Now the season is over, what can the authorities do about the past?

By Tony Attwood

Previously…

• What happens now about the 110+ charges levelled against ManC and its ex-manager?
• How Arteta turned Arsenal into Champions and how he aims to keep them at the top

And now, to broaden the issue…

Yesterday, it was hard to escape stories about how Pep Guardiola has been one of the most successful and influential managers in Premier League history.  And such tales were told without any reference to the 100+ cases of cheating that are still hanging over them.

However, at least we do have the note to confirm that “An independent commission is yet to publish a ruling almost a year and a half after a disciplinary hearing concluded.”  All that is missing is the asking of the question, why has it taken so long. 

Certainly, the BBC has taken up the point, saying, “Whether the saga has played any role in the timing of Guardiola’s departure, and whether he wanted to leave City before the result was known, is unclear.

“But until the ruling comes, it is inevitable that questions will be asked about how exactly City achieved the trophy-laden era they have enjoyed since the takeover of the club by billionaire Abu Dhabi royal Sheikh Mansour, deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, in 2008.”

Now I do think this is a step forward, in that although the print media continues to pretend, for the most part, that there is, and never has been, a problem at ManC, the BBC is made of sterner stuff and still asks questions.   They also note that for two years of the period of games in which the charges arose, the man whom everyone has just been celebrating for his achievements, was in control.   And I just wonder, if the case ever does come to trial, will that point about Guardiola being part of, or at least aware of, the financial scheme that allowed ManC to do the deals it did.  The basic accusation is that the club failed to provide accurate financial information when requested to do so.

Now it is quite clear that any claim that Guardiola was not involved in the issues that arise from the points will be hard to sustain in an enquiry.   This is because, although the allegations were first aired in 2018 by Der Spiegel, in the form of copies of Manchester City internal emails, they claim that ManC were sponsored by two state-owned corporations – Etihad and Etisalat, and that the money for this sponsorship came from Abu Dhabi United Group, which is or was owned by the owner of the club. 

Thus, it was a direct input of money from the owner into the club at levels way beyond those allowed by Premier League regulations launched in 2012 and Financial Fair Play rules as introduced by Uefa in 2011.

Of course, that is not all, because there are also questions about “consultancy” fees and allegations that players were paid more than was shown in the accounts.  And here the defence of the club is interesting, in that it primarily seems to say that since the emails which show these transactions were obtained without permission of the club, they were in fact obtained illegally, and thus are not admissible as evidence.

Now my own thought is that the key issues relate to claims that the club broke financial rules and Guardiola benefited by having more money to spend than he would otherwise have.  If that were proven, then the manager might be criticised for not asking simply, “Where is all this money coming from?” but no more.    Some say that will leave his legacy secure, but others might suggest that he should have asked more questions, more directly, and demanded clearer answers.

Now although it is not often mentioned in the English media, there are criticisms of Jose Mourinho and ManC made elsewhere in Europe, and the Premier League must know that if they refuse to delve into the matter, there could be allegations made that the Premier League is not playing by the same rules as the rest of the continent. Indeed, all the clubs that finished second to ManC during the Mourinho era could have a claim to the effect that the title was really theirs.  But then a club that missed out on the Champions League because ManC finished above them, and could claim they have lost money because the Premier League did not investigate ManC.   So now we start to find multiple reasons why the League does not want to investigate ManC.

However, countering this worry, and as other reports have said, it is the “scale and seriousness of the charges” that keep the cases alive.  And it is not just the League which has been interested in the progress of the case.  Uefa has its own investigations running.   And the ManC issue is made yet more relevant as interest grows over the way that Chelsea were financed by a range of secret payments to agents between 2011 and 2018.

Thus, we still wait, and from time to time, remind the footballing authorities in England that we have not forgotten, and will not let this go, even though much of the rest of the media doesn’t seem interested.