MANCHESTER CITY have allegedly earmarked former Newcastle midfielder Hugo Viana as a potential replacement for outgoing chief Txiki Begiristain.
Sporting director Begiristain will step down from his position at the end of the season.
3
SunSport revealed this week that he will play a key role in identifying and appointing his replacement.
Begiristain aims to have a new man in place by January and will then spend six months helping the new chief settle into their new role.
While Begiristain’s successor is yet to be revealed, ex-Newcastle star Viana is believed to be in the frame.
The 41-year-old spent four years at St James’ Park as a player following his move from Sporting Lisbon in 2002 and made 61 appearances.
Since retiring, Viana has taken up a senior position in football.
He is currently director of football at Sporting Lisbon, having accepted the job in 2018.
Manchester United identified him as a potential candidate for the position of chief operating officer at Old Trafford earlier this year.
He caught the attention of Sir Jim Ratcliffe by assisting the transfer of Bruno Fernandes in 2020.
FOOTBALL FREE BETS AND SIGN UP DEALS
But taking over from Begiristain at Man City would be an even harder job.
City have won 14 major trophies under the guidance of the Spaniard, including the Champions League and six Prem titles.
But they are currently in the midst of a huge legal battle with the Premier League.
A hearing is underway into allegations that City broke PL rules more than 100 times in relation to sponsorship deals, player and manager contracts and failure to cooperate with the investigation.
City deny all the charges. An initial verdict is expected in the spring, but the saga is unlikely to end there and Begiristain will be gone before everything is resolved.
Man City vs the Premier League: Q&A
By Martin Lipton
BOTH Manchester City and the Premier League were claiming a win after their legal scrap over Associated Party Transactions.
SunSport sifts the claims to try to explain the latest issues.
What was the case about?
City were furious that Prem bosses brought in new tougher regulations – by the smallest possible majority under League rules – in February. They were aimed at blocking clubs bypassing financial controls by earning “unfair” amounts via sponsorship from a company with the same owners, or selling players on the cheap to teams under the same ownership umbrella.
Why were City so upset?
The Etihad club argued that the rules were illegal and had been deliberately aimed at them by rivals and were both flawed and politically driven. They also branded the “two thirds support” rule that has been part of Prem regulations since its inception as a “tyranny of the majority”
This was an Arbitration Tribunal – explain that?
Under Prem rules, any club has the right to ask for Arbitration if they are unhappy about the regulations or due process. The three retired judges heard evidence in June and their full ruling was distributed to the 20 Prem clubs on Monday afternoon.
And what did they say?
Depending on who you listen to, they either totally vindicated one side or the other. The actual answer is that there were “wins” for both City and the Prem. But it’s your choice which ones meant more.
OK, what were City’s wins?
Maybe the most important one in terms of the repercussions. That both the new rules and the previous version – brought in after Saudi Arabia’s PIF bought Newcastle in 2021 – were “unlawful” as they exclude shareholder loans to clubs in any APT calculations. City also won over their claims that the rulebook prevented them from responding to Prem decisions over whether two proposed deals with Abu Dhabi companies represented “Fair Market Value”, access to the “databank” of comparable deals and the time it took for decisions to be reached.
That sounds pretty big. So what about the Prem’s side?
The key finding as far as the League is concerned is that the Tribunal backed the concept of APT rules as well as the Fair Market Value tests. Additionally, City’s challenges to the actual decisions on the two proposed deals “failed”. Prem bosses insist the “rulebook has been found to comply with competition and public law standards and is an effective and necessary system”.
Is that it, then?
Of course not. That shareholder loan issue is a big deal, given that it is believed owners have loaned around £1.5bn at low or preferential rates across the Prem. Those loans will almost certainly have to be calculated at commercial rates now, unless the owners convert them into shares. But the League is convinced the main thrust of the rules remains valid.
And what will be the impact on the “115 charges” case?
Probably nothing. That is an allegation of breaking the rules, while this matter was City questioning whether one small element of the current rulebook was legitimate. But City are using the same legal team, headed by £10,000 per hour Lord Pannick KC. And the stakes on the bigger case are a great deal higher.
