Deep into stoppage time: is it too late for Manchester City to save its reputation?

On the pitch, Manchester City have made a flying start to the season, winning their first six league games, including a memorable derby at Old Trafford.

Off it, the club is facing the biggest reputational test in its history.

Having worked as a football reporter and sports editor for almost two decades, I have covered some big stories - such as Blackburn Rovers' turbulent years under owners, the Venky's, and Port Vale entering administration at the start of the millennium.

And since moving into PR eight years ago, I’ve advised many businesses on crisis communications.

But nothing in English football history has come close to the seismic impact of City's situation.

An independent commission found the club guilty of 114 of the 115 charges brought by the Premier League over breaches of its financial rules. The findings cover nine seasons, from 2009-10 to 2017-18, the period that built the most successful side in the Blues' history. They include concealing the true source of revenue, inflated sponsorship arrangements and payments made outside players' official contracts.

No punishment has been set yet. A large fine, a points deduction and even relegation have all been mentioned. City reject the findings outright, saying the commission's decision contains "clear material errors of law, principle and fact", and it lodged an appeal before last Friday's deadline.

So the legal story is not over. The question for anyone who works in communications is a different one: can the reputational damage still be repaired, and is City going about it the right way?

The appeal buys time, not goodwill

City have been here before. In 2020 the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned a two-year UEFA ban from the Champions League. The club can fairly point to that as evidence that first verdicts don't always stand.

But in reputation terms, a successful appeal and a restored reputation are different things. To most neutral fans, the guilty verdict is now the headline. The appeal process could run for months, and every hearing, leak and ruling will put the story back on the back pages. While the lawyers work, the narrative stays open, and an open narrative gets written by other people.

Defiance has a shelf life

The first rule of crisis comms is to own the narrative. City's response so far has been firm: the club is innocent and will be "relentless" in clearing its name.

That message works well for the core audience - supporters want to see their club fight. But a reputation is also built by sponsors, broadcasters, potential signings, the wider football community and the city itself.

Those audiences aren't interested in a battle with the regulator, they want to know that the club takes the findings seriously, even while it contests them.

This is the hardest balance in crisis communications, defending your position without looking as though you think the rules don't apply to you. Clubs and companies that lean only on defiance often find that when the legal fight ends, the public has already decided.

The fans are an asset, not a problem

The supporters are the one group whose loyalty doesn't depend on the verdict. They weren't party to the deals and had no say in them, and they can't be blamed for enjoying the most successful era in the club's history.

They are also likely to take the brunt of the fallout - at work, at school gates and on social media.

A club that wants to protect its long-term reputation should be thinking about them as well. That means clear communication, being open about what happens next, and not leaving fans to defend positions the club itself hasn't fully explained.

So, is it too late?

No, but the window is narrowing.

Manchester City will still exist when this is over. Its community work, its academy and its place in the city's identity don't vanish because of a commission ruling. The club has real reputational capital to draw on.

Much depends on what it does with the time the appeal gives it. If it uses that time only to fight, it may win in law and still lose in public.

If it combines a robust legal defence with a more measured, open tone, there's a chance it comes out of this with a reputation that can be rebuilt.

The lesson for any organisation is the same. When a crisis hits, the facts of the case matter. How you're seen to respond often matters more.