Their previous approach worked ONLY because the charges were time barred which I disagree with. If you broke the rules, why does it matter if it was 6 months or 6 years ago?

Ah yes, I forgot you were one of the finest legal minds of this generation.

Er...you do realise the bits in red are links to previous articles, such as this one which is an extremely detailed breakdown of the previous case...they refer to things this way whenever a full recap would spoil the flow of the current article..

I sincerely doubt having every witness described as dishonest, and your defence being labelled a pack of lies and systematic obstruction, resulting in further penalties and almost universal condemnation while also fucking your chance of appeal and successful court action, will go down in legal textbooks as a "perfect strategy".

City's case has been so thoroughly dismantled that their appeal seems to be based on the money coming from the government, not the Sheikh himself, who didn't know...if he didn't know, it can't be fraud on the club's part.

They've lost the case, dragged it out in a way that has ensured a heavier punishment, and lost the PR battle.

So:

1. Their attempt to use money/a blizzard of bullshit has not only failed, but been called out for what they are.
2. Their attempt to bring political pressure seems doomed to fail - Burnham's mild expression of respect for their owners was met with such a cacophony of derision that a grovelling statement followed within 24 hours.
3. They've been found guilty on every charge. The football world is viewing this as a litmus test of the English game's integrity. How have they achieved one single thing with this strategy?