What next for Man City? What next for Ronaldo?

James Richardson (0:00)

We built this city. We built this city on sham contracts and artificially inflated deals. Pansy, it's just another Thursday on a tired old street. We've got another Totally Football Show for you.

Today, we get more from the Man City Mess, the club who put the sham into champagne football, and now quite possibly the pain too. Plus Nations League, England v Croatia, just like at the World Cup, France vs Italy, not so much, and lots more in this Totally Football Show. Thursday 1st October, we have with us in the studio, Liam Twomey.

Liam Twomey (0:42)

Hi Liam, pleasure to be back.

James Richardson (0:44)

Pleasure to have you back, Tom Williams.

Tom Williams (0:46)

Hello James, also a pleasure.

James Richardson (0:48)

Yes, likewise for us and that. Tim Spears also with us.

Tim Spiers (0:51)

What's up? Hi James.

Tom Williams (0:53)

What's up? Oh, throwback.

James Richardson (0:55)

What's up, you old dog?

I raced through those introductions because we also are joined briefly by Matt Slater, who is possibly the busiest person in the entire athletic organization on account of, well, I think you know the reason. This extended international break has become very much an extended Sham City scandal break featuring Nations League football. And Matt's been all over it and very graciously has joined us to talk through some of the latest developments. Good morning to you, Matt.

Matt Slater (1:23)

That's a very nice intro. Good morning.

James Richardson (1:25)

Since our last show, I think the big thing has been Tuesday when the Premier League published their extended verdict or their reasons for the verdict from the independent panel, which revealed that the club are alleged to have falsified their income by more than 900 million pounds. Whoops.

The amount shouldn't make a difference, but I think it probably does. I think what also was extraordinary about Tuesday was the language that the Premier League used when talking about one of its biggest clubs.

Matt Slater (1:58)

Yeah, there's an awful lot to go at, wasn't there? I mean, yes, if we go on the Premier League statement, yes, Richard Masters said, how did he put it? That it was a systematic attempt to breach rules for the best part of a decade. And then we had the independent commission's ruling itself, which I've read it a few times. I think it says sham seven or eight times. And it's a great word, isn't it, sham? And it's just a slightly amusing word. But it is actually quite a legal term, to be fair. I mean, it is a very specific, it's saying, you know, this contract is artificial. So they weren't just doing it to be funny.

And these rulings are often quite dry. This is only the executive summary, by the way. This is just 40 pages worth. They've already told us that the evidence bundle of the hearing had an index that ran, I think was it to 750 pages. The verbatim transcripts from the witnesses were 7,000 pages. So I think they've done it as a small mercy here with just the executive summary. But within there, I think what came across to me was, was some anger, was some annoyance on the part of the panel that they had been lied to.

Arbitrational panels don't normally say that. This is not High Court, this is not Rumpole of the Bailey. This is supposed to be people coming to a private hearing. And yes, you argue your side really, really, as hard as you can. And there's no doubt that Man City have been doing that for a long time now. And the Premier League in turn as well.

But for panels to say, some of the people that spoke to us, we don't think they told the truth, i.e. they lied, is quite unusual. I've read dozens of these and I don't remember that. I remember coded language around, well, we sort of disagreed with what they had to say or I don't know, memories differ or interpretations differ. No, the panel said we were lied to.

James Richardson (4:02)

Matt, the club protest their innocence. One of their biggest sponsors has today made noises about possible legal action and asked why they weren't called to give evidence. They are appealing.

Short of them being found innocent in that process though, I'm now at the point where I think, is there any way that Man City can continue in the Premier League with this ownership? They've been accused of lying by the league. They've been accused of sham contract, sham agreements, artificially inflating, misstated accounts, concealment, things clearly intended to circumvent the Premier League rules, multiple breaches of duties of cooperation and utmost good faith. Is there any way that the league can just hand a point to penalty and go, yeah, but you can continue. You did all this for 10 years, but on you go.