The completely disproportionate "treatment" handed out to Everton has triggered the predictable excitement in the mainstream media which takes us all way beyond the limits of dispassionate analytical thought and into the realms of waking nightmare. Bluemoon is infected as posters chew on the treatment we could cop for if Everton can be handled so. Some have kept clear heads and, thankfully, point out that City claim that the evidence of innocence the club has presented is "irrefutable" and so speculation as to the draconian punishment which will be handed down to us is irrelevant. The still small voice of reason cries out "we haven't done anything wrong".
This is, in many ways, a re-run of our troubles with UEFA which culminated in the CAS judgement. The adjudicatory chamber of M. Leterme threw a hissy fit when it was accused of leaking like a sieve and the media was able to announce with a note of triumph the sentence which was to be passed - before the inquiry was complete. CAS found that UEFA had no evidence - no evidence at all, no simply not enough - to prove the very serious charges of concealing the origin of income - and judgement was conclusively in City's favour. After an indecent period the PL, bullied by Mr Levy as the representative of a murky group of clubs, was pushed into having another go. Unfortunately the charge sheet was rather confused and City were accused of not cutting the grass properly but then the PL upped its game and decided City should be accused of fraud. The question of evidence remains. UEFA had no more than a few scruffy, doctored emails. Do the PL have even that? Are they actually trying to fend off an independent regulator and are City (and Everton!) a means to that end? At this late stage it is impossible that City will agree to take a slap on the wrist to save the PL's dirty face.
The cast iron certainty of the media that City are guilty has to be set against City's insistence that we are innocent. I would also point out that the opinion of lawyers (admittedly usually with connections with City) tends to the view either that the PL will find it extremely difficult to uphold their case or they will find it impossible without compelling new evidence - and no-one has any inkling that this exists.