Manchester City's appeal against its guilty verdict is very unlikely to succeed, according to a former adviser to the club, in a damning assessment of their current situation.
The Premier League officially announced the groundbreaking news in a statement released on Tuesday evening, after it was initially reported over the weekend. Among other revelations, it was disclosed that City arranged "sham" contracts with commercial partners as part of a scheme to disguise over £830million in secret funding.
Club insists on 'irrefutable evidence'
The club continue to deny any wrongdoing, insisting they have a body of "irrefutable evidence" that will see their guilty verdict overturned on appeal. However, if that verdict is upheld, City could face a range of potential punishments, including a fine, a points deduction, expulsion from the Premier League, or even having their domestic titles voided.
Stefan Borson, who worked as a financial adviser to City between 2002 and 2007, has claimed that the appeal is very unlikely to succeed. Taking to X (formerly Twitter), he said: "Absolutely scathing announcement from the Premier League. Shams, misleading auditors, conspiracy. All difficult to prove. Now proved, it is very difficult to unwind on appeal."
Potential re-trial over delay
Borson, however, suggested in May that a re-trial could potentially be ordered because of the time it took for the independent commission to reach a verdict. The charges were initially announced by the Premier League in early 2023, and the hearing itself did not begin until late summer in 2024.
In a self-published article, Borson cited a legal precedent set by Sir Geoffrey Vos, the former High Court chancellor, stating that judgments should be delivered within three months of the hearing's conclusion. In City's case, there was a delay of around 20 months between the conclusion of the hearing and the official verdict announcement.
Legal precedent and next steps
A landmark English Court of Appeal decision in 1998 established that excessive delay in delivering a judgment can undermine the safety of factual findings and lead to a re-trial. In that instance, Rex Goose, a Lincolnshire farmer, sued Wilson Sandford and Co, a firm of chartered accountants, for negligence, breach of contract, deceit and breach of fiduciary duty.
Goose's claims were dismissed in the original trial, but the judge took approximately 20 months to deliver his reserved judgment. As a result, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial. A similar outcome in the City case could essentially bring it back to square one. However, it should be noted that the ongoing appeal process is not a retrial; it is a review of the decision of the initial commission hearing.
In their statement on Tuesday, the Premier League expressed a desire for "the full process (including any appeals and publication of relevant decisions) [to be] concluded as soon as possible".
