The reality right now is that Manchester City are in a fight for their life, so to speak. Following the Premier League’s revelation that City had been found guilty of nearly all of the charges against them for breaching the Premier League’s financial rules, the coverage of the issue has been inundated with potential sanctions, how City have damaged football and nearly every other topic in between. However, Manchester City has always claimed that it has irrefutable evidence to clear the club’s name. That evidence has been revealed in a new report for the Daily Mail . This issue will dominate the headlines for some time yet.

As for how I will cover it on esteemedkompany.com from this point onwards, I’ll be focusing on official updates on the entire affair. Which I’ll explain below.

Manchester City have always claimed to have a body of ‘irrefutable evidence’ that will ultimately clear the club’s name of the Premier League charges. What that evidence is has not always been apparent, especially after Tuesday’s verdict was announced. Now a report from Mike Keegan has outlined what that reportedly evidence is.

Keegan reports that Manchester City will endeavour to clear their name by proving that the government of Abu Dhabi funded the sponsorship deals, which owns City’s sponsors, rather than City’s owners Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). ADUG made the payments according to the independent commission which heard the same and subsequently labelled them as ‘sham’ contracts which saw City illegally pump over £900 million into the club’s accounts. Manchester City’s evidence which was rejected by the independent commission included bank statements and witness accounts.

Also Mike Keegan also further reports on Manchester City’s strategy at the appeal of the verdict, City’s confirmation of their bid to appeal should arrive today. Keegan writes: “ High-powered lawyers acting on behalf of the club are also likely to question the amount of time it took the panel to deliver its verdict, pointing out that in such cases judgments should be delivered within three months (rather than 20) of a hearing concluding, so that judges can properly remember evidence when crafting their judgment. As a result of the time elapsed, they will say the decision is ‘unsafe’. ”

“ City will also point to the fact they provided no fewer than 24 witnesses at the hearing and that the Premier League failed to provide anyone who confirmed the existence of the alleged conspiracy. “

Mike Keegan’s in-depth report for the Daily Mail can be found at the link provided here , and above.

This week has seen a spectacular storm erupt regarding Manchester City and the verdict in the 115 case. Given the size of the case, and the independent commissions’ verdict, it is no surprise. This case is sizable, as are the allegations against City. That is not in question. However, after stepping away from it all to digest what has landed at Manchester City’s feet this week, from this point onwards I will only be covering official updates on the case from this point onwards.