Manchester City could be set to face more punishment after being found guilty of 114 charges of breaching financial rules.The Citizens were found guilty in September on all charges relating to Premier League financial rule breaches from 2009 to 2018, and have since launched an appeal.Man City are continuing to fight their case against the Premier League as their fate hangs in the balanceGettyCity were adjudged to have artificially inflated their revenue by £900million via ‘sham’ contracts over a nine-year period.The club have since challenged their guilty verdict, insisting they are backed by a ‘comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence’.They won eight trophies during the period in which they are alleged to have breached financial rules, including three league titles.It is not yet clear when and how exactly City will be punished if their appeal fails, with speculation they could be handed a huge points deduction that would ensure they spend multiple seasons in the Championship.However, things could get worse for the Premier League giants, as further charges now threaten to be brought against them.Further charges?According to The Independent, multiple executives are pushing for Man City to be investigated for seasons after 2018.The club’s 114 charges relate to seasons from 2009 to 2018.However, it is reported that an increasing number of English football chiefs want the Premier League to look further into their conduct.This could prove a contentious issue though, with it being deemed a ‘dilemma’ for the game as the subject continues to cause significant debate.Directors are said to have been pointing to key details of the independent commission’s final verdict, which City instantly appealed.The legitimacy of Manchester City’s dominant era between 2009 and 2018 is on the line with the club’s appeal underwayGettyThe document presented how City’s sponsorship deals were inflated by disguised owner investment.But executives have now questioned whether that simply stopped in 2018, despite commercial income accounted as staying at the same level.A source is reported to have asked: “What changed overnight?”In its decision, the Independent Commission found that Man City and its Abu Dhabi-based sponsors were ‘Related Parties’. If the relationships did not change after 2018, then that would form the basis for more charges in subsequent seasons given the club did not report this or have the Fair Market Values of the sponsorships assessed.The current ongoing investigation has focused on the nine-year period due to a series of emails from football leaks that were first published by Der Spiegel in November 2018 and covered the years 2009 to 2018.Man City’s post-2018 era of dominance could be investigated, which saw them taste European glory for the first timeGettyDue to the continued wait for a sanction to be handed out to City, focus is said to have shifted onto the period after 2018.Executives feel that questions about this have not been adequately addressed by the Premier League.This is particularly due to City’s ongoing success since 2018, having won a further five league titles and the 2023 Champions League.Looking into this period could prove difficult though, with concerns there aren’t the same clear grounds for another investigation without evidence like the leaked emails.The Independent report adds that it might even be unnecessary if City’s guilty verdict is upheld and the sanctions are appropriate.Man City latestManchester City have repeatedly stated that they have a body of ‘irrefutable evidence‘ in their defence.City continue to navigate a title challenge while their appeal process rumbles onAFPThey feel as if the initial independent panel dismissed a lot of the initial reports from the Abu Dhabi government about the club.These are said to include bank statements and receipts that prove that the government provided the cash for their sponsorship deals and not their owners.These documents are set to be re-submitted, and the appeal process could also drag on with the punishment hearing also happening at the same time.Financial expert Stefan Borson revealed that the whole process could be delayed due to the need for both processes to be done separately.Speaking on White and Jordan in October, he said: “The preparation time required for the full appeal of the liability phase, i.e. whether they have done it or not – that to me can’t be run while they’re also being distracted on a sanction hearing.“There’s a lot of talk about how this is going to go quick. It just seems to me that it’s very unlikely that that’s the case.”