Kaveh Solhekol recently tackled a flood of fan queries about Manchester City after an independent commission concluded that the club had committed serious violations of the Premier League’s financial regulations. While City continue to deny any wrongdoing and have announced their intention to appeal the decision, they must lodge that appeal by Friday, 2 October. In a live interview on Sky Sports News, the chief correspondent addressed a broad spectrum of issues – from the timeline for the appeal to the potential consequences for the club, including a possible relegation to the English Football League (EFL), the fate of player contracts, and the role of the new Independent Football Regulator. One of the first questions came from RhydonDN, who asked how long the appeal process might take and whether it could stretch over months or even years.
Solhekol explained that the Premier League’s internal procedure is designed to be relatively swift. "If City file an appeal, they have until Friday to do so, after which the case should be wrapped up by Christmas – roughly a 12‑week window. Following that, a judgment is expected within 30 days, meaning we should have a final decision early in the new year and well before the season ends," he said.
He added a caveat: should the club decide to take the matter to the High Court, the litigation could drag on for years, turning a sporting dispute into a protracted legal battle. Josh then asked whether the Premier League could impose the maximum possible points deduction to guarantee City’s relegation, and whether the EFL would accept the club into the Championship. Solhekol clarified that a sanctions hearing will be held, chaired by the same three individuals who delivered the original verdict. They have a range of penalties at their disposal, including expulsion from the Premier League, a points deduction, a transfer ban, or a hefty fine.
If the sanction is a points deduction that results in relegation, the EFL would likely welcome City, given the commercial and sporting interest they generate. However, if the club is expelled outright, the EFL would not be obliged to admit them; admission would require a vote among the 72 existing EFL clubs, though Solhekol suspects most would be inclined to accept City because of the massive fanbase and revenue potential. Jonty raised a similar point, asking whether the EFL could outright refuse City entry. Solhekol responded that, technically, the EFL could block the club, but he found it hard to imagine why they would choose to do so, given the financial boost a club of City’s stature would bring to the lower tiers.
Ash’s question focused on parachute payments. If City were relegated via a points deduction, would they still be entitled to the same financial support that other relegated clubs receive?
Solhekol answered unequivocally that they would, stating, "There’s no reason they wouldn’t receive parachute payments – the system treats any club dropping from the Premier League the same way." The discussion then turned to ownership issues. An anonymous user asked whether the owners’ charter contains provisions that could force a sale, or whether criminal charges might arise from alleged fraudulent accounts.
Solhekol explained that the newly established Independent Football Regulator (IFR) has the authority to intervene, potentially barring individuals from owning or holding senior positions at clubs. While the regulator could, in theory, compel an owner to sell, Solhekol emphasized that such a scenario is still far off and that City maintain they will prove their innocence.
PolarBear asked a similar question about the regulator’s power to remove current owners. Solhekol reiterated that the IFR does have that power, but again, it remains a distant possibility.
Gooner2526 wondered why the investigation seemed to stop at the 2017/18 season, given the damning verdict for those years. Solhekol explained that the evidence presented to the tribunal only covered up to 2018, largely because it stemmed from material obtained by Portuguese hacker Rui Pinto, who accessed City’s email servers and passed the data to German magazine Der Spiegel.
Those leaks sparked UEFA’s and subsequently the Premier League’s investigations, but the tribunal was limited to the information that had been formally submitted. Dan’s question broadened the scope to potential criminal or regulatory investigations beyond football. He suggested the judgment hinted at massive corporate fraud. Solhekol said that if the club’s accounts were deliberately falsified, they could be prosecuted under the UK Fraud Act 2006.
He also noted that HM Revenue & Customs might look into tax and National Insurance issues, as the commission indicated that City had been paying staff “off the books.” However, he stressed that any such investigations would be pending and dependent on the relevant authorities. MattC asked whether a severe sanction such as relegation would give players the right to terminate their contracts due to the club’s alleged misconduct.
Solhekol replied that while players cannot simply walk away, they could seek legal advice and possibly argue that they were misled about the club’s financial health at the time of signing, which might give them grounds to terminate the agreement. He cautioned that contract specifics vary and that no player would publicly disclose their terms. Finally, Matt H questioned why the hearing was conducted in complete privacy rather than in a public forum like the High Court, where witnesses and press would be present.
Solhekol noted that sports lawyers argue for transparency, but the Premier League operates as a private organization with its own rulebook. As such, it can keep its disciplinary proceedings confidential, limiting external scrutiny. In summary, the appeal process is expected to be concluded within a few months unless the case escalates to the High Court. Potential sanctions range from points deductions to outright expulsion, each carrying different implications for the club’s league status and financial obligations.
The Independent Football Regulator holds significant powers over ownership, though any drastic action remains unlikely at this stage. Meanwhile, broader legal ramifications, including possible fraud investigations, are still pending further review by the appropriate authorities.