01 Oct 2026 15:34:23
Are City getting investigated after 2018 as surely their indiscretions didn't stop there?

1.) 01 Oct 2026
01 Oct 2026 18:13:06
I don't know Corkey. The original hacking of documents only went up to 2018 when the PL started the investigation and they only came up with the charges in 2023.
I think many would suspect that they haven't changed but until there is evidence, and none seems to be filtering out, nothing will happen.
I suspect that most of these misdemeanours occurred in the earlier years when the owners were desperate to quickly establish City as the major force in the PL. Since then they've probably cleaned up their act a bit and can operate within the current regulations.

One thing that is interesting is that some of the accusations relate to breaching UEFA regulations. It would be hoped that they would take action against City. However, UEFA tried to punish City a few years ago but lost on a technicality at CAS. They got off because there is a five year statue of limitations on prosecutions relating to financial regulations. It might be that they will get off again with regard to European sanctions. The only get out is that if the infringements relate to fraud then there is no time limit so maybe on this occasion UEFA will pursue City for fraud rather than breaching fair play rules.

2.) 01 Oct 2026
01 Oct 2026 17:57:13
Absolutely Corkey.2018 to present day.more transgressions of all sorts feasible.

3.) 02 Oct 2026
02 Oct 2026 11:28:31
The period under investigation was from 2009/10 to 2017/18. Most of us could see from 2009 that something was wrong. Their PL finishing positions from 2007 to 2012 were 14th, 9th, 10th, 5th, 3rd, 1st. In the real world changes from mid-table mediocracy to title winning form over such a short period just don't happen, and my (and others) suspicions began then.

As for the period from 2018 to the present day, whilst there's no evidence of wrongdoing (yet) , I'd just say that leopards don't change their spots.

4.) 02 Oct 2026
02 Oct 2026 14:12:01
Wenger raised concerns in 2011 about City bending the fair play rules, especially with regard to sponsorship.
Arsenal had a deal with Emirates in 2006 for £90m over 15 years. City's deal with Etihad, admittedly five years later, was £400m over 10 years.

It might be a bit of sour grapes by Wenger but it does seem a remarkably good deal and might be even better if further payments were off the books.

5.) 02 Oct 2026
02 Oct 2026 16:22:43
£6M per year versus £40M per year, that's 567% difference over 5 years, that's some inflation!

6.) 02 Oct 2026
02 Oct 2026 18:52:31
So Citeh owners confirm they are appealing stating tge commision's ruling contained :

" clear material errors of law, principle and fact and is unsafe ".

Okey dokey.

7.) 02 Oct 2026
02 Oct 2026 19:36:18
Well, it is safe to say that this ain't a court of law, they have no principles, and regard facts as a flexible concept.

8.) 02 Oct 2026
02 Oct 2026 20:32:57
Well put JR, hilarious. ?
Listening to someone on the radio tonight who used to advise City before the the takeover, his view is that they will try to prove that there is no link between the owning company (ADUG) and the UAE government and relies on proving that they are completely separate entities.

If they can prove that then it is permissible under PL rules for governments to assist state owned companies to meet sponsorship liabilities. City have to prove that there is no link.


They also have to prove that the sponsorship deal was on a commercial basis compared to other similar agreements.
One other thing that might clog up City's defence is that in a 2015 statement to the US Dept of Commerce and Transportation Etihad denied any involvement of the Abu Dhabi government in sponsorship of Manchester City and that all funds came from their own resources. That is a bit of a contradiction and if true will need quite a lot of explanations.

9.) 02 Oct 2026
02 Oct 2026 20:54:49
I'm beginning to wonder whether City are just clutching at straws and that behind the scenes there are discussions going on about what the club and the PL can agree on as a suitable penalty which will be severe enough to appease the other clubs, the football community and the UK Government but not completely destroy what has been built up.


I don't want the City fans to be totally cut adrift but they have to be moved down the pyramid, substantially fined, honours expunged and a change of owners/leadership.

10.) 03 Oct 2026
03 Oct 2026 02:20:29
My guess is that if the original verdict is confirmed, and punishment is inevitable, the PL will have a few red lines which they won't want to budge on, and other factors on which they are prepared to negotiate, and we can expect behind the scenes haggling to take place.

11.) 03 Oct 2026
03 Oct 2026 13:32:12
For an official body to come out into public domain with such a prejudicial comment is jaw dropping

UAE threatening to withold infrastructure projects is tone deaf to 99.99% of public on this issue

Why attach a caveat to an issue like this ?In light of such a contentious matter.

12.) 03 Oct 2026
03 Oct 2026 14:16:47
Well if that's not a de facto admission of culpability, I don't know what is. If they're as innocent as they claim, such threats are unneccessary.

13.) 03 Oct 2026
03 Oct 2026 15:27:40
Totally JR,it's starting to smell worse as each day passes

Now it transpires Al - Mubarak met Reynolds in Downing Street 10 days before the verdict

This is looking like someone is trying to lift up the giant rug and get their hands on the giant Brush ready to sweep all this away.

14.) 03 Oct 2026
03 Oct 2026 19:09:22
Mind you, Burnham is a football fan himself, and will be only too well aware of the level of acrimony he'll receive if there's even a hint of political interferance in the outcome.

15.) 04 Oct 2026
04 Oct 2026 07:18:26
In that case JR, I hope he keeps interfering! The sooner he's gone, the better!

16.) 04 Oct 2026
04 Oct 2026 08:17:42
But he's too much personal and emotional investment in Manchester, JR, and now he's PM his judgement will be altered by wider issues affecting the whole of the country. There's no way that he'll stay out of the decision making process, even if it's through third parties so he's not compromised.
It's not how it should be but there's too much money involved, which often results in an unjust outcome.


I suspect he can't change what seems to be an inevitable guilty verdict but he can push for penalties and sanctions that do NOT fit the crime. A messy compromise with which no one is really happy with but smoothes over the cracks and it's back to business as usual.

17.) 04 Oct 2026
04 Oct 2026 15:56:04
We shall see Dun, but when all's said and done, Burnham is a politician, and like all others of his ilk, his overriding priority is self-preservation, and he'll dump anyone else in the s##t to save his own political skin. If the guilty verdict is confirmed, and I can't rid myself of the nagging fear that it may not be, then relegation to the Champo seems the bare minimum they could get away with, which would mean a fire sale of all the big stars, and would the owners then want to remain, or would they be gone in a brace of sheiks? I understand that the result of the appeal has to be announced within 12 weeks, which funnily enough takes us to Christmas Day, so I'm hoping for a bumper present from them.