The rows circulating around Manchester City are huge, and they are only going to get bigger. The Premier League has concluded that City “systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade”. This, clearly, matters for the club, but that is just the start of it. It matters for Manchester, it matters for the Premier League and so, crucially, it matters for the UK’s image around the world – because England’s top flight is a colossal global brand.
In other words, this matters whether you like football or not. Added to all of this, Andy Burnham pitches himself as Mr Manchester and is a big football fan. The man who was the mayor of Greater Manchester a matter of months ago is now the prime minister, and so finds himself caught up in it all at a local level, a national level and a diplomatic level. Diplomatic, because rows will rage over the extent to which City’s ownership is separate from the Abu Dhabi state.
And the state is a big UK ally. All of this is why I thought it was in the public interest to put a series of questions to Burnham about it when I spoke to him on Wednesday as the Labour Party conference concluded in Liverpool. His comments, in his interview with me, followed by no fewer than two attempts to backtrack 24 hours later, amount to perhaps his biggest self inflicted tangle since he arrived in Downing Street in July. He will have expected to be asked about Manchester City, but he didn’t expect sustained scrutiny about it.
One particular exchange prompted a lot of interest. I asked if he was worried that Manchester City’s owners from the United Arab Emirates might sell up. It is worth quoting his answer in full. “Well, I would be really concerned to lose them.
They’ve been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester. Obviously, the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is. “I can’t intervene more in the process. It would be wrong for me to do that.
It would be wrong, I think, to jump to a conclusion before having really studied all of the detail, but obviously it’s ongoing, and because it’s still contested by Manchester City, then I think it’s right that I don’t say much more.” His answer is revealing on several levels, and was leapt on by many in football and then by the Conservatives, who labelled them “completely out of touch” and “extraordinary”. Firstly, his fear – being “really concerned” – that the vast money from Abu Dhabi, that has transformed not just the club but parts of the city, could go. Secondly, that “I can’t intervene more” in the process that is ongoing. What does “more” mean?
To be fair, as you can see in the full quote above and he said repeatedly elsewhere in the interview, he was trying to be circumspect about it all. “I am not getting directly involved in the process,” he told me, later adding “I have to keep my distance from it.” But, the cumulative impression many were left with was that he was sympathetic to Manchester City’s situation, not least because he repeatedly compared it to a vastly smaller row involving his own club Everton’s finances a few years ago. “I remember people proclaiming Everton guilty at the time, and you know, with hindsight, I think more people would say that wasn’t fair the way that was handled. So it would be wrong of me to leap to one side given the experience that I’d had before becoming prime minister.” Everton were docked Premier League points over it.
Despite the gravity and breadth of what Manchester City now confront, Andy Burnham offered no explicit criticism of them. The back pages and the sports channels as well as news sites and social media were quickly ablaze with the remarks. And by teatime on Thursday, No10 were back-pedalling. A written statement was sent out, which again is worth quoting in full: “As the prime minister made clear, the initial judgement is serious and there can’t be any suggestion that anyone is above the rules.
He also stressed that it is an ongoing independent process. It is essential that it is allowed to run its course and the outcome respected. “If wrongdoing is established, those responsible should face the appropriate consequences.” Some 59 words that could be replaced by a picture of a reversing light – the tone and language completely different from Burnham’s to me on camera. But even that statement didn’t last long.
Immediately, the first word of the second paragraph of it was jumped on. “If.” Remember, the Premier League says Manchester City arranged “sham contracts” with a number of commercial partners as part of a scheme to disguise secret funding of almost a billion pounds. The club deny wrongdoing and are considering an appeal, but the Premier League’s conclusion is clear. But Downing Street said “if.” Fast forward a little over an hour, and the statement was re-issued.
“If” became “wherever.” In real time, No10’s jitters and discomfort about this was there for all to see. The prime minister seen as Mr Manchester, who loves his football and revels in a man of the people image, caught up in one of the biggest domestic stories of the year and one that is only just beginning. It is won’t be the last time he faces questions about Manchester City. Burnham ‘really concerned’ if Man City owners sell up after rule breaches Man City not ‘above the rules’, says No 10 after backlash to Burnham remarks Criminal investigation?
Relegation or expulsion? The key Man City questions
