October 12, 2026

Birnam pledges to dissolve the partnership and reveals the behind-the-scenes of his dealings with Manchester City

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced his intention to publish details of his previous dealings and meetings with Manchester City, against the backdrop of criticism directed by political figures opposing his reaction to the decision to convict the club of committing serious financial violations in the English Premier League.

This announcement came in statements to Birnam on the “The Rest is Politics” podcast, scheduled to be broadcast on Monday, in response to the opposition leader’s demand to reveal the nature of those meetings, as he affirmed his full readiness for transparency and to clarify all steps of his cooperation with the club during his tenure as mayor of the Greater Manchester region, which extended from May 2017 until June 2026.

Burnam explained that his contacts with the club go back to previous periods and not recent times, noting that he only held one important meeting with the club’s management, and that was in 2021. Last September, Burnam had expressed his fears about the possibility of Manchester City’s owners resorting to selling the club following the issuance of the conviction ruling, praising at the same time their prominent role as “a major partner in building modern Manchester and transforming the club into a global power.”

These developments come at a time when the repercussions of the sporting case continue, as Manchester City filed an appeal earlier this month against the decision of an independent committee, trying to cancel the ruling issued against it and avoid possible harsh penalties.

In details of the accusations, the English Premier League reported that the club used “sham” commercial contracts as part of schemes aimed at inflating revenues and reducing costs by a value exceeding 900 million pounds sterling (equivalent to 1.19 billion dollars). For its part, Manchester City continued to deny all the accusations against it throughout the period of consideration of the case, considering that the committee’s report contained “clear fundamental errors.”