What did the Commission find?

The Commission found the relevant Abu Dhabi sponsorship arrangements were sham arrangements, or alternatively differed in economic substance from their legal form; the club's reported revenue was substantially overstated and the accounts did not give a true and fair view.

Published Core Decision pages 30, 31.

The Commission found remuneration-related arrangements caused club liabilities/expenses not to be fully reflected in the relevant accounts or contracts. Some details are redacted in the published Core Decision.

Published Core Decision pages 31, 32, 33, 34.

The Commission found the Fordham arrangements were sham arrangements, or alternatively differed in economic substance from their legal form, resulting in overstated operating income and understated operating expenses.

Published Core Decision pages 34, 35.

The Commission found the relevant sponsorship agreements were related-party transactions and the required disclosures were not made.

Published Core Decision pages 35, 36.

The Commission found that, when the relevant accounts were restated, the club failed the UEFA break-even requirement by a very substantial amount in every season covered by Charge 2.

Published Core Decision pages 36, 37.

The Commission found that, when the relevant accounts were restated, the club failed the Premier League PSR requirements by a very substantial amount in every season covered by Charge 3.

Published Core Decision pages 37, 38.

The Commission found breaches in the majority of the respects alleged in Charge 4(A).

Published Core Decision pages 38.

The Commission did not find the alleged co-operation breaches in Charge 4(B).

Published Core Decision pages 38.

The Commission found all of the respects alleged in Charge 4(C) proven.

Published Core Decision pages 38.

The Commission found the respect alleged in Charge 4(D) proven.

Published Core Decision pages 38.