Kaveh Solhekol fielded a series of fresh queries about Manchester City after an independent commission concluded that the club had breached Premier League financial regulations in every count. City continue to reject the findings and have announced their intention to appeal the decision, with a deadline of Friday 2 October to lodge their challenge. During a live interview on Sky Sports News, the chief correspondent addressed a wide array of topics raised by fans and pundits alike. He covered the likely timetable for the appeal, the possibility of a points deduction that could force the club into the English Football League (EFL), the fate of player contracts, the role of an upcoming independent football regulator and the potential for further legal action.
Below is a comprehensive recap of his answers, expanded with additional context to give readers a fuller picture of what could lie ahead for the Blues. **How long might the appeal process take?** RhydonDN asked whether the appeal could drag on for months or even years.
Solhekol explained that, under the Premier League’s own procedural rules, City have until the Friday deadline to submit their appeal. Once filed, the league aims to wrap up the internal review within roughly twelve weeks, targeting a decision before the Christmas break.
After that window closes, a separate three‑person panel will issue a judgment within thirty days. In practice this means the appeal verdict should be delivered early in the new year, well before the season’s final matches. However, Solhekol warned that City could choose to take the case to the High Court, alleging that the Premier League’s process was biased or flawed.
A judicial review would open a new legal track that could extend the dispute for several years. He also noted that the Football Association might launch its own inquiry to determine whether any of its statutes were breached, and that four clubs—Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur—have already indicated they may seek compensation from City, with other clubs likely to follow once the league’s adjudication is complete.
**Could the Premier League impose a points deduction large enough to relegate City?** Josh wondered whether the league could simply strip City of every point they could possibly earn this season, guaranteeing a drop to the EFL, and whether the EFL would then accept them into the Championship. Solhekol clarified that a sanctions hearing is still pending. The same three individuals who sat on the original commission will reconvene to decide the appropriate punishment.
Their options range from expulsion from the Premier League, a hefty points deduction, a transfer ban, or a substantial fine. If the panel opts for a points deduction that results in relegation, the EFL would almost certainly admit City, given the commercial and sporting interest a club of that size generates. Conversely, if the league decides on expulsion, City would have to apply for entry into the EFL, and the 72‑club membership would vote on their admission. While technically possible, Solhekol expressed doubt that the EFL would reject a club with City’s global brand and fanbase.
**What if the EFL refuses to admit City?** Jonty asked whether the EFL could block City’s entry and what the consequences would be. Solhekol replied that, in theory, the EFL could decline to admit a expelled Premier League side, but he could not conceive of a scenario where they would turn down a club with such financial clout and worldwide following. The regulator’s primary concern would be the integrity of the competition, not the commercial upside. **Would City still receive parachute payments if they are relegated by points deduction?** Ash sought confirmation that relegated clubs receive parachute payments, which are designed to cushion the financial shock of dropping out of the top flight.
Solhekol answered unequivocally that City would be treated like any other relegated club and would be entitled to the standard parachute payments, assuming the league’s sanctions do not specifically withhold them. **Can the independent football regulator force the owners to sell the club or bring criminal charges?** Several users, including Owners test and PolarBear, asked whether the regulator could compel a change of ownership or pursue criminal proceedings for alleged fraudulent accounting. Solhekol explained that the newly established Independent Football Regulator (IFR) does have the authority to intervene in cases of serious misconduct. It could, for example, remove directors from their positions or require a change of ownership if it deemed the club’s governance to be fundamentally compromised.
However, any such action would be far down the line, after the current appeals and investigations have concluded. Regarding criminal liability, Solhekol noted that filing false accounts breaches the UK Fraud Act 2006, which carries severe penalties. If evidence emerges that City knowingly misrepresented financial data, law enforcement agencies such as the National Economic Crime Centre, HM Revenue & Customs, or the Crown Prosecution Service could launch a criminal probe.
At present, though, City maintain their innocence and assert that they will be cleared of all wrongdoing. **Why did the tribunal only examine evidence up to the 2017/18 season?** Gooner2526 wondered why later seasons were not investigated, given the damning nature of the verdict for the 2009/10‑2017/18 period. Solhekol clarified that the tribunal’s remit was limited to the material presented by the commission, which largely stemmed from documents leaked by Portuguese hacker Rui Pinto and published by Der Spiegel in 2018. Those leaks formed the basis for UEFA’s and the Premier League’s investigations, and the tribunal was only tasked with assessing that specific body of evidence.
Unless new, admissible information is uncovered, the inquiry will not automatically extend to subsequent seasons. **Could players terminate their contracts if the club is punished severely?** MattC asked whether a relegation or expulsion could give players the right to walk away from their agreements. Solhekol said that contract termination is not automatic, but players could seek legal counsel to argue that the club’s breach of financial regulations constituted a material breach of contract, potentially rendering the agreement voidable.
The outcome would depend on the specific clauses in each player’s contract and whether a court finds that the club failed to disclose material facts at the time of signing. **Why was the hearing held in private rather than in an open court?** Matt H questioned the secrecy surrounding the Premier League’s hearing, suggesting that a public venue like the High Court would provide transparency. Solhekol noted that sports lawyers often argue for openness, but the Premier League operates as a private association with its own rulebook. Its disciplinary proceedings are therefore considered confidential, intended only for its member clubs and appointed officials.
While this limits public scrutiny, it also protects sensitive commercial information. **What are the next steps?** In summary, City have a narrow window to lodge an appeal, after which a new panel will deliver a judgment likely before the new year.
The club may also pursue a High Court challenge, which could prolong the saga for years. Meanwhile, the Premier League will decide on sanctions that could range from a fine to expulsion. If relegation occurs, City should receive parachute payments, and the EFL would probably welcome them.
The Independent Football Regulator holds the power to enforce ownership changes, but any such action is unlikely until the primary investigations conclude. Finally, criminal or tax investigations remain possible if authorities deem the financial disclosures to have been fraudulent.
All of these possibilities illustrate how complex and far‑reaching the fallout from the financial‑rules breach could be, affecting not only the club’s competitive standing but also its governance, finances, and even the contractual rights of its players.