THE clucking in the background sounds like Manchester City’s chickens coming home to roost.
Enzo Maresca was looking for crumbs of comfort on Saturday after his side crashed to their third successive Premier League .
But it is, surely, no real surprise City’s in two seasons comes as the initial internal sense of anger and indignation over the independent commission’s guilty verdict on the financial charges has been replaced by a realisation of what is hanging over the club.
Indeed, the last time they lost three on the bounce came two years ago — just as the hearing that eventually resulted in the ruling was getting started.
After all, City’s initial run of seven straight wins included two VAR calls in their favour.
First came the correct overturning of the initial stoppage-time offside flag against Josko Gvardiol in the opening weekend .
And then, wrongly, allowing Erling Haaland’s to stand.
When — in the immediate aftermath of the findings of , fired by determination to prove a point — City silenced the baying hordes of Anfield with a comprehensive 3-0 win, it looked like business as usual.
There were no obvious signs of a negative reaction inside the Etihad.
If anything, their resolve seemed even stronger.
A band of brothers, united against the world. Old-fashioned siege mentality.
Nothing at all wrong with that.
Yet for all the vehemence of the club’s response, the return of the , the relishing of the fight and almost a revelling in the notoriety from the City faithful, Maresca’s players are only human.
While some travelling fans wore sky blue shirts with ‘Cheetos’ emblazoned across the front to taunt the Forest and other rival supporters, it was the City Ground that laughed last and longest.
And if, even in the smallest crevices of their minds, some of Maresca’s players start to wonder if anything they do this season will count, if an unprecedented sanction is already on the way, it is hard to imagine it will not have an impact on performances.
That does not diminish or negate City’s right to fight their corner. . To contest. To deploy their army of KCs in a legal skirmish.
It would, indeed, be bizarre, given the club’s position ever since the first batch of leaked emails in 2018, to expect anything less, especially now it is an existential fight.
But at the same time that stance has allowed some ludicrous positions to be taken by the support base.
The idea the official anonymity of the three members of the independent commission is part of a conspiracy and evidence of collusion, is beyond laughable.
Lord Pannick and the rest of City’s legal team know who they are.
They did not sit behind a curtain for 42 days during the hearing to conceal their identities.
LATEST: Man City GUILTY of Premier League breaches
- Man City launch
- City argument against guilty verdict
- Prem clubs can … but get no say in points deduction
- and walk away for free
- Ex-chairman says tax chiefs for probe into Man City
Timeline: What happens next?
- December 25 – Deadline for appeal to conclude (12 weeks after appeal is lodged)
- December 14-18 – Possible date for maximum five-day appeal hearing
- January 17 – Deadline for commission to produce final verdict
It is, indeed, almost certain — there are only so many leading silks — that they have previously appeared in courtrooms either in opposition or alongside the KCs.
Quite possibly they are members of the same Pall Mall private clubs.
There is room for argument from both sides over the time elapsed from the start of the investigation, through the charges and hearing, to get to this point — and we still have not had the punishment or appeals.
Yet the notion that the “regrettable” — according to the commission — delay in coming to judgment is a sign of lack of faith in the verdict, what would they have said if the trio had rushed to judgment, committing to ten pages in a few days?
By the way, , by a quasi-legal three-man commission, with powers enshrined under the Arbitration Act 1996 and not, as City insisted, an “opinion”.
Some City fans have complained, too, about the confidentiality of the evidence-gathering and the “balance of probability” evidential proof required.
But the Law states arbitration processes MUST be conducted strictly in private.
The civil burden of proof, rather than the criminal “beyond reasonable doubt”, is also required.
Not that the players are across any of that — but it is starting to look like they are feeling the effects of all of it.
Even footballers don’t exist inside a vacuum.
