Much as I am pleased with the commission’s verdict (guilty on virtually all counts), I believe most of the penalties being suggested are way over the top.

The PL did an amazing PR job in ponying up to the total to 115 separate rule breaches (and that only goes up to 2017/18 - there is still potentially 8 further seasons for which additional charges could still be brought). City / Soriano are not correct in claiming that it all boils down to a SINGLE misunderstanding/difference of opinion as to the validity of Abu Dhabi sourced sponsorship income. There is the additional separate matter of attempting to hide managers’ and players compensation under sham 3rd party contracts. Nevertheless there is an impressive degree of double counting concerning the real number of rule breaches.

Nobody disputes that the underlying ‘crime’ (or accusation - if you believe they have realistic grounds for appeal) is breaching the FFP/PSR rules. But they have only been charged (so far) with doing that for 5 seasons, from 2013 through 2018.

There are existing benchmarks for the penalties for FFP/PSR rule breaches (Everton, Forest etc) - of the order of 4 to 6 points (per season). It’s arguable that City’s case is more serious due to the sheer scale of the breaches, once the excess sponsorship income is added back. But I still don’t see how that could justifiably be calculated on a like-for-like basis as worthy of more than say a 10/12 point deduction for each of the 5 seasons concerned.

There should be additional penalties for submitting false accounts, which might reasonably be a further 10/12 points per season and cover all seasons from 2009/10 through 2017/18. So, in total 10-12 points for each of the first 4 seasons under AD ownership and 20-25 points for each of the next 5 seasons.

Those penalties ought to be applied retroactively to the seasons concerned, rather than all in the current or next / future season(s).
Other Premier League (or ex-PL) clubs will claim compensation based on an ‘as if’ hypothesis of what the effect would have been had the penalties been applied in the relevant historical season(s). Again there is precedent for this (Burnley v Everton, Sheffield Utd v West Ham etc). So it would make a lot more sense to apply sanctions retrospectively, in the first place.

It’s also a lot more practical, in terms of what further penalties might be applied if & when further charges are brought in respect of subsequent seasons post 2018. What are you going to do if you have already expelled them from the PL based on current charges? Wait until they have worked their way back up to the premier league and then expel them again?

They should be stripped of their PL titles for the relevant seasons. This should not be a matter of degree. It would be a farce if they argued that they should keep their titles in the record books for those seasons where they may have finished the league further ahead of 2nd place than the retrospective points deduction. They shouldn’t be able to claim to have won the competition in years that they cheated, full stop. This is only a cosmetic punishment, anyway. Nothing is going to retrospectively significantly change the effect for the fans who were involved at the time.

But I don’t see any rational argument for stripping their record of FA cup or League cup wins. Doubt whether there is anything about FFP in the rules of those competitions. And almost certainly beyond the authority of the PL to do so, anyway.

So, say they get a retrospective deduction of variously between 10 and 25 points for each of the 9 seasons up to 2018. They should forfeit the ‘performance’ element of PL prize money according to the number of places dropped in the revised PL table for each season concerned. But I thought that was something in the region of £750k to £800k per place. I don’t see how that would amount in total to anywhere near the £500m (£28m to West Ham) quoted. It’s only going to ever be a retrospective ‘promotion’ of one place in the prize money table for each season for any of the disadvantaged clubs. The number of affected clubs would vary each season.

The real serious financial impact must be on the (maximum ONE) club in each of the seasons concerned who could reasonably claim to have missed out on a Champions League place (and the revenue that might have brought them) due to City’s malpractice.

I doubt whether the commission will initially put a specific figure on that, leaving it up to the wronged party clubs to sue for such compensation as they deem appropriate. Something in the order of the £35 million that they have reportedly ordered Everton to compensate Burnley for relegation in 2021/22 would seem appropriate.

Finally there is the ‘failure to cooperate’ with their investigation charge(s). Again there is a benchmark precedent. CAS awarded a 10 million euro penalty against City for failing to cooperate with UEFAs investigation in 2020. So start from there and factor it up as deemed appropriate for a somewhat more serious case of obstruction.