Man City charges: Etihad Airways statement in full as Premier League concerns emerge after guilty verdict

Manchester City’s chief sponsor, Etihad Airways, is considering legal action against the Premier League following its damning publication of the independent commission’s core decision on 114 financial rule breaches.

Earlier this week, the Premier League confirmed that Man City have been found guilty of all charges in relation to serious breaches of the league’s financial rules and the majority of charges related to its failure to co-operate with the league's investigation.

The Citizens have been accused of using "sham" contracts to disguise in excess of £900m in secret funding and artificially inflate revenues between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons.

Owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, led by Sheikh Mansour, Man City have reiterated their innocence despite Premier League CEO, Richard Masters, saying that the findings show that the club "systematically broke Premier League rules for nearly a decade."

Man City have vowed to clear their name and intend to submit an appeal before the deadline on Friday, October 2.

While Man City claim that there is “irrefutable evidence” to prove their innocence, Etihad Airways have launched a scathing attack on the Premier League, saying they ‘categorically reject’ the findings.

Etihad Airways considering legal action against the Premier League

A statement in full read: "Etihad Airways has reviewed the Premier League commission's published opinion relating to the disciplinary proceedings involving Manchester City, together with the Premier League's public communication of its findings.

"Etihad categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests the airline has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements.

"The Premier League's public communication of the commission's findings, following a period of selective leaks and reporting, has further created damaging implications for Etihad despite the airline not being named in the redacted published findings.

"At no time did the Premier League reach out to or engage with Etihad in the process associated with the commission's opinion.

“Etihad was therefore never given the opportunity by the Premier League to be represented, to provide relevant information, or to ensure the accuracy and fairness of information relied upon in reaching conclusions that may now be interpreted as reflecting adversely on the airline.

"Etihad is deeply concerned by the way this matter has been communicated publicly. The lack of clarity and transparency, together with the selective disclosure of information, has created damaging implications for Etihad despite the airline not being named in the published decision.

“The Premier League must take responsibility for the consequences of the way in which these findings have been presented.

"Etihad is immensely proud of its longstanding relationship with Manchester City. The Etihad name has been proudly carried by the club and its stadium for many years, as part of a partnership that has connected us with millions of supporters around the world.

“Our commitment to Manchester City, its supporters and our shared partnership remains strong.

"We stand with the club, its supporters and our wider Etihad community as Manchester City challenges the commission's conclusions through the processes available to it.

"Etihad will seek the relevant legal counsel on the options and recourse available to protect its interests."

How can this benefit Man City in their appeal?

It remains to be seen whether the fact that the Premier League decided against contacting Etihad Airways during the process will have a positive impact during Man City’s appeal.

Both Etihad Airways and Man City could argue that procedural unfairness is a major vulnerability in how the Premier League built its case.

Ultimately, Etihad Airways’s statement has created a multi-front war where the Premier League's investigatory methods are being heavily scrutinised, giving Citizens supporters hope and Man City fresh ammunition to argue that the initial ruling was rushed, incomplete or legally ‘unsafe’.