The scale of the findings published this week has placed Manchester City at the centre of the most serious financial case the Premier League has ever pursued. According to reporting by Telegraph, the commission rejected City’s argument over so-called tagged sums and accepted the league’s case that significant commercial arrangements were not what they appeared to be.

At the heart of the matter is the conclusion that funding was channelled in a way that distorted the club’s reported revenues and costs. The ruling sets out how top-up commercial income linked to Abu Dhabi United Group was presented, with City’s legal team arguing that the sums were effectively loans covering sponsorship liabilities. That explanation did not persuade the commission.

The Premier League’s own summary was especially damaging. It stated that the independent commission found City arranged “sham” commercial deals with several sponsors over the relevant period, within a disguised funding structure where those companies paid only part of the sponsorship sums attached to the agreements.

Manchester City and Premier League Badges MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – SEPTEMBER 26: The Manchester City and Premier League badges after Manchester City found guilty of breaches of Premier League financial rules on September 26, 2026 in Manchester, England. Manchester Prestwich England United Kingdom Copyright: xVisionhausx

One of the most striking details in the decision concerns “Project Longbow”, a 2012 scheme that the ruling says was used to move ADUG funds through a third-party company, Fordham. The mechanism described by the commission involved Fordham buying image rights from City at a valuation inflated by £90.2m above what should have been declared. The published decision also refers to other methods that either brought extra money into the club or reduced outgoing costs.

The name itself has already drawn attention. It is reported to have been coined by City lawyer Simon Cliff, a reference to the English archers at Agincourt. Yet the historical flourish is a side issue compared to the substance. The Premier League described the Fordham contract as “a ‘sham’ circular arrangement”.

That wording matters because it goes to intent. The league says the purpose of these mechanisms was to artificially increase revenues and reduce costs by more than £900m over the affected period. In practical terms, the claim is that this enabled accounts to be filed on an inaccurate basis, while masking the true financial position from auditors and regulators.

The wider importance of the case extends far beyond one club. The Premier League says the commission found City intended to circumvent league rules, and that the consequence was inaccurate reporting for both Profitability and Sustainability Rules and Uefa licensing and financial fair play purposes. The further conclusion, if accepted in full, is hugely significant, that accurate reporting would have placed City in substantial breach of both domestic and European spending limits.