Man City’s appeal over 114 charges to be heard by January, regulator says
Manchester City have contested the guilty verdict, and the appeal will be heard by mid-January or the end of January.
Key points
- Manchester City's appeal over 114 Premier League financial rule breaches may be heard by January.
- Regulator chair David Kogan said the independent commission process takes 12 weeks.
- City could face relegation or loss of titles; no sanction has been announced.
Manchester City's appeal after being found guilty of more than 100 breaches of Premier League financial rules is expected to be heard by January, according to the chair of English football's independent regulator.
David Kogan, chair of the Independent Football Regulator, told Times Radio on Wednesday that the case would go before an independent commission of three retired judges or lawyers, not the Premier League itself.
Timeline and process
Kogan said the prescribed process is 12 weeks, and people assume the hearing will take place by the middle or end of January. He added that the IFR cannot take any judgment until matters are clear.
City have repeatedly maintained they are innocent. They currently top the Premier League with six wins from six after Sunday's 3-0 defeat of Liverpool.
My understanding is that there is a prescribed process, which is 12 weeks, and so people are assuming this will actually be heard by the middle or the end of January
— David Kogan
Possible sanctions and politics
No sanction has been announced, but City could face a heavy points deduction leading to relegation, and there has been speculation they could be stripped of the three Premier League titles won between 2009 and 2018.
An independent commission found the club guilty of breaking financial rules between 2009 and 2018, including using 'sham' contracts to artificially inflate revenues and reduce reported costs by more than 900 million pounds ($1.2 billion).
Kogan said he would resign if there was political interference in any future IFR investigations of City. He said there had been no interference since the regulator was created a year ago, and that he would not run an organisation subject to such interference.
