Just to smear City is a possibility I suppose but if correct it stinks to high heaven and suggests a total lack of thinking things through by the EPL.
If they do have evidence no one yet knows about (which i think highly unlikely) then City must be grandstanding in their protestations of innocence.
Another possibility is that they (EPL) set in motion a fishing expedition which City sought (unsuccessfully as it turned out) to squash hence the application to the commercial court. Stefan, on Twitter, expressses the view that City were, perhaps, ill advised to challenge the PL panel’s jurisdiction and/or objectivity or lack of it. It gave the media the excuse to accuse City of deliberate delaying tactics.
Incidentally in the published judgement, which both City and the PL would have preferred to keep private, one of City’s objections to its publication was the potentially detrimental effect on obtaining potential sponsors. In her reasons for ordering the judgement to be published the judge made the point that any would be sponsor could/would carry out due diligence before committing to sponsorship and since then City have taken on board mainstream sponsors (Kellogg I seem to recall) so that seems to give cause for optimism. Then again any new sponsorship agreement may have a conditional get out clause in the event City are found in breach.
it just goes round and round in my brain and I just wish the whole mess could be put to rest because there is little doubt that until that happens it’s open season on City baiting which is hard for us blues to continue to endure
