TrueBlue4610 wrote:Sparklehorse wrote:Bloody brilliant piece this……
“If Manchester City supporters are firing back, it’s because we refuse, as Simon Bajkowski of the Manchester Evening News so eloquently put it, to “play the sad clowns that the deluded circus demand.”
And let’s be clear: this entire legal process, together with the relentless outrage from partisan media and punditry, has become a circus that stinks to high heaven.
Before Sheikh Mansour bought Manchester City in 2008, the Cartel was firmly in control of English football. The established Incumbent Four had won 15 of 16 Premier League titles. They occupied every Champions League qualification spot for three consecutive seasons. City had won none.
Then City emerged as a genuine challenger to the established order, thanks to an owner with the resources necessary to compete with the Incumbent Four.
And suddenly, protecting football’s “financial sustainability” became the great crusade.
Shockingly, the rules that emerged—tying permissible spending to existing commercial revenue—overwhelmingly favored the Incumbent Four. The clubs that had spent decades building their financial advantages could continue spending accordingly. Challengers seeking to close the gap would face an entirely different set of constraints.
The established order had built its advantage. Now the rules would help preserve it.
In March 2019, the Premier League, with Richard Masters serving as interim CEO, opened an investigation into whether City had violated its financial rules. Masters would later become the League’s permanent CEO through an appointment process reportedly influenced by United and Liverpool.
Nearly four years later, on February 6, 2023, in the midst of what would become City’s historic treble-winning season, the Club was formally charged. The timing alone raises legitimate questions about the influence of partisan interests within the League.
The commission tasked with hearing the charges was then constituted under the authority of a Judicial Panel chair appointed through a process involving Masters and the Premier League.
And so the cloud hanging over City continued for an absurdly long time.
Finally, on September 29, 2026, we received a guilty verdict.
But that verdict came with a few rather extraordinary asterisks.
First, we don’t get to know who actually rendered the verdict. The identities of the commission members remain undisclosed.
Second, we don’t get to see the underlying evidence the commission supposedly analyzed—at least not yet.
Instead, we’re given a 40-page, heavily redacted decision setting out the commission’s findings, while the evidence underlying those findings and the supporting appendices remain outside public scrutiny.
We’re simply expected to accept on blind faith that an anonymous commission conducted its proceedings without bias, fairly evaluated the evidence, and reached conclusions fully supported by that evidence.
Perhaps it did. But how is anyone outside the proceedings supposed to make that judgment?
We’re talking about allegations carrying potentially devastating consequences for one of the world’s biggest football clubs. Yet the public is asked to accept the conclusions of unidentified decision-makers, reached through proceedings conducted behind closed doors, based on evidence that remains concealed.
And we’re supposed to regard this as a triumph of transparency and fairness?
Rather than wait for City—which maintains that the decision is factually and legally incorrect—to complete its appeal, the media and punditry, including former players associated with the Incumbent Four, are demanding immediate and severe punishment.
Many have spent years treating allegations as established facts. Now they treat a decision still subject to appeal as the final word.
This is a complete mockery of due process and fundamental fairness.
Even if City ultimately prevails, it will already have been punished in the court of public opinion. Years of reputational damage, attacks on the legitimacy of its accomplishments, and efforts to discredit the Club cannot simply be undone by a successful appeal.
And consider the broader picture.
A League historically dominated by a handful of established clubs adopts financial regulations that substantially favor those incumbents. Its chief executive, appointed through a process reportedly influenced by some of those same clubs, oversees an investigation into the challenger that broke their dominance. Charges arrive during that challenger’s greatest season. An anonymous commission, constituted under a disciplinary structure connected to the League, ultimately issues a guilty verdict based on evidence the public cannot examine.
Meanwhile, a partisan media and punditry demands that the Club be punished before the appeals process has run its course.
How could anyone reasonably expect City supporters not to question this process?
So, for those wondering why Manchester City supporters are sticking together, defending their Club, and refusing to accept the prevailing narrative, there’s your answer.
We’re entitled to demand transparency. We’re entitled to question whether the process has been fair. And we’re entitled to defend our Club against those who decided long ago what they wanted the outcome to be.
We will not apologize for any of that.
And we certainly won’t play the sad clowns that this deluded circus demands.
Where's that from, Sparkle? Do you have a link, as I know a good few people that will be getting it sent to them!
https://x.com/mattseed1/status/2109711737247109454?s=46
