I think we need to step back and consider other elements in "the process" which we haven't perhaps given due wight to. There is a danger that we see the personalities involved as master conspirators as opposed to pygmies involved with matters of a scale which is beyond them. Firstly I'm thinking of UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber. As a whole we are sure that they were not sympathetic to City whatever the case or whatever the evidence/grounds. David Conn assured us that City underestimated the great respect the English football "community" had for UEFA and he went further to tell us that Guy Leterme (the chairman [?] of the AC) was one of the most respected of Belgian prime ministers). In fact Leterme had outraged Belgian public opinion by claiming that Belgian Dutch speakers only spoke Dutch because they were too stupid to speak French. Twice PM, twice he lost motions of confidence and was forced to resign. He gave the impression of being a hothead who had difficulty in controlling his tongue and not acting before thinking. Hence, when City complained about leaks from UEFA Leterme and his much respected AC responded with a furious denial, a two year ban etc. Strong echoes here of the sense of entitlement and self-importance that led them to tell the EJY that the Bosman case was for UEFA to deal with and football contracts were no concern of the courts - another strong case put forward by the football authorities?!
In the event CAS opined (by 2-1) that there was no evidence to support any of the charges brought against City, but the PL's reaction was that their investigation would continue! Sense of entitlement? Klopp and Mourinho were wheeled out to tell us what a bad day for football and what a disgraceful ruling it all was. We suspect, to the point of certainty, the source of the UEFA leaks and the clubs they represented and we are told that it was Levy, a representative of yet another cartel club, who pushed the PL into reviving it's flagging investigation. Enter to 115 charges.
It seems that these charges cover much the same ground covered at CAS and this raises the question of what evidence the PL has and where has it come from. I can't rule out completely any new evidence but I'll have to see it to believe it because the possibility seems remote. And there is influence at work here. I've been watching football since 1955 and in that time The football authorities, English or European, have been to court several times and I don't think they've won one single case. In fact they've set an example of consistency in fighting lost causes in court. I cannot rule out the stupidity of those running football as a factor in all this. More than that the example seems to be one of monumental arrogance - that what happens in football is their concern only and no-one else's: and the courts have reminded them in no uncertain times that this is not the case. I think this time, yet again , that the independent commission will be under no illusion that cases require evidence and that the burden of proof is not light. There is, after all, the brooding presence of the independent regulator in the background but watching carefully.
