PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[jaiguruKun]

No way, the implications would be huge. Whatever is announced will be the final decision. Suppose they did find us guilty and we were relegated, players sbd agenrs demand moves, sponsors were to ditch us and other clubs try to sue. And then 18 months later we win on appeal. How the hell does this then get unravelled? How are damages then assessed.

Any punishment would be suspended pending appeal for that very reason.

 

[TheGhost]

A points deduction wouldn’t be great news but fuck me, a pints deduction would be utterly catastrophic. Imagine no days on the lash watching City.

I lived in Burnage so went to a lot of games with Leve Blues around 95 - 2000. Even when I moved to London in September 97 I used to come back to Manchester and do away trips on the bus from Leve. There was really good crowd in there. I remember drinking in the Wheatsheaf after the Blackburn promotion game. I was that pissed walking home I could barely stand up, staggering taking 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. RIP Bill. How’s Steve doing?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Since we are all in the business of making predictions, I feel I should nail my colours to the mast.

You can call me rash, but I think I can safely say, without fear of contradiction, that every week we are getting closer to an announcement.

 

[Blue_eyes]

Since we are all in the business of making predictions, I feel I should nail my colours to the mast.

You can call me rash, but I think I can safely say, without fear of contradiction, that every week we are getting closer to an announcement.

If every day you travel half the remaining distance to your destination, you will get closer but never arrive.

This whole thing is beginning to feel a bit like that now.

 

[Chris in London]

For the last week or so this case jumps 10 pages overnight, someone then says "what's happened?" and the answer is "nothing."

Which made me think of several other things that didn't happen, that at least at the beginning of the process many thought would happen.

What's clear, for instance, is that the outcome to all of this will be decided by the as-yet-unnamed panel. To put the same point another way, there is not going to be any kind of last-minute plea bargain, settlement, compromise, call it what you will. This one has gone all the way.

That might have come as a surprise to many who commented on the charges at the beginning of the process. There were lots of people speculating that some shady deal might be done involving a substantial fine and a modest points deduction, but no stripping of titles or relegation-guaranteeing deductions.

Bearing in mind the massive stakes on either side, those predictions of some sort of settlement seemed highly plausible. The early media headlines involved such phrases as "City fight for Premier League survival" and "scandal" (even before a word of evidence had been heard). For the Premier League, too, this was high-stakes litigation. The bringing of such a massive number of charges over such a prolonged period of alleged wrongdoing makes them look vindictive and amateurish if they cannot make at least a substantial majority of them stick. As Simon Mullock pointed out, Richard Masters' position seems utterly untenable if the charges are substantially dismissed.

To say nothing of the massive costs burden likely to fall on the losing party.

So what inferences can be drawn from the fact that no deal has been reached?

It seems to me it is one of three things. First, it could be a sign of City's supreme confidence in their position. This would not be unprecedented: it has been widely rumoured that Ceferin himself came to the Etihad to broker a deal in relation to the UEFA FFP charges, well before UEFA imposed its initial swingeing punishment. City, if the rumours are to be believed, turned it down flat. Likewise, in this case, the absence of a deal might pint to supreme confidence on City's part.

The second possibility is that the PL are equally confident: but even if they were confident of a result, it would strike me as surprising that no deal has been done. If you are prosecuting a case such as this, even if the evidence seems strong there are still many reasons why you might want to offer a deal that involves taking a bird in the hand. Offer a lower punishment, take the certainty of a conviction as opposed to the uncertainty of a trial. And City, if such a deal had been offered in circumstances where the evidence was effectively unanswerable, would have been foolish not to take the deal.

One thing we know about all this is that City's directors are not fools.

Which leads to the third possibility, that the PL recognises that it's case is weak, but ploughs on regardless, even though defeat is inevitable. Why would the PL do that? One possibility is that the clubs who are widely suspected of making this happen in the first place do not want a settlement, even if the victory they crave is unlikely. Many have suggested that the process is the punishment. That view is not inconsistent with the PL dragging its case to a tribunal only to receive the mother of all drubbings.

Another thought that circulated widely at the time the charges were announced, related to the first point, was that the Government would step in. Accusing some very senior figures within the Abu Dhabi government of fraud over a 9 year period was not something that was likely to be received with equanimity in Abu Dhabi itself. We know the government stepped in to put the PL under pressure to allow the Saudi takeover of Newcastle, and we know the charges have been discussed at high level between the foreign office and our embassy in the UAE. We also know that when the last government published the bill to introduce an independent regulator, in approving takeovers one of the things they were to have regard to was the UK's trade and foreign policy. Those requirements were dropped when the bill was re-introduced after the 2024 election, but it is not fanciful to suspect that the government brought whatever influence it might have to bear to ensure that an embarrassing and damaging tribunal hearing did not threaten the substantial Abu Dhabi investments within the UK.

Again, this has not happened. We saw that the PL, under pressure from the redshirts and Tottenham Poodle to block the Saudi takeover, eventually buckled when the government brought its weight to bear. It would be surprising if the last government in particular, coming to the end of its term and desperate to avoid more bad economic news had adopted an entirely laissez-faire attitude towards all this. And when you've got the redshirts et al telling you what to do on the one side, and the government telling you what to do on the other, there's probably only one winner.

So what do we make of it? I haven't got time to set out my thoughts more fully as I’m about to hit the M1 in advance of the Brighton game. We will know soon enough, but nothing screams "confidence" like refusing to take a deal.

Especially if the PL has been pressured into offering one.

 

[mancity dan]

For the last week or so this case jumps 10 pages overnight, someone then says "what's happened?" and the answer is "nothing."

Which made me think of several other things that didn't happen, that at least at the beginning of the process many thought would happen.

What's clear, for instance, is that the outcome to all of this will be decided by the as-yet-unnamed panel. To put the same point another way, there is not going to be any kind of last-minute plea bargain, settlement, compromise, call it what you will. This one has gone all the way.

That might have come as a surprise to many who commented on the charges at the beginning of the process. There were lots of people speculating that some shady deal might be done involving a substantial fine and a modest points deduction, but no stripping of titles or relegation-guaranteeing deductions.

Bearing in mind the massive stakes on either side, those predictions of some sort of settlement seemed highly plausible. The early media headlines involved such phrases as "City fight for Premier League survival" and "scandal" (even before a word of evidence had been heard). For the Premier League, too, this was high-stakes litigation. The bringing of such a massive number of charges over such a prolonged period of alleged wrongdoing makes them look vindictive and amateurish if they cannot make at least a substantial majority of them stick. As Simon Mullock pointed out, Richard Masters' position seems utterly untenable if the charges are substantially dismissed.

To say nothing of the massive costs burden likely to fall on the losing party.

So what inferences can be drawn from the fact that no deal has been reached?

It seems to me it is one of three things. First, it could be a sign of City's supreme confidence in their position. This would not be unprecedented: it has been widely rumoured that Ceferin himself came to the Etihad to broker a deal in relation to the UEFA FFP charges, well before UEFA imposed its initial swingeing punishment. City, if the rumours are to be believed, turned it down flat. Likewise, in this case, the absence of a deal might pint to supreme confidence on City's part.

The second possibility is that the PL are equally confident: but even if they were confident of a result, it would strike me as surprising that no deal has been done. If you are prosecuting a case such as this, even if the evidence seems strong there are still many reasons why you might want to offer a deal that involves taking a bird in the hand. Offer a lower punishment, take the certainty of a conviction as opposed to the uncertainty of a trial. And City, if such a deal had been offered in circumstances where the evidence was effectively unanswerable, would have been foolish not to take the deal.

One thing we know about all this is that City's directors are not fools.

Which leads to the third possibility, that the PL recognises that it's case is weak, but ploughs on regardless, even though defeat is inevitable. Why would the PL do that? One possibility is that the clubs who are widely suspected of making this happen in the first place do not want a settlement, even if the victory they crave is unlikely. Many have suggested that the process is the punishment. That view is not inconsistent with the PL dragging its case to a tribunal only to receive the mother of all drubbings.

Another thought that circulated widely at the time the charges were announced, related to the first point, was that the Government would step in. Accusing some very senior figures within the Abu Dhabi government of fraud over a 9 year period was not something that was likely to be received with equanimity in Abu Dhabi itself. We know the government stepped in to put the PL under pressure to allow the Saudi takeover of Newcastle, and we know the charges have been discussed at high level between the foreign office and our embassy in the UAE. We also know that when the last government published the bill to introduce an independent regulator, in approving takeovers one of the things they were to have regard to was the UK's trade and foreign policy. Those requirements were dropped when the bill was re-introduced after the 2024 election, but it is not fanciful to suspect that the government brought whatever influence it might have to bear to ensure that an embarrassing and damaging tribunal hearing did not threaten the substantial Abu Dhabi investments within the UK.

Again, this has not happened. We saw that the PL, under pressure from the redshirts and Tottenham Poodle to block the Saudi takeover, eventually buckled when the government brought its weight to bear. It would be surprising if the last government in particular, coming to the end of its term and desperate to avoid more bad economic news had adopted an entirely laissez-faire attitude towards all this. And when you've got the redshirts et al telling you what to do on the one side, and the government telling you what to do on the other, there's probably only one winner.

So what do we make of it? I haven't got time to set out my thoughts more fully as I’m about to hit the M1 in advance of the Brighton game. We will know soon enough, but nothing screams "confidence" like refusing to take a deal.

Especially if the PL has been pressured into offering one.

Thanks Chris. Very succinctly put.

 

[Mifred]

Since we are all in the business of making predictions, I feel I should nail my colours to the mast.

You can call me rash, but I think I can safely say, without fear of contradiction, that every week we are getting closer to an announcement.

Thanks Rash

 

[Monkchester]

Since we are all in the business of making predictions, I feel I should nail my colours to the mast.

You can call me rash, but I think I can safely say, without fear of contradiction, that every week we are getting closer to an announcement.

You could never be called Rash - that would mean you are useless, overpaid and have no meaningful contribution to make - all of which is blatantly untrue as can be seen from your valuable post on here

 

[Irlamblue]

Since we are all in the business of making predictions, I feel I should nail my colours to the mast.

You can call me rash, but I think I can safely say, without fear of contradiction, that every week we are getting closer to an announcement.

You say that but. I think the jury is out on that assumption.

 

[CC1]

For the last week or so this case jumps 10 pages overnight, someone then says "what's happened?" and the answer is "nothing."

Which made me think of several other things that didn't happen, that at least at the beginning of the process many thought would happen.

What's clear, for instance, is that the outcome to all of this will be decided by the as-yet-unnamed panel. To put the same point another way, there is not going to be any kind of last-minute plea bargain, settlement, compromise, call it what you will. This one has gone all the way.

That might have come as a surprise to many who commented on the charges at the beginning of the process. There were lots of people speculating that some shady deal might be done involving a substantial fine and a modest points deduction, but no stripping of titles or relegation-guaranteeing deductions.

Bearing in mind the massive stakes on either side, those predictions of some sort of settlement seemed highly plausible. The early media headlines involved such phrases as "City fight for Premier League survival" and "scandal" (even before a word of evidence had been heard). For the Premier League, too, this was high-stakes litigation. The bringing of such a massive number of charges over such a prolonged period of alleged wrongdoing makes them look vindictive and amateurish if they cannot make at least a substantial majority of them stick. As Simon Mullock pointed out, Richard Masters' position seems utterly untenable if the charges are substantially dismissed.

To say nothing of the massive costs burden likely to fall on the losing party.

So what inferences can be drawn from the fact that no deal has been reached?

It seems to me it is one of three things. First, it could be a sign of City's supreme confidence in their position. This would not be unprecedented: it has been widely rumoured that Ceferin himself came to the Etihad to broker a deal in relation to the UEFA FFP charges, well before UEFA imposed its initial swingeing punishment. City, if the rumours are to be believed, turned it down flat. Likewise, in this case, the absence of a deal might pint to supreme confidence on City's part.

The second possibility is that the PL are equally confident: but even if they were confident of a result, it would strike me as surprising that no deal has been done. If you are prosecuting a case such as this, even if the evidence seems strong there are still many reasons why you might want to offer a deal that involves taking a bird in the hand. Offer a lower punishment, take the certainty of a conviction as opposed to the uncertainty of a trial. And City, if such a deal had been offered in circumstances where the evidence was effectively unanswerable, would have been foolish not to take the deal.

One thing we know about all this is that City's directors are not fools.

Which leads to the third possibility, that the PL recognises that it's case is weak, but ploughs on regardless, even though defeat is inevitable. Why would the PL do that? One possibility is that the clubs who are widely suspected of making this happen in the first place do not want a settlement, even if the victory they crave is unlikely. Many have suggested that the process is the punishment. That view is not inconsistent with the PL dragging its case to a tribunal only to receive the mother of all drubbings.

Another thought that circulated widely at the time the charges were announced, related to the first point, was that the Government would step in. Accusing some very senior figures within the Abu Dhabi government of fraud over a 9 year period was not something that was likely to be received with equanimity in Abu Dhabi itself. We know the government stepped in to put the PL under pressure to allow the Saudi takeover of Newcastle, and we know the charges have been discussed at high level between the foreign office and our embassy in the UAE. We also know that when the last government published the bill to introduce an independent regulator, in approving takeovers one of the things they were to have regard to was the UK's trade and foreign policy. Those requirements were dropped when the bill was re-introduced after the 2024 election, but it is not fanciful to suspect that the government brought whatever influence it might have to bear to ensure that an embarrassing and damaging tribunal hearing did not threaten the substantial Abu Dhabi investments within the UK.

Again, this has not happened. We saw that the PL, under pressure from the redshirts and Tottenham Poodle to block the Saudi takeover, eventually buckled when the government brought its weight to bear. It would be surprising if the last government in particular, coming to the end of its term and desperate to avoid more bad economic news had adopted an entirely laissez-faire attitude towards all this. And when you've got the redshirts et al telling you what to do on the one side, and the government telling you what to do on the other, there's probably only one winner.

So what do we make of it? I haven't got time to set out my thoughts more fully as I’m about to hit the M1 in advance of the Brighton game. We will know soon enough, but nothing screams "confidence" like refusing to take a deal.

Especially if the PL has been pressured into offering one.

Excellent summary but it doesn’t make me feel particularly confident. Indeed, it now feels as if the club have taken a huge risk.
Still, I’m up & down every day on this issue. One day I read something that inspires confidence, the next a contradictory view appears.
Wish it was over

 

[mexico1970]

Excellent summary but it doesn’t make me feel particularly confident. Indeed, it now feels as if the club have taken a huge risk.
Still, I’m up & down every day on this issue. One day I read something that inspires confidence, the next a contradictory view appears.
Wish it was over

 

[Chris in London]

Excellent summary but it doesn’t make me feel particularly confident. Indeed, it now feels as if the club have taken a huge risk.
Still, I’m up & down every day on this issue. One day I read something that inspires confidence, the next a contradictory view appears.
Wish it was over

You can measure risk in two ways though: by reference to the risk that something bad will happen or to the seriousness of the consequences if it does. If you ever get on board a plane the chances of it crashing are not great. But if it does the consequences are cataclysmic.

Which strikes me as being the territory the club is in. If they were confident about the outcome but terrified of the consequences if they lost, they would have done a deal.

Either way they were taking a huge risk - either a risk to their reputation by swallowing an undeserved punishment or a risk that we might lose even though the evidence appeared weak.

There is no risk-averse outcome when charges like this are brought.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

For the last week or so this case jumps 10 pages overnight, someone then says "what's happened?" and the answer is "nothing."

Which made me think of several other things that didn't happen, that at least at the beginning of the process many thought would happen.

What's clear, for instance, is that the outcome to all of this will be decided by the as-yet-unnamed panel. To put the same point another way, there is not going to be any kind of last-minute plea bargain, settlement, compromise, call it what you will. This one has gone all the way.

That might have come as a surprise to many who commented on the charges at the beginning of the process. There were lots of people speculating that some shady deal might be done involving a substantial fine and a modest points deduction, but no stripping of titles or relegation-guaranteeing deductions.

Bearing in mind the massive stakes on either side, those predictions of some sort of settlement seemed highly plausible. The early media headlines involved such phrases as "City fight for Premier League survival" and "scandal" (even before a word of evidence had been heard). For the Premier League, too, this was high-stakes litigation. The bringing of such a massive number of charges over such a prolonged period of alleged wrongdoing makes them look vindictive and amateurish if they cannot make at least a substantial majority of them stick. As Simon Mullock pointed out, Richard Masters' position seems utterly untenable if the charges are substantially dismissed.

To say nothing of the massive costs burden likely to fall on the losing party.

So what inferences can be drawn from the fact that no deal has been reached?

It seems to me it is one of three things. First, it could be a sign of City's supreme confidence in their position. This would not be unprecedented: it has been widely rumoured that Ceferin himself came to the Etihad to broker a deal in relation to the UEFA FFP charges, well before UEFA imposed its initial swingeing punishment. City, if the rumours are to be believed, turned it down flat. Likewise, in this case, the absence of a deal might pint to supreme confidence on City's part.

The second possibility is that the PL are equally confident: but even if they were confident of a result, it would strike me as surprising that no deal has been done. If you are prosecuting a case such as this, even if the evidence seems strong there are still many reasons why you might want to offer a deal that involves taking a bird in the hand. Offer a lower punishment, take the certainty of a conviction as opposed to the uncertainty of a trial. And City, if such a deal had been offered in circumstances where the evidence was effectively unanswerable, would have been foolish not to take the deal.

One thing we know about all this is that City's directors are not fools.

Which leads to the third possibility, that the PL recognises that it's case is weak, but ploughs on regardless, even though defeat is inevitable. Why would the PL do that? One possibility is that the clubs who are widely suspected of making this happen in the first place do not want a settlement, even if the victory they crave is unlikely. Many have suggested that the process is the punishment. That view is not inconsistent with the PL dragging its case to a tribunal only to receive the mother of all drubbings.

Another thought that circulated widely at the time the charges were announced, related to the first point, was that the Government would step in. Accusing some very senior figures within the Abu Dhabi government of fraud over a 9 year period was not something that was likely to be received with equanimity in Abu Dhabi itself. We know the government stepped in to put the PL under pressure to allow the Saudi takeover of Newcastle, and we know the charges have been discussed at high level between the foreign office and our embassy in the UAE. We also know that when the last government published the bill to introduce an independent regulator, in approving takeovers one of the things they were to have regard to was the UK's trade and foreign policy. Those requirements were dropped when the bill was re-introduced after the 2024 election, but it is not fanciful to suspect that the government brought whatever influence it might have to bear to ensure that an embarrassing and damaging tribunal hearing did not threaten the substantial Abu Dhabi investments within the UK.

Again, this has not happened. We saw that the PL, under pressure from the redshirts and Tottenham Poodle to block the Saudi takeover, eventually buckled when the government brought its weight to bear. It would be surprising if the last government in particular, coming to the end of its term and desperate to avoid more bad economic news had adopted an entirely laissez-faire attitude towards all this. And when you've got the redshirts et al telling you what to do on the one side, and the government telling you what to do on the other, there's probably only one winner.

So what do we make of it? I haven't got time to set out my thoughts more fully as I’m about to hit the M1 in advance of the Brighton game. We will know soon enough, but nothing screams "confidence" like refusing to take a deal.

Especially if the PL has been pressured into offering one.

I think your 3rd possibility makes a lot of sense to me. Like it or not a few clubs have disproportionate power in the premier league. To me it feels like their pressure led to avalanche of charges. If they had a smaller scope it wouldn’t have had the same narrative power but may have been resolved long ago. The premier league went for maximum impact on the club’s name and reputation.

The hope, no doubt, was to bring the club to heel, impact future player recruitment, sponsorship and taint previous success. To a degree it has only had an impact on how other supporters see our previous silverware.

The unknown obviously is what happens next. If we succeed on all charges will it lift the cloud over the club? If we win all bar the non cooperation charges how will that be reported?

What does the club do in the wake of the verdict?

Interesting times ahead.

 

[halfcenturyup]

For the last week or so this case jumps 10 pages overnight, someone then says "what's happened?" and the answer is "nothing."

Which made me think of several other things that didn't happen, that at least at the beginning of the process many thought would happen.

What's clear, for instance, is that the outcome to all of this will be decided by the as-yet-unnamed panel. To put the same point another way, there is not going to be any kind of last-minute plea bargain, settlement, compromise, call it what you will. This one has gone all the way.

That might have come as a surprise to many who commented on the charges at the beginning of the process. There were lots of people speculating that some shady deal might be done involving a substantial fine and a modest points deduction, but no stripping of titles or relegation-guaranteeing deductions.

Bearing in mind the massive stakes on either side, those predictions of some sort of settlement seemed highly plausible. The early media headlines involved such phrases as "City fight for Premier League survival" and "scandal" (even before a word of evidence had been heard). For the Premier League, too, this was high-stakes litigation. The bringing of such a massive number of charges over such a prolonged period of alleged wrongdoing makes them look vindictive and amateurish if they cannot make at least a substantial majority of them stick. As Simon Mullock pointed out, Richard Masters' position seems utterly untenable if the charges are substantially dismissed.

To say nothing of the massive costs burden likely to fall on the losing party.

So what inferences can be drawn from the fact that no deal has been reached?

It seems to me it is one of three things. First, it could be a sign of City's supreme confidence in their position. This would not be unprecedented: it has been widely rumoured that Ceferin himself came to the Etihad to broker a deal in relation to the UEFA FFP charges, well before UEFA imposed its initial swingeing punishment. City, if the rumours are to be believed, turned it down flat. Likewise, in this case, the absence of a deal might pint to supreme confidence on City's part.

The second possibility is that the PL are equally confident: but even if they were confident of a result, it would strike me as surprising that no deal has been done. If you are prosecuting a case such as this, even if the evidence seems strong there are still many reasons why you might want to offer a deal that involves taking a bird in the hand. Offer a lower punishment, take the certainty of a conviction as opposed to the uncertainty of a trial. And City, if such a deal had been offered in circumstances where the evidence was effectively unanswerable, would have been foolish not to take the deal.

One thing we know about all this is that City's directors are not fools.

Which leads to the third possibility, that the PL recognises that it's case is weak, but ploughs on regardless, even though defeat is inevitable. Why would the PL do that? One possibility is that the clubs who are widely suspected of making this happen in the first place do not want a settlement, even if the victory they crave is unlikely. Many have suggested that the process is the punishment. That view is not inconsistent with the PL dragging its case to a tribunal only to receive the mother of all drubbings.

Another thought that circulated widely at the time the charges were announced, related to the first point, was that the Government would step in. Accusing some very senior figures within the Abu Dhabi government of fraud over a 9 year period was not something that was likely to be received with equanimity in Abu Dhabi itself. We know the government stepped in to put the PL under pressure to allow the Saudi takeover of Newcastle, and we know the charges have been discussed at high level between the foreign office and our embassy in the UAE. We also know that when the last government published the bill to introduce an independent regulator, in approving takeovers one of the things they were to have regard to was the UK's trade and foreign policy. Those requirements were dropped when the bill was re-introduced after the 2024 election, but it is not fanciful to suspect that the government brought whatever influence it might have to bear to ensure that an embarrassing and damaging tribunal hearing did not threaten the substantial Abu Dhabi investments within the UK.

Again, this has not happened. We saw that the PL, under pressure from the redshirts and Tottenham Poodle to block the Saudi takeover, eventually buckled when the government brought its weight to bear. It would be surprising if the last government in particular, coming to the end of its term and desperate to avoid more bad economic news had adopted an entirely laissez-faire attitude towards all this. And when you've got the redshirts et al telling you what to do on the one side, and the government telling you what to do on the other, there's probably only one winner.

So what do we make of it? I haven't got time to set out my thoughts more fully as I’m about to hit the M1 in advance of the Brighton game. We will know soon enough, but nothing screams "confidence" like refusing to take a deal.

Especially if the PL has been pressured into offering one.

That's all well and good. But is it this Monday?

\0/

 

[dadnlad]

You can measure risk in two ways though: by reference to the risk that something bad will happen or to the seriousness of the consequences if it does. If you ever get on board a plane the chances of it crashing are not great. But if it does the consequences are cataclysmic.

Which strikes me as being the territory the club is in. If they were confident about the outcome but terrified of the consequences if they lost, they would have done a deal.

Either way they were taking a huge risk - either a risk to their reputation by swallowing an undeserved punishment or a risk that we might lose even though the evidence appeared weak.

There is no risk-averse outcome when charges like this are brought.

we took a pinch years ago to try and fit in look how that turned out

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

For the last week or so this case jumps 10 pages overnight, someone then says "what's happened?" and the answer is "nothing."

Which made me think of several other things that didn't happen, that at least at the beginning of the process many thought would happen.

What's clear, for instance, is that the outcome to all of this will be decided by the as-yet-unnamed panel. To put the same point another way, there is not going to be any kind of last-minute plea bargain, settlement, compromise, call it what you will. This one has gone all the way.

That might have come as a surprise to many who commented on the charges at the beginning of the process. There were lots of people speculating that some shady deal might be done involving a substantial fine and a modest points deduction, but no stripping of titles or relegation-guaranteeing deductions.

Bearing in mind the massive stakes on either side, those predictions of some sort of settlement seemed highly plausible. The early media headlines involved such phrases as "City fight for Premier League survival" and "scandal" (even before a word of evidence had been heard). For the Premier League, too, this was high-stakes litigation. The bringing of such a massive number of charges over such a prolonged period of alleged wrongdoing makes them look vindictive and amateurish if they cannot make at least a substantial majority of them stick. As Simon Mullock pointed out, Richard Masters' position seems utterly untenable if the charges are substantially dismissed.

To say nothing of the massive costs burden likely to fall on the losing party.

So what inferences can be drawn from the fact that no deal has been reached?

It seems to me it is one of three things. First, it could be a sign of City's supreme confidence in their position. This would not be unprecedented: it has been widely rumoured that Ceferin himself came to the Etihad to broker a deal in relation to the UEFA FFP charges, well before UEFA imposed its initial swingeing punishment. City, if the rumours are to be believed, turned it down flat. Likewise, in this case, the absence of a deal might pint to supreme confidence on City's part.

The second possibility is that the PL are equally confident: but even if they were confident of a result, it would strike me as surprising that no deal has been done. If you are prosecuting a case such as this, even if the evidence seems strong there are still many reasons why you might want to offer a deal that involves taking a bird in the hand. Offer a lower punishment, take the certainty of a conviction as opposed to the uncertainty of a trial. And City, if such a deal had been offered in circumstances where the evidence was effectively unanswerable, would have been foolish not to take the deal.

One thing we know about all this is that City's directors are not fools.

Which leads to the third possibility, that the PL recognises that it's case is weak, but ploughs on regardless, even though defeat is inevitable. Why would the PL do that? One possibility is that the clubs who are widely suspected of making this happen in the first place do not want a settlement, even if the victory they crave is unlikely. Many have suggested that the process is the punishment. That view is not inconsistent with the PL dragging its case to a tribunal only to receive the mother of all drubbings.

Another thought that circulated widely at the time the charges were announced, related to the first point, was that the Government would step in. Accusing some very senior figures within the Abu Dhabi government of fraud over a 9 year period was not something that was likely to be received with equanimity in Abu Dhabi itself. We know the government stepped in to put the PL under pressure to allow the Saudi takeover of Newcastle, and we know the charges have been discussed at high level between the foreign office and our embassy in the UAE. We also know that when the last government published the bill to introduce an independent regulator, in approving takeovers one of the things they were to have regard to was the UK's trade and foreign policy. Those requirements were dropped when the bill was re-introduced after the 2024 election, but it is not fanciful to suspect that the government brought whatever influence it might have to bear to ensure that an embarrassing and damaging tribunal hearing did not threaten the substantial Abu Dhabi investments within the UK.

Again, this has not happened. We saw that the PL, under pressure from the redshirts and Tottenham Poodle to block the Saudi takeover, eventually buckled when the government brought its weight to bear. It would be surprising if the last government in particular, coming to the end of its term and desperate to avoid more bad economic news had adopted an entirely laissez-faire attitude towards all this. And when you've got the redshirts et al telling you what to do on the one side, and the government telling you what to do on the other, there's probably only one winner.

So what do we make of it? I haven't got time to set out my thoughts more fully as I’m about to hit the M1 in advance of the Brighton game. We will know soon enough, but nothing screams "confidence" like refusing to take a deal.

Especially if the PL has been pressured into offering one.

Excellent as ever Chris.

Two comments from me:

1. The UEFA offer of a settlement was more than a rumour. I've posted on here before that the City Matters group at the time were told this directly by Omar Berrada. He said that Ceferin had offered us a fine if we pleaded guilty to what he described as "a technical accounting breach". I'm wondering now if that involved our "failure" to declare Etihad etc. as related parties. Omar was usually a very quiet, understated man but I felt the anger and passion in him when he was telling us that. The club clearly thought it was an insult and a way for UEFA to save face, having dragged our name through the mud. I believe the story that the PL offered us a deal, but I didn't hear that first hand. Of course we know what happened with UEFA's case following our appeal to CAS.

2. If the PL deal story is true, the both them and UEFA offered these while the respective cases were being considered by supposedly independent bodies, being UEFA's CFCB and the PL's Independent Commission. Masters made great play of the fact that the issue was out of his hands so it does beg the question of how truly independent these bodies truly are. Could UEFA/PL go back to these "independent bodies" and tell them what the agreed outcome is?

My suspicion is that, City having refused a deal, UEFA said to Leterme as head of the CFCB's Adjudicatory Chamber "throw the book at them", which he duly did. As we saw with Dr Haas, the UEFA appointee at CAS, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

[nmc]

Excellent summary but it doesn’t make me feel particularly confident. Indeed, it now feels as if the club have taken a huge risk.
Still, I’m up & down every day on this issue. One day I read something that inspires confidence, the next a contradictory view appears.
Wish it was over

Maybe we over analyse and over scrutinise because there’s very little in the public domain but, from the clubs perspective if they know they have not done what we have been accused of they should be confident and let the PL do their worst.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

Excellent as ever Chris.

Two comments from me:

1. The UEFA offer of a settlement was more than a rumour. I've posted on here before that the City Matters group at the time were told this directly by Omar Berrada. He said that Ceferin had offered us a fine if we pleaded guilty to what he described as "a technical accounting breach". I'm wondering now if that involved our "failure" to declare Etihad etc. as related parties. Omar was usually a very quiet, understated man but I felt the anger and passion in him when he was telling us that. The club clearly thought it was an insult and a way for UEFA to save face, having dragged our name through the mud. I believe the story that the PL offered us a deal, but I didn't hear that first hand. Of course we know what happened with UEFA's case following our appeal to CAS.

2. If the PL deal story is true, the both them and UEFA offered these while the respective cases were being considered by supposedly independent bodies, being UEFA's CFCB and the PL's Independent Commission. Masters made great play of the fact that the issue was out of his hands so it does beg the question of how truly independent these bodies truly are. Could UEFA/PL go back to these "independent bodies" and tell them what the agreed outcome is?

My suspicion is that, City having refused a deal, UEFA said to Leterme as head of the CFCB's Adjudicatory Chamber "throw the book at them", which he duly did. As we saw with Dr Haas, the UEFA appointee at CAS, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

So are you saying you think one or more of the ‘independent panel’ can be influenced by masters and in turn the cartel clubs?
Let’s hope not as it could be a bumpy ride and an appeal etc if so.

 

[Asa's left peg]

I heard a little snippet that supports the possibility of a positive outcome, from one of the legal teams.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So are you saying you think one or more of the ‘independent panel’ can be influenced by masters and in turn the cartel clubs?
Let’s hope not as it could be a bumpy ride and an appeal etc if so.

Well if Ceferin & Masters can go back to their "independent" panels and tell them they've essentially by-passed them in the middle of an investigation and arranged a deal, then clearly they can't be that independent can they?