Manchester City will almost certainly be relegated as a result of the Premier League's investigation into their financial breaches, according to financial adviser Stefan Borson. City were found guilty of all charges related to serious breaches of the Premier League's financial rules over a nine-season period by an independent commission, as well as charges in relation to its failure to co-operate with the investigation.
Appeal and Potential Punishment
City have appealed the independent commission's decision, with the club's hierarchy adamant they are innocent and remain committed to clearing their name. But it could prove too little too late, with Borson insisting a relegation is the most likely outcome.
During an interview with Football Insider, Borson, who is a former adviser to City themselves, was quizzed on a potential punishment. And while he claimed it was unlikely City were expelled from the Premier League and forced to start again in League Two, he did say a points deduction leading to relegation was on the cards.
Borson's Comments on Sanctions
He remarked: "Well, it's obviously pretty unlikely, but there's a storm at the moment and I think it's very hard to pick through what those sanctions might be. We're just not at that point yet. They're obviously going to be severe. We've spoken about it many times. From the very first day, I explained to people that the punishment would be severe and that City would be relegated.
"I think people now maybe understand that and maybe didn't understand it when I said it. But it's just inevitable that one way or the other, there's going to be a relegation of some sort. The question is the mechanism and what other bits and pieces they try and throw at the club. But obviously that depends on the appeal. But as we sit here right now, they couldn't have expected a worse outcome from this hearing."
Reaction to City's Defence
Fresh reports suggest there isn't an appetite from Premier League clubs to expel City from the top flight of English football. However, Borson has admitted confusion regarding City's executives doubling down on the 'irrefutable' part of their defence.
He also told the outlet: "They say they've got 'irrefutable evidence'. Clearly, it's not irrefutable, because it's been refuted. So I'm not I'm not totally sure why they keep using that phrase. I didn't really like it in the first place. And now I think it's just inappropriate. Nothing is ever irrefutable anyway.
"Anybody that's been in high-level commercial litigation knows that the way these things work is that every point is argued. Even some of the seemingly most obvious points of common ground are very often not common ground. So I think they made a bit of a bit of a mistake in calling it irrefutable evidence. They could have said that they believe they have 'strong evidence'."
