The club confirmed on Thursday evening that it had formally lodged its appeal, strongly rejecting the commission’s conclusions and insisting that the judgment contained serious errors.
In a statement, City described the ruling as containing “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe”.
The club also maintained that it had presented substantial evidence in its defence, saying: “a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence [that] exists in support of all of its positions”.
The appeal comes after an independent commission concluded that City had breached Premier League financial regulations during the period covering the 2009-10 to 2017-18 seasons.
The verdict, confirmed on Tuesday, represents a significant development in one of English football’s most closely watched financial cases.
The Premier League has accused City of systematically breaching its rules over a period of almost a decade. The independent commission found that the club had “utilised devices” to “disguise the true extent of certain club liabilities”.
Among the findings was an allegation that City had arranged “sham contracts” with commercial partners as part of what the commission described as a scheme to conceal more than £830m in secret funding.
City reject the findings and are expected to challenge several of the commission’s conclusions during the appeal process.
FA raises concerns over integrity of the game
The Football Association has also entered the debate, warning that the commission’s findings could have wider implications for English football.
In a statement issued on Friday, the governing body said the verdict had “significant implications for the integrity of the game”.
The FA added: “We are carefully considering the decision and its implications and will take action where appropriate.”
However, the governing body stressed that it would not comment further while proceedings between the Premier League and Manchester City remain ongoing.
“As proceedings between the Premier League and Manchester City Football Club remain ongoing, we do not intend to comment further at this stage,” the FA said.
“We will, however, continue to monitor developments closely.”
The FA possesses powers that could allow it to conduct its own investigation into aspects of the case, potentially creating the possibility of additional disciplinary action.
Sponsorship deals at centre of appeal
A central part of City’s appeal is expected to concern the financing of several sponsorship agreements.
Sources told BBC Sport that the club is expected to argue that key sponsorship payments were funded by the Abu Dhabi government rather than by Manchester City’s owners.
The club’s owners, Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), are a private investment company associated with Sheikh Mansour, the vice-president and deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.
The commission alleged that commercial arrangements were used as part of a “disguised funding scheme” worth approximately £830.69m.
According to the findings, the arrangements enabled City to appear compliant with Premier League and UEFA financial regulations.
Premier League rules do permit state-owned entities to sponsor football clubs, meaning the precise nature and source of the funds are central to the dispute.
City are expected to argue that the sponsorship arrangements were legitimate and that the commission reached incorrect conclusions about how the agreements were funded.
Etihad rejects allegations
Etihad Airways, Manchester City’s principal shirt sponsor, has also rejected any suggestion that it was involved in improper commercial arrangements.
The UAE-owned national airline has said it is considering legal action against the Premier League over the publication of the commission’s findings.
Etihad said the release of the material had “damaging implications… despite the airline not being named in the redacted published findings”.
The airline also “categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests the airline has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements”.
Etihad is owned by L'Imad, a sovereign wealth fund chaired by the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, who is also the son of the UAE president.
HMRC scrutiny enters the picture
The fallout from the commission’s findings has also attracted attention from Westminster and the UK tax authorities.
The Treasury Committee, the parliamentary committee responsible for scrutinising the policies and administration of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), has questioned whether the department has requested access to documents that were redacted from the published version of the commission’s report.
Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the cross-party committee of MPs, said she would “welcome reassurance from HMRC that you are seized of the importance of these issues and the public interest in this case”.
The intervention follows a report by Tax Policy Associates which alleged that Manchester City may have failed to pay up to £12m in tax in connection with a contract involving former manager Roberto Mancini.
The report alleged that the arrangement was a “sham” contract and claimed that, when unpaid income tax and National Insurance were taken into account, the club could potentially face liabilities of up to £24m after penalties.
Those claims are separate from the Premier League disciplinary process and would fall within the remit of the relevant tax authorities.
Appeal process
City’s appeal will now be considered privately by a new three-person independent commission.
The panel will comprise individuals with comparable legal expertise to those who considered the original case.
Premier League regulations provide for an appeal hearing to conclude within 12 weeks of the hearing taking place, with the decision then communicated within 30 days.
If the appeal was lodged on Thursday, the 12-week period would take the process towards 24 December. However, the regulations allow the timetable to be extended where necessary, meaning the final duration of the appeal remains uncertain.
The 12-week provision was only introduced into the Premier League rulebook this summer.
Previous precedent suggests that any sanctions arising from the original verdict would generally be imposed only after the appeal process has concluded, although the rules do not guarantee that outcome.
A further appeal could also potentially arise if sanctions are imposed following the conclusion of the current proceedings.
For now, the focus will remain on City's challenge to the commission's findings and whether the appeal panel reaches a different conclusion on the evidence and interpretation of the Premier League's financial regulations.