Kaveh Solhekol fielded a fresh round of queries from fans and journalists about Manchester City after an independent commission concluded that the club had committed serious breaches of the Premier League's financial regulations. While City continue to reject the findings and have announced their intention to appeal, they must lodge that appeal by Friday, 2 October. In a live interview on Sky Sports News, the chief correspondent tackled a broad spectrum of topics, ranging from the timetable for an appeal decision to the possibility of a demotion to the English Football League (EFL), the fate of player contracts, and the role of a newly created independent football regulator. One of the first questions came from RhydonDN, who asked how long the appeal process might last and whether it could stretch on for months or even years.
Solhekol explained that, under the Premier League’s own procedures, City have until the Friday deadline to submit their appeal. Once filed, the appeal should be heard within a 12‑week window that is expected to close around Christmas. A judgment on the appeal would then be issued within 30 days of the hearing, meaning a final decision should be delivered in the new year and well before the season concludes.
He noted that the appeal will be heard by a fresh three‑person panel and that the hearing itself is scheduled to last five days. However, Solhekol warned that City could also challenge the Premier League process in the High Court, alleging procedural unfairness.
If they pursue that route, the legal battle could extend for several years. He added that the Football Association might launch its own inquiry to determine whether any of its rules were broken, and that four clubs—Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur—have already indicated they may seek compensation from City, with more clubs likely to follow once the Premier League’s proceedings are finished.
Josh’s question turned to the potential for a points deduction severe enough to guarantee relegation, and whether the EFL would accept City into the Championship. Solhekol clarified that a sanctions hearing will decide the exact punishment.
The same three individuals who sat on the original commission will recommend sanctions, which could include expulsion from the Premier League, a points deduction, a transfer ban, or a hefty fine. If the outcome is a points deduction that drops City into the relegation zone, it is probable that the EFL would admit them, given the commercial and sporting interest a club of City’s size would generate. Conversely, if the club were expelled outright, the EFL would not be obligated to take them; admission would require a vote by the 72 existing EFL clubs, though Solhekol believes most would welcome the financial boost that City would bring. Jonty asked whether the EFL could outright refuse City entry, and Solhekol replied that, technically, the league could reject them, but he could not see a rational reason for doing so.
Ash inquired about parachute payments in the event of a relegation via points deduction. Solhekol responded that City would be treated like any other relegated Premier League side and would be eligible for the standard parachute payments designed to cushion the financial impact of dropping to a lower division.
A question from the "Owners test" focused on the owners' charter and the possibility of forced sale or criminal charges for submitting fraudulent accounts. Solhekol noted that the new Independent Football Regulator may intervene after the current process concludes, potentially removing directors and compelling a change of ownership if deemed necessary. However, he emphasized that City maintain their innocence and expect to clear their name, making such drastic measures unlikely at this stage.
PolarBear asked a similar question about the regulator’s power to oust the current owners, to which Solhekol confirmed that the regulator does possess that authority but that any enforcement would be far off in the future. Gooner2526 wondered why the investigation seemed to stop at the 2017/18 season, given the damning verdict for the 2009/10‑2017/18 period. Solhekol explained that the tribunal only received evidence up to 2018, much of which originated from material leaked by Portuguese hacker Rui Pinto and published by Der Spiegel in 2018, which in turn sparked UEFA and Premier League probes.
Consequently, the tribunal’s scope was limited to that timeframe. Dan raised the issue of potential criminal or regulatory investigations into alleged corporate fraud. Solhekol said that filing false accounts is a criminal offence under the UK Fraud Act 2006, and that authorities such as the National Economic Crime Centre or HMRC could investigate alleged tax evasion or unpaid National Insurance contributions.
He stressed that only time will tell whether these bodies launch formal inquiries. MattC asked whether players could terminate their contracts if the club were punished severely, such as by relegation.
Solhekol responded that while contracts cannot simply be ripped up, players could seek legal advice and possibly argue that they were misled about the club’s financial situation at the time of signing, which might give them grounds to exit the agreement. Finally, Matt H questioned why the hearing was conducted behind closed doors rather than in a public court.
Solhekol explained that the Premier League operates as a private association of 20 member clubs, each bound by a proprietary rulebook. As such, its disciplinary proceedings are confidential, a point often raised by sports lawyers who advocate for greater transparency.
In summary, the appeal timeline is relatively tight, with a decision expected early next year unless the club escalates the matter to the High Court. Possible sanctions range from points deductions to expulsion, each carrying different implications for the club’s future in English football.
The independent regulator could, in theory, intervene on ownership matters, but any such action remains speculative. Meanwhile, other clubs are positioning themselves to claim compensation, and broader legal scrutiny may yet emerge as authorities review the financial disclosures at the heart of the case.