⚖️ 𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹 Yesterday, Matt Lawton of the Times and Mike Keegan of the Daily Mail reported how Man City intends to appeal the decision of the Independent Commission, which must have been briefed by top execs at City. The components of the appeal as reported: 1., That the Commission did not properly weigh the evidence regarding Man City’s “CPC explanation” for the payments to sponsors, including witness testimony and documentary evidence 2., That the Commission’s finding of fact that Man City and its sponsors are Related Parties is perverse 3., That the decision took too long to arrive at, making it unsafe 4., That the Commission made other perverse findings of fact that call its decision into question, such as Sheikh Mansour not being aware of the Disguised Equity Scheme 5., That this process should not be subject to the fast-track appeal process added in the 26/27 PL Handbook Interestingly, there is no mention of challenging the legal basis of the rules. That could be because Lord Pannick already attempted this on Man City’s behalf in Section X arbitration in 2024. Whilst trying to undermine APT rules, he put forward six arguments that could also undermine the concept of FMV, thereby gutting the RPT / PSR rules that Man City have been found to have broken. The Panel was formed of 3 heavy weights who denied all 6 arguments. And in response, they even stated that preventing avoidance of PSR and ensuring its effectiveness was "a legitimate objective" and expressly described PSR as rules "which are not anti-competitive in nature.” A massive own-goal for Pannick because this sets a powerful precedent to any further challenge of the rules in law. In the thread below, I outline the other issues Man City will likely face with their appeal, component by component (referencing and linking prior analysis)… 🧵