The world is still waiting to see the evidence that Manchester City have and there is more that is frustratingly missing from the 40-page document
Redactions and omissions leave plenty still to learn about Manchester City's case
Redactions and omissions leave plenty still to learn about Manchester City's case
View Image
Manchester City have been found overwhelmingly guilty of incredibly serious charges. An independent three-man panel have found that the club hid more than £900m across nearly a decade, ignoring evidence that City used to dispute the charges and classing some of their witnesses as dishonest.
It is not the end of the process, and the club have made clear they will fight all of the way to clear their name, but it looks like it will be incredibly difficult for City to overturn the initial verdict. However, whether it puts the club in a better or an even worse light, there is still lots missing from the 40-page summary 'case decision' that makes understanding the evidence very difficult.
Some of the broad arguments from both the Premier League and from City have been outlined, but there is no witness testimony and no documents to support the conclusions reached. Frustratingly for everyone, there is still plenty of detail that has yet to be revealed.
Here are some of the aspects of the case that we are still in the dark over despite the verdict as we wait for the accompanying documents.
1) All the 'irrefutable' evidence from City
City won't be able to submit new evidence for their appeal yet insist that they have presented 'irrefutable' evidence that proves their innocence. Nothing that they offered up was really discussed in detail in the 40-page report aside from broad concepts and the only real mentions of City's arguments are short sentences at the end of decisions such as 'none of the matters raised by the club provides a defence'.
That will be in an appendix that the Premier League said would be released 'as soon as possible' but while it remains unpublished it doesn't help anyone to get any sense of the sort of evidence that City remain so convinced by.
2) Pretty much all of the reasoning
Nor is there evidence to support the Premier League argument. It was made clear that there were thousands of pages of evidence that were gone through as well as 30 witnesses that were all effectively cross-examined, and obviously you cannot include much if you are condensing everything into a relatively short summary.
However, the upshot is that readers are left taking in that the panel believed the Premier League's argument over City's on the main financial charges without fully knowing why and without seeing what each side offered up to make their case.
3) Which witnesses could not be relied upon
It is mentioned in the verdict that certain witnesses called on by City were judged to have not been telling the truth - and known to not be telling the truth, so dishonest. This appears to have had at least some impact on how an opinion was formed on the most serious charges, and is interesting because a number of key witnesses for City were seen as credible at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Could it be that those same people who were believed at CAS were not by this panel, or would it have been other testimonies that were challenged? We still don't know, because the list of people who were witnesses and the evidence that was not believed remain confidential.
4) Who were the judges
So too are the names of the three people who have taken so much time and care to assess the evidence over so many months. Their names have been redacted, so there is no way of telling which experts were responsible.
That is perhaps a sad reflection of the tribal nature of the case and the abuse that would inevitably end up in the direction of those in charge, yet given multiple City statements have questioned impartiality in the process this is another element where continued silence only adds to the confusion. The three individuals are all thought to be highly respected in their fields, but their precise expertise remains unknown.
FOLLOW OUR MAN CITY FB PAGE!Latest news and analysis via the MEN’s Manchester City Facebook page
5) The key City figure out of the loop
Large chunks of the 40-page document are redacted, hiding the names of individuals or entities. One of the more curious entries relates to the 'Disguised Funding Scheme' that essentially points to all of City's guilt, and it reads as follows:
"There was no direct evidence that [REDACTED] was aware of the Disguised Funding Scheme or authorised the operation of the Disguised Funding Scheme. We therefore concluded that the Disguised Funding Scheme was operated with [REDACTED] knowledge."
Who could this mysterious person be, and why does it matter? Football finance expert Stefan Borson has suggested it could be City owner Sheikh Mansour, which would be convenient for him in his roles not to have known anything even if it does seem improbable that he would have been unaware that he was missing £900m. Equally, if it is somebody else why has it been deemed significant to note?
The role of Abu Dhabi is hinted as having been a major point of discussion during the hearing in the 40-page report but it feels like there is a lot more to come on it.
Content cannot be displayed without consent