๐ช๐ถ๐น๐น ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐น๐๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ถ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ?
Until today, I had been working under the assumption that the independent Commission appointed to oversee Man Cityโs 130 charges has already made an initial decision on liability, shared with the parties but not publicly.
Thatโs because we are not supposed to hear about interim decisions - the process is to remain private & confidential until its conclusion - and it was unthinkable that the decision could still be ongoing more than a year after the hearing concluded.
(>2y10m since the charges were imposed and >7y since the emails were first leaked).
However, in its 2024/25 accounts that were published today, Man City revealed that the independent Commission was still โin the process of reviewing the matterโ as of this date.
Some have asked me if this could be a carefully worded statement to misdirect despite a decision having been reached. This is not plausible. If a decision of no liability had been reached, it would be published per PL rules. If a decision of liability had been reached, it would need to be mentioned in Man Cityโs accounts. Neither their auditors nor the PL would permit such blatant misinformation.
So itโs clear, Man City has revealed that no decision has been reached yet (ironically, in itself a breach of PL rule W.87 requiring the process remain private & confidential).
Why is this so shocking? Because it absolutely should not be taking this long to reach a decision.
In 2020, the Chancellor of the High Court asserted that decisions should be reached within 3 months, even in complex cases.
When cases are long, highly complex and justices have a heavy caseload, itโs possible that decisions take longer than this. They have even taken as long as 12-18 months in the past. And the PL v Man City case was long (10-12 week hearing) and highly complex.
However, if we examine a sample of recent comparators, we see itโs actually quite rare
for a decision to take more than 6 months.
Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse
PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov
Farol Holdings Ltd v Clydesdale Bank plc
Alta Trading UK Ltd v Bosworth
IBM United Kingdom Ltd v LzLabs GmbH
Official Receiver v Batmanghelidjh
Highly technical cases that were heard over 10-12 weeks. Typically a decision was reached in 2-6 months. Median timeframe was 4-5. Longest ones were 7-8.
Now, the Man City case was not heard in the High Court but in any event, the independent Commission should be faster than the High Court, not slower.
Thatโs because although the Commission is independent of the PL in terms of who adjudicates and what decisions they make, it is still subject to PL rules (found in the handbook) that govern the disciplinary process.
One of those rules is that a decision must be reached โas soon as practicably possibleโ. In the context of English Law, that means without delay unless such delays are necessary. The arbitrators having other work priorities is not a legitimate excuse when applied to such a requirement.
As such, it seems wholly unreasonable that a decision is still being waited on at this point unless one or more of the arbitrators had a critical personal matter preventing them from undertaking their duties. But if this were the case, then that would have been communicated to the parties and they would not have been expecting the decision โimminentlyโ for many months now, as reported.
Weโre at the point where, depending on the agreed process, the final outcome may not be arrived at and reported until next season. An outrageous failure by the PL and quite possibly a breach of contract too.
There are mechanisms to force this matter out of arbitration and into the courts. If I were one of the four clubs with a compensation claim, I would be strongly considering this now. For one, it would force everything into the light with transparent proceedings - something this process sorely needs.