The Premier League declined to comment.

Going to the high court?

From the Mail

City Xtra
@City_Xtra
BREAKING: #ManCity's 'irrefutable evidence' referred to throughout the Premier League case relates to government bank statements and witness statements presented at the hearing, showing money being transferred to sponsors from government accounts, which was then used by sponsors to pay
@ManCity
.

[via
@MikeKeegan_DM
]

💯
Interesting times ahead

We're Man City, we fight till the end. Hopefully, the end of the corrupt Premier League. Football needs a new fairer league not run by the red cartel.

From the Mail.

Etihad Airways spokesperson: "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 opportunity by the Premier League to be represented, provide relevant information, or 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.

"We stand with the Club, its supporters and our wider Etihad community as #ManCity� 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..."

A little brevity is required I think.

The PM is backing us?

Burnham said: "Everton was in this position a few years ago and you might remember that I fought for Everton in that situation because I still hold the view very firmly that they weren't fairly treated in that process."

Drawing a comparison between that and City's current predicament, he added: "I remember people proclaiming Everton guilty at the time and with hindsight I think more people would say that wasn't fair, the way that was handled.

"So it would be wrong of me to leap to one side given the experience that I'd had before becoming prime minister."

BBC

Yes. So far it seems deeply unfair from the PL. The accusations are really serious in nature but there isn't any proof in there.

They seem to have said we don't believe what City have provided as evidence with the only explanation being we don't believe you. In fact they said we don't believe what the people said in giving evidence again with no explanation or evidence.

The crux of it is PL say the owner directly inflated the sponsorship deals rather than the sponsors, but no proof from the PL. From what I can gather City have provided bank statements and transfers details to prove it hasn't come directly from the owner. But this evidence has been ignored, how can this be?

The media reporting is savage.

If the owners and directors believe that this is a wrong verdict, as they clearly do, then they should fight it.

I read on BBC that they are suggesting that in 2018 season we received only £11 million of sponsorship and £134 million was paid by the owners. I find that impossible to believe. They are suggesting that our sponsorship income actually fell from 2010 to 2018.

See the artificially inflated sponsorships table linked below. It seems ridiculous.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c9lyk46gekkeo