Manchester City face further FFP verdict delays as expert criticises wait

Manchester City are expected to face a further lengthy wait for a verdict regarding their alleged Financial Fair Play breaches, with a finance expert labelling the ongoing delay as unacceptable.

The Premier League champions were initially charged with 115 alleged rule breaches in February 2023.

This figure was subsequently adjusted to 130 following an extensive investigation into the club’s financial practices.

Unprecedented legal complexities

The extensive allegations against the Etihad outfit span a nine-year period from the 2009-10 campaign.

The primary charges relate to several key financial and regulatory areas:

• Alleged failure to provide accurate financial information, including player and managerial payments.
• Alleged failure to comply with UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules between 2013 and 2018.
• Alleged breaches of the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).

The Manchester club also face multiple counts of allegedly failing to cooperate with investigators over a five-year period.

Frustration over arbitration timeline

Initial rumours suggested a judgement would be delivered by May, but those expectations have failed to materialise.

Speaking to talkSPORT, football finance expert Stefan Borson expressed his disbelief at the protracted legal timeline.

The case has been ongoing for many years. It’s not acceptable, but there’s no decision in the case.

That’s clearly completely ludicrous that we are now 20 months on from the end of the hearing and we don’t have a decision.

Borson noted that while sporting arbitration can sometimes stretch to 24 months, the current delay remains highly unusual.

Potential grounds for appeal

The ongoing uncertainty continues to cast a significant shadow over the English top flight.

Borson warned that the immense delay could ultimately provide grounds for the losing party to challenge the final ruling.

It does put the judgement when it comes in a territory where if it goes against one of the parties, they may well say, ‘look, this is just unsafe now.’

He added that appellants might argue the independent panel is no longer close enough to the original evidence to reach a fair and safe conclusion.