WE HAVE COOPERATED. BELATEDLY. NOT EARLY ENOUGH TO AVOID A CHARGE OF NON COOPERATION, BUT ENOUGH FOR THE PL TO CONDUCT THEIR INVESTIGATION. IF TOLMIES HAIRDOO IS CORRECT, AND HE USUALLY IS, WE HAVE GIVEN THE PL ENOUGH DOCUMENTATION TO FILL A PORTAKABIN. SO THE NON COOPERATION CHARGE OF WHICH WE ARE IMO GUILTY IS NOT “YOU DIDN’T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS AT ALL”, IT IS “YOU DIDN‘T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS WE ASKED FOR WHEN WE ASKED FOR THEM.”
Yes, this seems to be the position. But surely the fact that we cooperated after the High Court ruling on the matter would be relevant in terms of deciding the punishment? Even the CAS agreed that we deserved a fairly heavy fine for not cooperating in those proceedings, but the circumstances then were quite different.
Then, we expressly declined to cooperate, telling UEFA we didn't trust their process, and waited until we went before an independent tribunal before producing relevant evidence. Here, we told the PL that we didn't think they were entitled to ask for what they had, no doubt on legal advice. It turned out that the High Court agreed with them and not us. If we cooperated in full once we had clarification of what we were legally entitled to ask for, then it would seem to mitigate City's position significantly, wouldn't it?
I also note, and believe, TH's comment to the effect that we've provided the PL with a welter of material. In MCFC's own statement, the club made reference to the "vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with". The point in this regard that I (like others) find hard to square in my own mind is why, in this event, the PL has charged us.
We've already run through the theoretical possibilities (either they have convincing evidence we're not aware of or they've given in when pressured by the redshirts to follow this course). To those, Stefan added another - that we're incorrect in our analysis with regard to the standard of proof.
If we speculate on the point that they did so having folded in the face of pressure, then I think a further issue worth raising here is the role of the media. Back in a previous lifetime, I worked for six years in the UK central government, and I've seen how ostensibly sensible and professional people can sometimes act in ways that seem to run completely counter to those qualities with a view to avoiding public criticism.
With regard to the Der Spiegel emails, I don't dispute that they showed City in a wholly negative light and were extremely damaging. Comments and discussions were committed to email that never should have been (to say nothing of the questions the episode raised with regard to our IT security, but that's a separate issue). However, Der Spiegel's presentation of the hacked documents was IMO highly selective and sensational, resulting it it being misleading to a layman reader. Intentionally so, I suspect.
The British press's resultant coverage was, however, utterly hysterical. I understand that this was a big story and it quite clearly raised serious questions for the club to answer. I have no problem with it being reported as such. But the rush to condemn the club - and the general attendant glee at having the opportunity to do so - went far, far beyond any notion of fair and impartial reporting. The only mainstream media figure with any sympathy for us was Martin Samuel, and even he assumed from the off that we were guilty.
People label this kind of thinking as paranoid, but there are journalists out there who've admitted to pushing in their reporting a line of argument that's aimed at discrediting City. Miguel Delaney and Nick Harris have both been quite open on social media about having done (and continuing to do) so, while The Guardian seems very clearly to me to have an anti-City editorial stance.
In this context, it matters little why they do this. The fact is that it sets an agenda and the rest of the football press pack follows. These people have minimal knowledge or expertise when it comes to the off-field aspects of the game, so when the prevailing narrative is set, they follow. That's what's happened with City, IMO. A few have stirred the pot and succeeded in creating a febrile environment in which MCFC are acknowledged as cheats so punishment is expected.
My contention is that, in a context where the PL has faced considerable pressure from within on the part of the redshirts to act against City, there's been considerable pressure from without, too. We'll gain an idea of what the truth is in due course, I suppose, but for now I don't find it inconceivable that the media attitude could have influenced the PL to a certain, contributory degree (I'm not saying it could be the main factor).
After all, I think that few people when taking a decision with ramifications that interest many people want to find that decision widely and publicly lambasted. And a decision on the part of the PL to decline to charge City would have been met with vituperative condemnation from the usual suspects and, most likely, from far wider quarters than that.
