Manchester City’s claim to have “irrefutable evidence” that will overturn their guilty verdict on appeal is based on a trove of emails, letters and bank statements.

A re-examination of Abu Dhabi government documents, receipts and testimony from 24 witnesses – all of which the club believe were wrongly dismissed at the original hearing – will be central in attempts to force a full or partial acquittal or retrial, according to people familiar with the case.

City’s legal team will attempt to demonstrate “fundamental errors” in tests applied by an independent commission to the Premier League’s case that commercial revenue was artificially inflated by £920m. Sources with understanding of City’s case have told Telegraph Sport the club are bullish about their appeal, based on:

• Contemporaneous bank statements, government records and receipts they see as confirming the Abu Dhabi government as the source of funds for financing of deals

• More recent evidence from the Abu Dhabi government reaffirming the accuracy of the original records

• What they see as fundamental inconsistencies in the findings

Such a position could effectively be a high-stakes challenge to any appeal panel to question the legitimacy of official Abu Dhabi government documents.

City lodged an appeal two weeks ago after the independent commission panel, which has never been individually identified, found the club guilty of multiple breaches of financial rules stretching back more than a decade.

Sources with understanding of the Premier League’s case, however, express ongoing confidence in the verdict. In a league statement on September 29, it said “the commission has ruled (and an appeal board has confirmed) that the commission’s decision is a ‘final award’.”

But in a short statement, the club said the commission’s ruling contained “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe”. The club added they had filed “a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence [that] exists in support of all of its positions”.

The club are also understood to claim that the Premier League has no “smoking gun” or witnesses to the alleged wrongdoing, and is relying almost entirely on leaked emails.

Crux of the matter

Central to City’s appeal argument is that the panel overlooked almost all of their evidence that sponsorship payments came from the Abu Dhabi government, the shareholder of the sponsors.

An appeal hearing date has yet to be set while a panel is appointed to scrutinise the evidence. In normal circumstances, the appeal commission has to return a decision, under Premier League rules, within 12 weeks. This gives a deadline of January 21.

A possibility is that the appeal panel could refer the matter back to a new commission for a retrial.

The independent commission ruled that City inflated commercial revenues and reduced costs by £920m, largely thanks to its ownership topping up “sham” sponsorship deals by more than £830m as part of a “disguised funding scheme”. The commission also found that the scheme was conducted without Sheikh Mansour being aware.

The verdict sent shock waves through English football, led to calls for a criminal investigation and has prompted protests from rival fans at City’s Premier League matches.

City’s case is that the money came from the Abu Dhabi government, rather than the club’s owner, and should therefore be treated as legitimate sponsorship revenue.

Telegraph Sport detailed earlier this month how, during a US investigation into state-owned airlines, Etihad Airways stated: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is false.”

City have pointed to the remarks being taken out of context and that the airline at the time went on to say that Etihad funded the sponsorship “from its own liquidity”, which is consistent with their position.

Case for the defence

The club presented three pillars of evidence around state funding at the hearing, which their lawyers claim were not given sufficient weight in terms of government funding involving sponsorship deals.

Those pillars included contemporaneous documentation and bank statements from the Abu Dhabi government; letters from the government to the hearing confirming the accuracy of the original records; and witness evidence from club officials, senior figures at sponsors and government officials.

City are expected to argue that the Premier League relied almost entirely on leaked emails and produced no direct witness. City have publicly stated that the panel’s approach contains “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact”, making the resulting findings “unsafe”.

What could happen next

Overturning the source-of-funds findings could have consequences for a substantial part of the case, as the accuracy of the club’s accounts directly affects the club’s compliance with the Premier League’s financial regulations. The extent of any impact would depend on which findings the appeal panel overturned and how the remaining charges were affected.

The appeal panel can examine the commission’s decision, the documents submitted and transcripts of witness evidence. Witnesses are not generally re-examined, making the process different from a full rehearing. Possible outcomes include upholding the findings, overturning some or all of them, or referring matters back for further consideration.

City also argue that the earlier Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) ruling in 2020 supports their position, rejecting the suggestion that they escaped the Uefa case solely on a technicality that the case was time-barred and that specific findings were made by Cas that Etihad did not receive funds from Sheikh Mansour.

There is unhappiness behind the scenes with the timing and presentation of the Premier League verdict, according to people familiar with the club’s position.