sport news Man City: Where along the line will they take a long, hard look at themselves, ... trends now

The club provided a mere 79-word response to the Premier League’s announcement that it was charging them with 100 breaches of its rules. Yet they actually had the temerity to claim they had provided ‘extensive engagement’ and a ‘vast amount of detailed materials’ to those investigating their conduct.

That was laughable. So impossible has it been to extract the necessary documents, that the Premier League was forced to go to court last year and launch an arbitration process to get them. City employed barristers to challenge that process, arguing that the arbitrators would be biased against them. A judge ruled against them. City employed barristers to challenge this publisher’s right to report that judge’s conclusions and to be in court when a decision of publication was being made - even though we had undertaken not to publish anything from it. The judge ruled against them.

It was Lord Justice Males, in that case brought by Associated Newspapers, who saw through City’s obfuscation and backsliding, in a case which was then heading towards its third year. ‘It is surprising, and a matter of legitimate public concern, that so little progress has been made after two and a half years — during which, it may be noted, the club has twice been crowned as Premier League champions,’ the judge said.

When a humiliating cache of emails published by Football Leaks in 2020 led UEFA, for the second time in six years, to charge City with deliberately inflating sponsorship deals, the club said the evidence was ‘incomplete’ and invalid.

It certainly seemed quite exhaustive. The emails seemingly included City’s chief executive Ferran Soriano’s missive, suggesting that the club raise cash to avoid an FFP breach in 2013 by getting sponsors to pay bonuses for winning the FA Cup - even though City had lost to Wigan.

That was the match which saw Mancini sacked, requiring a £9.9million pay-off, which would blow another hole in attempts to pass FFP. In another leaked email, non-executive director Simon Pearce apparently suggested ‘an additional amount of AD (Abu Dhabi) sponsorship revenues that covers this gap.’

City lawyer Simon Cliff insisted that the whole commercial deals operation be called ‘Project Longbow’ in tribute ‘to the weapon the English used to beat the French at Crecy and Agincourt’. That’s how City felt about UEFA and their rules.

And there was the obscure-sounding company called ‘Fordham’ to which the club sold their image rights income stream to earn themselves a £24.5m lump sum needed to pass the same financial sustainability rules. Despite selling that revenue stream off, it transpired the club were actually earning from it.

The Fordham story will perhaps seem arcane and dry but it was fundamental to City’s attempts to comply with the rules set out for any teams wishing to compete in the Champions League. When I wrote it, in 2016, the full force of City’s wrath was unleashed. A demand from a specialist internet law firm that it be removed, that an apology for it be published and that I tweet out that apology.

It would have been an unprecedented level of ‘contrition’. But our detailed 1,500-word defence of the story was sent by return. We heard no more from City or their lawyers on the matter. Two years later, the Football Leaks cache showed that we actually had only half of the story. City’s owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group, were actually bankrolling Fordham, according to the leaks, as a way of paying part of the players’ wages. It looked like not only were City boosting their income against the rules but reducing their headline wage bill as they did so.

The leaked emails saw City charged by UEFA two years ago and left facing a two-year Champions League ban. They successfully appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which found that the alleged offences took place far long in the past to be investigated, under its Statute of Limitation. City were still fined the best part of £9m for what CAS called its ‘obstruction of the investigations’.