelsea were recently fined £10m by the Football Association for breaching rules relating to payments to agents between 2009 and 2022 and handed a suspended two-window transfer ban.

Now it has to be remembered that Chelsea self-reported, the irregularities were with the previous owner, and they cooperated with the authorities. None of this applies to Man City.

But the precedent set here is that fines and (potentially) suspended transfer bans can be given out for failing declare payments.

So we will see those payments applied to previous seasons, point deductions if this leads to a FFP / PSR breach, fines and a likely transfer ban.

Failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information (2009-2018)

Sponsors received financial grants from AD which enabled them to pay Man City over market value for deals. That is not for discussion. What is for discussion is the relationship between AD and ADUG. Are they basically two different limbs on the same body?

If yes, the charge stands. If Man City’s irrefutable evidence distances them enough, then the charges may fall.

As above, if the charges stand, the first ask will be to remove the increased revenue from Man City’s income sheet for those years. this will likely lead to further PSR / FFP breaches for those years. The result will be point deductions.

For those seasons where point deductions have not already bee applied, it will be no deductions. For those where they have already been applied, the point deduction may increase if the PSR breach significantly increases.

As with the player and manager compensation, the authorities will also likely look to hand over a big fine and further transfer window ban (potentially suspended) to punish this act.

Whilst it might be 54 charges, this will not equate to 54 x 6 or 10 for PSR breaches. The points deduction will be per season of the breach, not the total breaches within a season. The extent of the breach per season is what will determine how many points per season.

Failure to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including Financial Fair Play Regulations

Probably the least important charge as it relates to UEFA and not Premier League.

Unlikely that the Premier League will be able to do anything here beyond passing the information across to UEFA for them to investigate.

Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations (2018-2023)

Finally, perhaps the most charges with the biggest unknown quantity.

In previous charges to clubs, they have been rewarded for cooperating with the authorities. This has led to reductions in point deductions and transfer window bands being suspended. Man City have not cooperated throughout, nor have they shown any remourse.

Even if the irrefutable evidence defends some of the charges, it does not bat away this charge. This charge is all about Man City failing work with the Premier League, witnesses not appearing to give evidence, supposed evidence not being submitted, and Man City doing everything they could do block the Premier League’s investigation.

The result will be there are no mitigating circumstances. Punishments will not be reduced on appeal. Bans will not be suspended. But there is a 2nd unknown quantity to this. What happens to those individuals who failed to cooperate or lied?

Football banning orders could be handed out to those Man City executives and employees who failed to cooperate with the investigation, who actively blocked it, and who lied. This could be anywhere between a year or two, all the way through to a life ban from all football activities. We saw this in Italy with Juventus recently.

So we could be in a situation where the owners of Man City, the chairman of the club, CEO, and other executives could be facing some sort of ban for the irregularities and their failure to cooperate. This could be huge.

So far, I have not spoken about “expulsion from the Premier League”. I do not think there is a precedent for this for PSR breaches or financial irregularities. This causes a headache as it is not relegation, and therefore the Championship have no automatic obligation to take an expelled team. That is why the most likely punishment will be points leading to relegation, rather than expulsion.

Expulsion, however, is on the table if Man City do not disassociate themselves with any banned executives.

It will be clear, you either terminate the contracts of the banned execs, or you will have your will be suspended from playing football in England until you do so. And that will automatically create the expulsion. This is further complicated if it is the owners, ADUG, who are found to have lied and failed to cooperated.

If ADUG are found culpable, we may see the Premier League attempt to remove them as owners of the club. that is the only way an expulsion of owners can work. And it will be similar to what we saw with Roman Abramovich.

City owners will have a period to sell the club, likely to be by the end of the season. If they do not do so, the club will be suspended. This nuclear option will only be if ADUG are found guilty. The likelihood will be that they will find some senior executives within Man City to pin the blame on (huge pay outs to them), they will be suspended, removed from their positions, and ADUG will then employ new execs.

HMRC punishment

It is unlikely there will be any punishment handed out by HMRC to Man City. As far as I can see, all income was declared. This is where this case differentiates to Juventus’, where it was a criminal case led by the legal authorities (In English terms, submitting false accounts to Companies House).

HMRC may look to go after those who received payments.

If the those payments were for football activities in England, those who received them would have had a duty to declare them. They will likely not have declared them. That will be on those individuals.

Club by club legal action

Everton v Burnley has set a precedent that allows clubs to sue another club for loss of earnings.

The the Burnley case, the Clarets showed that they would likely have stayed up had Everton not breached PSR. The result was a pay out, plus interest, on the money they missed out on by being relegated. This is where the floodgates could open.

Lets firstly look at the 3 seasons where we know there are PSR breaches: 2015/16, 2026/17 and 2017/18. Now lets be cautious and apply just a 6 point deduction to each of those seasons. That deduction will mean that anyone who would have finished above City had the deduction been applied in that season has a case.

Now in some cases, the compensation may be minimal – just the difference in Premier League merit money. But if the deduction would led to a team qualifying for Champions League football ahead of them, the compensation could be huge.

2015/16: Man City finished 4th, level on points with Manchester United, 3 points ahead of Southampton (WTF?), 4 ahead of West Ham and 6 ahead of Liverpool. Manchester United could have a claim for missing Champions League football, whilst Southampton and West Ham could claim for merit payments. If the deduction is more than 6 points, Liverpool would have a claim for missing Europa League football.

2016/17: Man City finished 3rd, 2 points ahead of Liverpool in 4th and 3 points ahead of Arsenal in 5th. Man U in 6th were 9 points behind. Arsenal would therefore have a claim that Man City’s cheating lead them to failing to qualify for the Champions League, whilst Liverpool would have a merit payment argument.

2027/18: Man City won the league by 19 points. Unless the point deduction applied for this season is huge, not much will happen.

My estimate is that for these 3 seasons along, Man City would be looking at over £100m in compensation. Maybe closer to £150m. And the impact could be far greater if the financial charges lead to PSR breaches beyond those 3 seasons.

So Man City’s punishment?

Well done for getting this far. I appreciate it is a long read.

Off the bat, I expect:

  • 18-30 point deduction for PSR breaches
  • Huge fines for financial irregularities
  • Further point deduction if financial irregularities lead to new or more severe PSR breaches
  • Banning of those officials involved in the cover-up
  • Transfer ban, none suspended
  • £100-150m compensation paid to clubs (legal cases pending)

My final thought on this is the Premier League are still investigating 2018 onwards, and Man City once again are not cooperating. This may lead to larger fines, transfer bans and suspensions, suspended on cooperation in these cases. If Man City fail to cooperate, then these will kick in.

The Premier League may also hit Man City with a expulsion order, suspended for 4 years based which will only trigger if they fail to cooperate during that period. This could be the biggest charge of all as that will force Man City to cooperate with the 2018-2025 investigations of be expelled.

And if they cooperate and similar offences are found, further breaches, compensation, etc will be applied for those 7 years, and further or longer bans handed out.

For now, we await the appeal. And that appeal is due to be heard for a period of around 12-weeks. Then we will hear the punishment, which in itself will be appealed. But with no mitigating circumstances, no remorse, and Man City continually trying to block the investigation, any appeal will likely fall on deaf ears.

Plenty more still to come on this one.

Keenos

Arsenal away ticket hypocrisy

2 Replies

Oh the hypocrisy of it all.

Arsenal have made huge changes to away ticketing in recent years following some very noisy campaigning from a very small minority of fans.

First they got rid of the away scheme, then they introduced random pickups, and this summer they went after supportersclubs. Finally, they made it easier for r and silver members to get away tickets, allowing them to buy at the same point as golds if they had the relevant credits (IE if you have 10+ credits, you can buy tickets at the 10+ window regardless of your membership).

All of this was done to supposedly stop away tickets being a “closed shop” and make it easier for those lower down the chain to get access for away tickets.

The upcoming Bayern Munich Champions League game has not sold well. A mixture of us being to Munich more times in recent years than some fans have had sex, and the cost of flights, hotels, and more.

On Tuesday, the club announced the new sale windows for the match:

• Window 3: Platinum, Gold, Travel Club, Siver and Red Members with 10+ credits

• Window 4: Platinum, Gold, Travel Club, Siver and Red Members with 5+ credits

• Window 5: Platinum, Gold, Travel Club, Siver and Red Members with 0+ credits

And almost like clockwork, the complaints came in.

They cried that why should someone with 1-4 credits be treated the same as someone with 0 credits. That the club should introduce a 1+ credit window. And this just shows that this was never about opening a closed shop, it was about these fans getting in the shop and ensuring the door closed behind them.

A big complaint was how fans who have followed The Arsenal through the tough times had more priority for away games than someone who has recently bought a club Level season ticket and suddenly wants to go Spurs away. These fans did not want priority buying. They wanted equal opportunity.

But now they have 2 or 3 credits, they want priority over those fans who have 0 credits. Who were unable to go to Napoli (due to the short notice) or Ipswich.

So they think the system is unfair when they are unable to go to games, and now they think the system is unfair as the door is open for others to “compete” for tickets against them.

Due to the influence some of these fans have (through the fans forum and being loud on social media), the club have buckled. They have changed Window 5 to exclude Silver and Red Members on 0 credits.

It all shows the campaigning by a few fans is bollocks.

They are happy to exclude members who do not have as many credits as them, but want to put limitations on those members who have more credits than them. All they want is “fair system that suits them”, and that they are happy restricting other fans from obtain tickets, as long as it is to their advantage.

The club has made huge errors in the way they have gone after away fans in recent years, and the result is away ends are now poor, with groups of mates now broken up, and the atmosphere has suffered as a result. But hey, as long as Tarquin or Shazeed in Club Level can now get a ticket who cares about anyone else?

Keenos

Two for Man City and two against Arsenal?

5 Replies

After all the noise last season and this surrounding Premier League decision making, the Key Match Incident (KMI) Panel confirm what we all knew – that Arsenal get unfavourable decisions and Man City get a lot of mistakes in their favour.

Sunderland penalty for as wrong

The most recent development concerns Arsenal’s 2-0 victory at Sunderland.

During that match, Sunderland were awarded a penalty after Dan Ballard and Arsenal defender Ezri Konsa came together inside the area. Mikel Arteta was furious with the decision at the time, while David Raya subsequently saved the spot-kick.

The KMI Panel subsequently backed Arsenal’s underlying complaint.

The panel unanimously judged that the on-field decision to award Sunderland a penalty was incorrect. It concluded that Ballard pulled Konsa onto him, despite Konsa initiating the contact.

There is an important wrinkle, however.

The panel did not believe VAR should have intervened. By a 3-2 majority, it concluded that the referee’s mistake did not reach the Premier League’s high threshold for a clear and obvious error.

So Arsenal were, according to the review, on the wrong end of an incorrect decision — but the VAR process itself was deemed correct.

That distinction is exactly why the KMI system exists.

Villa Park was another one

Sunderland wasn’t the first time Arsenal had found themselves on the wrong side of an official review.

In their victory at Aston Villa, Arsenal were denied a late penalty after Ian Maatsen’s challenge on Bruno Guimarães. The KMI Panel subsequently ruled that a penalty should have been awarded and that VAR should have intervened.

The panel considered the challenge reckless, noting that Maatsen made contact with Guimarães’ standing leg without touching the ball. It also concluded that a second yellow card should have followed.

So there are two clear examples of Arsenal decisions being judged incorrectly by the panel.

Neither ultimately changed the result of the relevant Arsenal match, but that doesn’t make the decisions irrelevant.

And then there is Manchester City

Manchester City’s situation is slightly different, but considerably more high-profile.

In the Manchester derby, Erling Haaland’s winning goal against Manchester United was initially ruled out for offside before VAR overturned the decision.

The problem? City’s Enzo Fernández was in an offside position and attempted to play the ball, with the KMI Panel unanimously concluding that his position affected the defenders and goalkeeper.

The panel therefore judged that the VAR intervention which resulted in the goal being awarded was incorrect.

That goal stood, of course, and City won the derby 1-0.

Man City benefit whilst Arsenal punished

This is where the numbers need a little care.

It is fair to say that Arsenal have had two confirmed incorrect decisions go against them: the Sunderland penalty and the missed Villa Park penalty.

It is also fair to say that Manchester City have benefited from a major incorrect VAR outcome, namely Haaland’s disallowed-then-awarded goal against Manchester United.

But the Premier League’s official KMI findings do not currently establish two separate incorrect refereeing decisions going in City’s favour.

Indeed, another recent City incident – Josko Gvardiol’s disallowed goal against Sunderland being overturned for offside – was assessed as a correct VAR intervention.

That doesn’t invalidate the frustration Arsenal supporters may feel. It simply means the argument is strongest when it sticks to the decisions that have actually been independently reviewed.

And perhaps that’s the most interesting part of this whole debate.

The KMI system is providing supporters with something that football arguments rarely have: an official post-match assessment of whether the referee got it right.

For Arsenal, the current record makes uncomfortable reading. For City, the Haaland incident remains a major officiating error that directly affected a match result.

What happens next will be worth watching — because with the season only a few weeks old, the refereeing conversation is clearly not going away anytime soon.

DJ