Premier League CEO Richard Masters has admitted that the ruling into Manchester City's 115 alleged breaches of spending rules is 'taking longer than expected'. City were charged with more than 100 breaches of the division's financial rules following a lengthy investigation. An independent commission has yet to publish a ruling, more than 18 months after a disciplinary hearing concluded. City have maintained their innocence throughout.
Masters: Process must reach natural conclusion
Speaking to the BBC, Masters acknowledged the delay but stressed that rules must be followed. "I do accept it's taking longer than expected, and I understand that people want to find out as soon as possible what's going on, but I simply can't provide that," he said. "Our rules are very clear - we have to follow the process, and there's only one real clear route through, which is to allow that process to reach its natural conclusion."
Other clubs face sanctions
City are not the only Premier League side to have been charged. Everton, Nottingham Forest and Leicester City have all fallen foul of Profit and Sustainability rules in recent seasons and faced points deductions. Chelsea were fined £10m and given a suspended transfer ban for breaching rules relating to payments to agents, with a points deduction also dealt out but cancelled upon appeal.
Masters explains Chelsea difference
Explaining the difference between the Man City and Chelsea cases, Masters said: "In the situation with Chelsea, obviously it's historic. It's very different to PSR cases. In the case of Chelsea, the new owners came forward with all the information, and we decided to enter a sanction agreement. That sanction agreement was overseen by a commission as well, and part of the role of the commission is to assure that that sanction is not unduly lenient."
He added: "I think the key difference is, given the evidence base and given the lack of witnesses, none of the people involved with these payments are still at the club, we not able to interview them, the evidence base isn't complete. The alternative to entering the sanction agreement was to go down a contested commission route. I'm not sure we'd have been able to bring all of the charges that the club ultimately admitted to, or be successful in getting them, so I don't think there was an easy choice for the board to make. We took a decision that the sanction agreement was the best thing for the league, and we're fully aware that not everyone agrees that that was the right course of action, and we just have to accept that."
