The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is reviewing a recently published Premier League ruling concerning Manchester City to determine whether it raises any issues involving potential solicitor misconduct.
The development follows an independent commission’s findings concerning Manchester City and alleged breaches of the Premier League’s financial regulations over a nine-year period. The ruling has attracted significant attention across the sporting and legal sectors and could have wider implications for football governance.
According to the commission’s findings, Manchester City used a number of commercial arrangements that the panel concluded were designed to disguise the true source of certain funding. One of the arrangements examined involved a company known as Fordham, which the commission described as effectively acting as a front for Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd (ADUG), the club’s owner.
The ruling examined a project known as Project Longbow, which was launched in 2012 as part of efforts to increase the club’s revenues and reduce operating losses. While the commission concluded that a number of aspects of the project represented legitimate commercial activity, it found that the arrangement involving Fordham was problematic.
The commission said the arrangement allowed funds associated with ADUG to reach Manchester City in a way that concealed their actual source and enabled the club to present the funds as operating income in its financial reporting.
Parts of the commission’s ruling remain redacted. In particular, information concerning individuals who may have been aware of the arrangement, as well as those who approved it, has not yet been publicly disclosed. That information is expected to form part of an appendix to the ruling that has not yet been released.
The company at the centre of the arrangement is now known as Fordham Sports Image Rights Ltd. Companies House records show that the company previously operated under the name Manchester City Football Club (Image Rights) Ltd.
Simon Cliff was appointed as a director of the company in June 2012 and remained in the position until July 2013. Cliff, who qualified as a solicitor in 2002, served as general counsel for Manchester City Football Club from 2009 until January 2013. He is now general counsel for City Football Group, the organisation that owns Manchester City and interests in other football clubs.
Importantly, the commission’s ruling does not state that Cliff was among the individuals whose names were redacted, nor does it suggest that he was aware of any alleged breaches of Premier League financial rules.
The SRA is understood to be monitoring developments and intends to consider the full, unredacted ruling once it becomes available. The regulator has indicated that it will assess whether the published material raises any issues that require further investigation.
Where information suggests that a solicitor or law firm may have been involved in potential misconduct, the SRA can consider whether regulatory action or further enquiries are appropriate.
The case may also have financial consequences for Manchester City, with reports suggesting that the club could face a substantial legal costs bill in connection with the proceedings.
Manchester City has rejected the Premier League’s allegations and maintained that it is innocent of the accusations made against it. The club has said that it has extensive evidence supporting its position and intends to pursue the available appeal and legal processes.
The club has also criticised aspects of the proceedings and argued that the commission’s decision contains what it considers to be significant errors of law, principle and fact.
Manchester City has stressed that the legal and regulatory process remains ongoing and that it is limited in what it can publicly disclose while further proceedings are underway.
The SRA’s review does not itself establish that any solicitor has committed misconduct. Any potential regulatory action would depend on the evidence available to the regulator and the outcome of its assessment once the relevant information has been fully considered.
