Man City challenge 115 Premier League charges and fume about ARSENAL fan barrister leading the case

MANCHESTER CITY are challenging the Premier League case against them – and even suggesting the KC running it could be biased because he is an ARSENAL fan.

City were charged in February over a series of alleged financial dodges between 2008 and 2019.

GettyManchester City are challenging the charges made against them by the Premier League[/caption]

Prem chief announced the case was in the hands of the head of its “independent judicial panel”, Murray Rosen KC.

He has the power to appoint himself as the chairman of the three-member disciplinary commission that will eventually hear the case.

But Rosen’s self-confessed status as a Gooner is ONE of the issues raised by City in what appears a full-on assault on the Prem process.

City are accused of hiding the true source of the club’s funding, only partially declaring salaries and bonuses, breaching Uefa and Prem Financial Fair Play regulations and obstructing the League investigation that was opened in 2018.

That probe was underway for four YEARS before the charges were brought, during which period City and the Prem clashed in High Court and Appeal Court challenges.

Now it is understood that City, who have engaged £5,000-per-hour Lord Pannick KC as their legal lead, have pinpointed Rosen’s club allegiance as one plank of their argument.

Rosen described himself as a “member of the MCC and Arsenal FC”.

Prem chiefs are operating under a veil of silence over any aspect of the case and have added nothing to their bold website statement of the charges three months ago.

That includes whether Rosen has chosen to appoint himself – although the City challenge appears an obvious indicator – or the potential timescale for the case to be heard.

League rules leave open the punishment of relegation and an unlimited fine if the case is proved.

But in addition to the Rosen row, City’s lawyers have questioned the validity of the charges because of recent changes in the Prem rulebook.

As of February 2022, those rules mandate any member club or official to answer questions and provide all information when requested to by League officers.

The rules add: “They must not delay at all in doing so, they must do so comprehensively, and they must do so on a co-operative and open basis.

“This includes volunteering relevant information and documents unknown to the board, obtaining such information and documents from other parties when able to do so, and ensuring that the appropriate individuals are made available for questioning by the board.”

Previous rules had merely stated: “Each club shall comply promptly and in full with any request for information made by the League.”

City, who declined to make any further comment, have denied all the allegations and promised “irrefutable evidence” to back up their defence.

But the latest City moves could further delay the process, with rival clubs already fearing that there will not be a hearing until potentially 2027.