Premier League v Manchester City FC - Compensation claims and the wider fallout (Part 2)
This[1] article is Part 2 of an article series discussing the recently published Premier League Independent Disciplinary Commission’s redacted core decision[2] (Core Decision) in the case against Manchester City FC (City) in relation to breaches of the Premier League’s (PL) financial regulations for a time period from the 2009/10 season till 2017/18 season.
Part 1 (see here) considered the Commission’s decision, finding City in breach on almost all of the charges brought against it, along with City’s prospects of overturning the findings on appeal, in arbitration or before the courts, and the sanctions that may follow.¹
This Part 2 turns to the wider consequences of those findings:² the further legal and regulatory exposure they may carry, and the compensation claims that rival clubs, and potentially City’s own commercial partners, may bring.
It looks at:
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Finance | Football | Premier League | Premier League Handbook
Related Articles
- Sponsorship: Financial Fair Play and Competition Rules
- Manchester City’s £97m loss and Financial Fair Play compliance
- Bonus structures in English professional football
- Does the loan of Frank Lampard to Man City raise Financial Fair Play concerns?
- An update on Manchester City’s compliance with Financial Fair Play
- Manchester City's Financial Fair Play ban: the legal questions and consequences
- The duty to cooperate - questions arising from the Man City v UEFA decision
- A full review of Man City v UEFA CAS Award – why this is not the end of FFP
- An Authority On Transparency In Sports Arbitration - MCFC v The Premier League
- Premier League V Manchester City case – What do ‘good faith’ obligations really mean?
- Manchester City's legal action & the Premier League’s regulations on Associated Party Transactions
- The battle continues - Implications of the latest decision in Manchester City's challenge to the Premier League's APT rules
- How blind trusts are helping address integrity concerns in multi-club ownership structures (Man City & Man Utd cases)
- Key lessons for sports agents, directors & trustees following UK Supreme Court ruling on ‘profits rule’
- Premier League v Manchester City FC: MCFC’s appeal routes and the sanctions to come (Part 1)
Written by
Michael Ashcroft KC
Michael is a senior silk at Twenty Essex Chambers with a broad commercial practice, specialising in high value and complex (often highly technical) commercial contractual disputes. He relishes cases that involve mastery of complicated expert evidence.
Michael’s recent work has focused heavily on energy and natural resources disputes, covering construction, exploitation, sale, insurance, joint venture and shareholder disputes. He recently led a large team in a multi-billion dollar dispute relating to Zambian copper mines. He regularly acts in construction disputes relating to offshore vessels and structures, powerplants and other on-shore complexes. He has excellent experience of very high-value oil and gas supply disputes, including gas pricing arbitrations. He remains a ‘go to name’ for the biggest and most difficult shipping and commodities disputes. He has been instructed regularly in insurance disputes, which he particularly enjoys, including marine, war risks, contractor’s all risks, liability and defence costs disputes.
Michael appears regularly in the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court. He also has a wide range of experience of cases before, and on appeal from, arbitration tribunals in various jurisdictions (including Singapore, mainland China, Dubai, France, Hong Kong, Sweden, Malaysia, Paris and New York) and he has been admitted to the Bar of St Kitts and Nevis (on an ad hoc basis).
