This has probably already been mentioned but UEFA are clearly briefing journalists about the nature of their case against City.
First there was the NYT, now the BBC.
If you read the Dan Roan report, he's appears to have a source close to the investigation.
For example,
"And it is thought that Uefa's investigators feel more confident that they have a solid argument this time.
That may be because this case is unusual in that City stand accused of misleading Uefa's investigators, rather than simply a conventional FFP breach of inflating the value of a sponsorship deal and failing to break even.
It has been noted by some at Uefa that City are insisting they have provided evidence that proves that the "accusation of financial irregularities remains entirely false", but in their statements they do not refer to the more pertinent allegation that they may have misled investigators."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48296885
I don't quite understand the distinction between financial irregularities and misleading investigators. If City's documentation proves the sponsorship agreements are valid, and sourced from Company funds, then how have we misled investigators? I don't understand what they mean by misleading investigators. Do they mean misleading them as to the source of the money? I am very confident that Etihad Airways will be able to corroborate their sponsorship and that does not leave much else of significant value so what is UEFA's case.
Dan Roan leaves it as misleading investigators, but what does that mean. It's supposedly pertinent but it's not obvious to me what their concern is.
I am tempted to think that City have actually been able to refute their main allegation of inflated sponsorships, so they have in UEFA style, changed tack again.