Man City FFP: One name likely to be ‘decisive’ as two ‘key questions’ emerge; astonishing punishment claim

There are two main questions which could have a major bearing on the outcome of the hearing into the 115 charges Man City are facing, according to reports.

An independent commission hearing to examine 115 charges laid by the Premier League against the Citizens is set to begin on Monday.

The Premier League opened an investigation into Man City way back in 2018 and after a number of legal delays, charges were finally laid in February 2023 and the club were referred to an independent commission.

The charges against the Citizens relate to the requirement to accurately report financial information, including around the value of sponsorship deals, the submission of details of manager and player pay information and to a club’s responsibility as a Premier League member to adhere to UEFA’s financial regulations and to the league’s own profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).

They are also accused of failing to co-operate with the league’s investigation. In all, there are charges relating to every season between 2009-10 and 2022-23.

Man City issued a statement strenuously denying the allegations on the day the charges were brought, saying they they welcomed the opportunity for an independent commission “to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of our position”.

The club added: “As such, we look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all.”

MORE MAN CITY FFP COVERAGE ON F365…
👉 Man City FFP: PL rivals ‘propose alternative penalty’ to ‘insufficient expulsion’ given ‘scale of cheating’
👉 Ten possible punishments for Manchester City and Pep Guardiola after Premier League ‘expulsion’ claims
👉 Five options for Manchester City fans after Premier League expulsion

Man City, who have won the Premier League fourth times in a row, face a huge points deduction or even expulsion from the league if found guilty of the serial cheating they are accused of.

A guilty verdict for Man City could also prompt a slew of compensation claims from other Premier League clubs and even potentially affect diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates, where City owner Sheikh Mansour is a deputy prime minister.

And now chief football writer for The Independent Miguel Delaney insists that the name ‘Jaber Mohamed’ is likely to ‘be decisive in the Manchester City hearing, while there are two ‘key questions’ that could determine the outcome of the case.

Delaney wrote:

‘There is nevertheless one detail that more informed executives are repeatedly raising around the case, that could prove absolutely integral to its outcome. That is the name “Jaber Mohamed”, which first came to light in last year’s YouTube documentary ‘Britain’s Biggest Football Scandal?’

‘In the initial Uefa disciplinary hearing from an investigation into the Football Leaks emails, City’s own lawyer stated that “Jaber Mohamed” was “a person in the business of providing financial and brokering services to commercial entities” in the United Arab Emirates.

‘On the club’s own admission, Abu Dhabi United Group [ADUG] – the name of the company that Sheikh Mansour had used to buy the club – “caused” for £30m to be paid by Mohamed on behalf of main sponsor Etisalat over 2012 and 2013. The telecom company didn’t actually pay for anything until 2015.’

Adding that there are a number of questions which need answering before a verdict can be given, Delaney picked out two in particular that are likely to decide the outcome of the hearing.

Delaney continued:

‘One, as Uefa’s own report stated, is “why either Etisalat or ADUG should have needed any financial assistance from a broker in paying the Etisalat sponsorship liabilities”.

‘It could be argued that this question is all the more pronounced since both Etisalat and ADUG feasibly have access to the same UAE state reserves of trillions of pounds through UAE’s state links. This, as Uefa’s report stated, was “not answered at any point in the club’s submission and evidence”.

‘Another question is how a club would allow a company to reap the benefits of a high-profile sponsorship despite not paying them for three years. Why would anyone other than Etisalat be paying most of their obligations?

‘City argued that the telecoms company repaid the money to their owners in 2015, but this was rejected by Uefa’s Adjudicatory Chamber, who concluded this was “disguised equity funding”.’

That comes after football finance expert Kieran Maguire insists that Man City could face a points deduction of as much as 100 points.

Maguire told talkSPORT : “It can’t really be a financial punishment because that would make everybody think the whole thing was a waste of time.

“So if you look at the hearing for both Everton and Nottingham Forest, the commissions of both said ‘this was a minor breach of the rules’ now if the allegations against Manchester City are proven that surely has to be a major breach of the rules, effectively that the club misrepresented the money coming into the club.

“The club also has been accused of disguising payments to players and managers, effectively being paid by third parties offshore, being paid by Abu Dhabi for services provided by members of staff and that is also completely against the rules also one would think, although it could be that it’s within the Premier League rules.

“So we would have to be looking at a very significant points deduction. If all 115 charges are proven, then you’d have to imagine that the points deduction would be somewhere in the region of 60 to 100 points on the basis that they would want the club to have suffered enough to be heading out of the division.”