This thread is supposedly about the charges, all 115 of them, which City face but clearly debate is much more wide ranging than that. My view of the charges is that City have never falsified the club's accounts and is therefore completely innocent and the IC will reach this conclusion. I was convinced, however, by Stefan's argument (completely rejected by Nik Harris!) that FFP was imposed, not by a cartel but by a number of clubs determined to support rules very much in their favour. It has been pointed out today that there is no "American" view of FFP or investment. But back in 2008-9 UEFA were concerned about the problem of debt and many of Europe's most successful clubs at that time had financed growth through debt and had built up impressive revenues by heavy spending/investment. As Stefan pointed out action on debt was not in their interests but relating spending to revenue from sources other than owner investment was. It has to be added now that government and the independent regulator (whoever/whatever that might be) seem favourable to some form of "cost control". It seems to me to be a waste of time to try and decide what City's attitude to this would be now since City will not decide the matter. It would not surprise me if "cost control" still meant control of player costs, though perhaps not the crude control of FFP. I remember, at the time of the takeover or just after, and I think it was Khaldoon, saying that many in football seemed to think that money was the problem whereas that the new regime saw money as part of the answer. This may be very close to the view of the independent regulator. Certainly they seem to want a more equal distribution and this seems at odds with FFP but also with unrestricted investment.