Andy Burnham was forced into a major U-turn over his Manchester City remarks last night after furious backlash from fans and Government officials alike.The Prime Minister had on Wednesday said he would be “really concerned to lose” Sheikh Mansour’s City Football Group as the fate of the scandal-hit club hangs in the balance.City has been found guilty of more than 100 rule breaches – including “sham” sponsorship and image rights schemes.These include artificially inflating the club’s revenue and hiding its expenses to the tune of nearly £1billion over a nine-year period.But Mr Burnham found time to thank its owners for splashing their cash on Manchester.”I do actually thank the City Football Group and the wider ownership for the money that they didn’t just put into the Etihad [Stadium] and the campus around it but also into the city,” the city’s former Mayor said.Fans had been near-united in their fury after his intervention, senior Government officials are said to be uneasy, and the former FA chairman has warned of “political interference”.No10 yesterday scrambled to cool the backlash, but then had to change its own statement after the uproar only grew further.”As the Prime Minister made clear, the initial judgment is serious and there can’t be any suggestion that anyone is above the rules,” Downing Street said.PICTURED: Andy Burnham with Manchester City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak in 2019 | GETTY”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.”The use of the word “if” raised eyebrows, given City was found guilty by an independent commission following a 42-day hearing which produced 7,000 pages of witness evidence after an eight-year-long investigation.No10 then changed it to read “wherever wrongdoing is established”.Senior lawmakers and Foreign Office officials are said to be uneasy because Mr Burnham’s remarks appear to clash with recent laws that ban politicians influencing such cases against football clubs.
‘SHAM CITY’ SCANDAL – READ THE LATEST:
City was found guilty by an independent commission following a 42-day hearing which produced 7,000 pages of witness evidence after an eight-year-long investigation | PAThe former FA – and Manchester City – chairman David Bernstein also warned that this would prove the new Independent Football Regulator’s biggest test ever, only 11 months after it was established.”The regulator will never be faced with bigger issues than this,” he told Times Radio.”I’ve been concerned all the way through that there’s a danger of political interference, whether it be that City are just, I use the words, too big to fail, or there’s a national interest involved.”I just have this vision of bureaucrats running around the Foreign Office looking for ways to deal with this, because it is sensitive, it’s not easy.”In my view, it is absolutely right to see justice done in this extreme situation.”Now the proverbial is hitting the fan, we’ll see how people behave, and we’ll see if independence is maintained.”‘I’ve been concerned all the way through that there’s a danger of political interference,’ David Bernstein said | GETTYIt comes as MPs and tax experts say City could owe HMRC millions of pounds – and could face a criminal probe.Dan Neidle of the Tax Policy Associates think tank has suggested there may be a £12million unpaid tax bill lurking – and the “consequences could include a much larger tax bill and a criminal investigation”.City denies any wrongdoing.Dame Meg Hillier MP, the chair of the Treasury Committee, has asked HMRC for reassurance that it is “seized of the importance and public interest” of the case.In a letter to HMRC Permanent Secretary JP Marks, Dame Meg said: “Can you confirm to the committee that HMRC is aware of these findings (pending appeal)? Have you asked for, and/or been provided with the unredacted version of this report?”While I acknowledge that taxpayer confidentiality may inhibit what you can disclose, I would welcome reassurance from HMRC that you are seized of the importance of these issues and the public interest in the case.”