Alex Goodchild & Udo Onwere provide further insight to Manchester City appeal process

Alex Goodchild and Udo Onwere were invited to provide further insight to The Athletic on the possible grounds of a Manchester City appeal of the first instance decision, any challenge before the Commercial Court, and how compensation claims from other clubs might work.

Alex told The Athletic that, while the Premier League Rules do not expressly set out the standard of review on appeal, decisions of the Appeal Board in previous cases involving Everton and Nottingham Forest are a helpful guide.

“The Appeal Board in Everton’s case identified that errors of law include, ‘An error in approach; taking into account something which, as a matter of law, should not have been taken into account, and failing to take into account something which, as a matter of law, should have been taken into account’.”

Commenting on the prospects of any Commercial Court appeal, Udo Onwere, told The Athletic that such a challenge can be made to an arbitration decision only on the basis that it either lacked the substantive jurisdiction to make the ruling, or that there was a serious irregularity that has affected the tribunal, the proceedings, or the final decision itself.

“Such a challenge would not involve the Commercial Court reviewing the original disciplinary decision on the merits. Instead, the Commercial Court would be reviewing the arbitral award/process,” Udo added.

With a lot of focus now on any followup compensation claims, Alex told The Athletic that, based on the procedural history of the Burnley compensation case, clubs will have to bring their own legal proceeding and cannot join the underlying complaint against City, highlighting that Burnley’s original application to intervene in Everton’s complaint proceedings was refused on grounds of “procedural unworkability and the need to prevent access to confidential and commercially sensitive information”.

Alex said Burnley had tried to claim they should be awarded compensation automatically by way of further sanction, but the commission ruled this was not the case and that the club needed to prove causation and value of losses, as they would in any ordinary contractual claim.

He added: “As was the case with Burnley, I would expect that compensation proceedings are stayed pending final determination of the underlying proceedings, after which the commission may in its discretion indicate that it may wish to award compensation.”

You can read more on the article here.