I don’t think we have anywhere near enough information on this but the key point I wanted to get across we did not admit it last time and it was also a 2-1 issue so the arguments were clearly not hopeless.Can’t disagree with any of that especially that it doesn’t make a whole load of difference, but the back and front channel messages were always ones of City refusing to provide anything meaningful until they got to CAS. The arguments we used always felt “likely to be unsuccessful but required in any event” at least that’s how they felt to me.
This time the messages are much more bullish and open that we have everything provided already in copious amounts and no hint of a failure to cooperate. To put it another way it just feels different this time on the cooperation front.
The concern on cooperation this time is the breadth of the PL rules. They appear to be far wider than UEFA’s so you can still breach even with a huge disclosure (which may or not have taken place). Likewise these are charges for breaches before the laying of charges - we are probably only just starting the disclosure process for the actual hearing.
And there is a huge hint of failure of cooperate in the fact that we’ve been charged extensively on those PL rules re cooperation.
So all bets are off especially as the issue on what is properly disclosable before a charge is bound to be debatable regardless of broad PL rules.