Let's remember that it's really only 3 substantive issues, not 115.
They'd be looking at a points deduction only if they felt our revenue was overstated, or expenses understated, to a point that we'd have failed PSR had they not been. That scenario would put us in the same sort of position as Everton.
The Mancini contract isn't enough to do that, plus there were no financial rules in place at the time as they were only introduced in 2013/14. I very much doubt Fordham would be enough to push us over as we're only talking about probably £13m a season.
So it's the Etihad contract, which we can only assume they're taking the same line as UEFA on, in that the majority wasn't paid by Etihad. But having looked at the figures, even if we're talking about Etihad etc being overstated by £60m a season, I'm dubious as to how we'd have failed the PL's profit and sustainability rules, which allow an aggregate loss of £105m over a 3-year period.
We reported an aggregate net profit of £7m over the first three years of the PL's rules. Adding back a minimum of £75m in allowable expenditure over those 3 years gives an adjusted net profit of over £80m meaning we'd have to have overstated our profit by £200m over those 3 years to have fallen foul of PSR enough to warrant a 6-point penalty.
Therefore you could potentially see the logic in the PL's offer of a 6-point deduction if they think we've significantly overstated sponsorship revenue. But we haven't done that, as CAS proved.
