⚖️ 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆’𝘀 𝗛𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦… 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘔𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘪𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵. We know that at the 2024 Independent Commission for their “115 charges”, Man City presented their “irrefutable evidence” in support of their defence known as the “CPC Explanation”. In short, Man City acknowledged the leaked emails stated they were transferring funds from the corporate owner, ADUG, to sponsors but that all the authors of those emails were just “confused” and made “false assumptions” for 8 years. Man City’s defence was that the money flows being described in the emails and documents actually related to money flows from the central government of the UAE (a.k.a. the Crown Prince Court, a.k.a. CPC). The Commission decided this defence and “irrefutable evidence” in support of it was all fake - a “concoction” after the fact. This alone will backfire heavily. It creates serious aggravating factors for any sanction, which really should lead to a recommendation to permanently expel this ownership. But had it worked, they still had a challenge… Man City would have still breached all the same PL rules! You see, there’s no realistic possibility that Man City’s CPC Explanation could have succeeded AND at the same time, not led to Man City and its Abu Dhabi state-owned sponsors being determined Related Parties (something that the Commission found to be the case anyway). As Related Parties, the relationships needed to be reported (they weren’t) and Fair Market Value (FMV) be assessed for each RPT (they weren’t). RPT stands for Related Party Transaction. So, why do it? Why risk further sanctions and even criminal prosecutions for no real gain? Well, this was only part 1 of their defence strategy. The second part was happening concurrently in another, different proceeding between Man City and the PL. In 2021, the PL updated its rules regarding RPTs and changed them to Associated Party Transactions (APTs). This was because they had learned (from the evidence Man City was finally forced to hand over by the High Court in 2020) that autocratic nation states like the UAE could readily hide the true nature of Related Parties to by-pass the rules. Newcastle was about to be acquired by Saudi Arabia at this time too and the PL realised they had to act quickly before they risked the possibility of more nation-state cheating. The APT rules widened the definition and made it much harder for nation states to by-pass the rules and repeat Man City’s cheating. In early 2024, when Man City was preparing its defence for its “115 charges”, the PL clubs voted to tighten the APT rules even further, once again making it even harder to cheat them. In reality, they went too far on one modification that required the clubs (instead of the PL) to prove FMV whilst at the same time, not granting the clubs access to the database used to determine FMV. It was unfair and opened up the rules to challenge (whichever lawyer wrote the amendment was an idiot). The impact of the amendment was that it would make Man City’s excessive, non-commercial APTs (like their proposed Etihad deal) much harder to get approved. Man City launched a Section X challenge against the APT rules in early 2024 with a number of different aims…

⚖️ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗠𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆’𝘀 𝟭𝟭𝟱 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 “𝗴𝗼 𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀” The reality is we don’t know precisely where we are in the process. Although the PL was empowered to share the decision with the clubs, they aren’t permitted to share updates on the process. So it could be anywhere in the zone marked out on the attached chart. 𝙋𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 1 If a Final Award is not published by the end of November, then it is highly likely Man City has appealed the decision before punishments have been determined. If so, I would expect the outcome of this within 6 months (by end of March). New PL rules stipulate a default timeline of 4-5 months but this can be varied. However, by inserting a default, it requires an Appeal Board to justify any additional delay. That will help ensure speed of delivery. There would then be a Sanctions Hearing, followed by a Final Award (where we learn the punishments), likely by early May. There could then be an appeal on the punishments, which would likely be resolved before the end of June. 𝙋𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 2 We get a Final Award within a few weeks, which Man City (or the PL) then appeals. They would be appealing the decision and/or punishments. I would expect this appeal to be resolved before the end of the season for the same reason I outline above. All of this (the decision, sanctions hearing, appeals)… happens under “Section W Disciplinary Process” of the Premier League rules. 𝘼𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙮 An appeal is not a do-over. This is not like the Uefa -> CAS process. They don’t re-hear the case and all its evidence. Instead, the Appeal Board gives deference to the Commission’s interpretation of the facts. Only if they perversely interpreted the facts, ignored facts or assumed facts not in evidence would the Appeal Board make different findings of fact. An incredibly high bar that is very unlikely to happen. Instead, any avenues of appeal are far more likely to focus on any procedural errors that violated Man City’s rights in a prejudicial way or any incorrect interpretations of the rules / law. Again, it’s highly unlikely that Man City will find relief here. One of the most significant reasons is because they already lost their attempt to challenge the rules in law. In 2024, before the hearing on the #115 (actually 129/130) charges, Man City took the Premier League to Section X arbitration (more on that below) to challenge the “APT rules”. They did this for 2 reasons: 1., To invalidate the rules and enable them to sign a monstrously large commercial deal with Etihad. They were able to invalidate the rules but not before the PL Board changed them. This stopped Man City from being able to sign such a large contract. 2., To undermine the old rules that they were charged with breaching. Their legal counsel, Lord Pannick, threw the kitchen sink at the Fair Market Value (FMV) concept which underpins both the APT rules and older RPT rules. The panel dismissed these arguments but had Pannick won any of them, it would have set an unappealable precedent that would undermine the rules that Man City were charged with breaking. And it was a genius ploy too. Had Pannick made these arguments at the Commission and won them, they could have been appealed and over-turned. If he won them in Section X, they could not. But he lost and in doing so, lost Man City’s last chance of winning this battle. It was a deathblow to Man City’s case given how strong the facts against them were. And that’s why appealing an argument on the law will be so challenging. The Independent Judiciary’s most senior member, Lord Dyson, has already decided the most relevant aspects. He confirms the rules are lawful in his decision in 2024.