Manchester City have suffered a fresh blow in their efforts to appeal against their conviction on 114 of the 115 charges brought against them by the Premier League. Reports now suggest that evidence the club previously submitted to European football's governing body UEFA may conflict with one of the central pillars of their defence.
City were found guilty last week of committing 114 breaches relating to the period between 2009 and 2018, in the case in which the Premier League accused the club of using "sham" sponsorship deals to inflate its revenues by around £900 million.
The guilty verdict has not shaken the club's stance. City maintain their innocence, deny committing any breaches and insist they possess "conclusive evidence" that will prove the validity of their position.
An independent three-person panel will now consider the appeal, with a decision due before the end of the year.
At the heart of City's defence lies a simple assertion: the disputed sponsorship deals were legitimate, and the money came from the UAE government rather than from the club's owners through Abu Dhabi United Group for Investment, or "ADUG".
Premier League regulations permit state-owned entities to sponsor clubs. That rule could support City's case and prove, by their argument, that Abu Dhabi United Group was not behind illegitimate sponsorship deals.
This defence has taken a hit, though. Earlier reports revealed that Etihad Airways, City's main sponsor, told the US Department of Commerce, Transportation and State in 2015 that reports claiming the UAE government bore the cost of the sponsorship deals were "false", during an investigation into state-owned airlines.
Evidence City submitted to UEFA
According to the newspaper "The Times", the evidence City submitted to UEFA more than six years ago may further complicate the club's position in its appeal against the "sham" sponsorship deal charges.
The newspaper reported that City told UEFA two payments of £15 million each, transferred in 2012 and 2013, were paid by Jaber Mohamed, the general manager of the court of the UAE's crown prince.
Crucially, City did not inform UEFA of the evidence linking Jaber Mohamed to the crown prince's court. The club merely stated that "the payment was made on the instruction of Abu Dhabi United Group for Investment".
Those two payments were supposed to be settled, according to the reports, by "Etisalat", one of City's sponsors, in which the UAE holds a majority stake.
All of this cuts to the core of City's defence, which rests on the claim that the UAE government funded the sponsorship deals in question. It raises questions about the club's failure to tell UEFA that very account in the evidence it submitted years ago.
Etihad testimony sparks another crisis
These developments are not the first blow to City's defence. Evidence linked to Etihad Airways surfaced earlier.
Back in 2015, the company, owned by the UAE government, submitted statements to the US Department of Commerce, Transportation and State during an investigation into state-owned airlines. In them, it denied the validity of claims that the government was funding the sponsorship deals.
Etihad said in a statement at the time that its government ownership had existed since its establishment, and that it had never received financial support from the Abu Dhabi government. Its funding, the company explained, came from a mix of capital and loans provided by shareholders and commercial loans.
Shareholder capital and loans, it added, are not considered financial support under any applicable definition. They instead represent means by which the Abu Dhabi government invests in a successful commercial model.