How would Arsenal vote if Man City faced Premier League expulsion? – Opinion
Of all the possible sanctions awaiting Man City, one of the most extreme would be expulsion from the Premier League.
To clarify, that’s not the same as a points deduction which ensures relegation.
This would be the club losing their membership. It would then be up to the EFL if they wanted to welcome the Sky Blues into their football pyramid. If they were not inclined, an institution that has existed for 146 years could be left in limbo.
That can only happen, though, if 15 of the other 19 teams in the English top division vote that’s what they would like to happen.
Even if the Citizens worked their way back up through promotions, they would have to be voted back in by their peers.
I have not seen the whole UK football family come together like this since the Super League. It’s been days of a community insisting they won’t tolerate cheating.
While tribalism is rife, make no mistake, the hurt is genuine, with little empathy for those at the Etihad and a feeling that this is long overdue.
So you might be surprised that a couple of executives, who didn’t want to be named, have indicated that if the entire top flight were polled regarding the future of the league leaders, it might not be as straightforward as you think.
For decades, the Premier League has been one of England’s most lucrative markets abroad. It becomes harder to tell the universe you’re the best league in the world if your eight-time champions have been erased.
Sport fundamentally is a business.
The Kroenke family want English football to have as much integrity as possible, especially when they own the champions.
Would the Premier League really vote to expel Man City?
That’s why it suits all parties to find a compromise as soon as possible.
Forget asterisks; unless they are successful with their appeal, it could become untenable for City to fulfil their fixture commitments based on the anger around them.
You’re weekly playing for points to top a table which will be tainted if you do. Even a section of their own fanbase may feel that way.
A title race with zero credibility pushes away customers, and that might be what the blue half of Manchester are relying on?
Only those in power truly know deep down if they feel they are innocent and their evidence hadn’t been translated properly, meaning they are in fact the ones who have been wronged.
Or are they paying some of the best lawyers to find every last loophole to drag this on and on?
If their appeal is not successful, their next way to kick this further down the road would be the High Court.
It seems odd to expect decency given the amount of charges, but you would like to think someone who works at City would try and be the voice of reason, pointing out that their reputation is battered, so they gain nothing by delaying their execution.
No trophy is worthwhile stalling for.
The likes of the Gunners want this over as soon as possible, partly to know if Maresca’s side is a threat in the near future, but also because if you are the face of a brand with a negative image, fewer sponsors and advertisers will want to work with you.
The High Court would be the final avenue for the guilty party to turn to, but that wouldn’t be a retrial.
A legal team would need to argue that the arbitration process was fundamentally unlawful, compromised by severe procedural unfairness or entirely outside of its legal jurisdiction.
Once they learn what their punishment is, they can go back a second time and argue that the ruling is not proportionate.
Those two phases could take months or even another year.
The High Court threshold for listening is high, though, so they would need to showcase how legislation from the Arbitration Act 1996 has been misinterpreted.
That’s if you believe lawyers at this point think that is achievable or are simply trying to delay everything.
That would be the last throw of the dice: prove Section 68, that the disciplinary commission or appeal board committed a serious blunder that caused substantial injustice.
Could a compromise stop this dragging on?
That would be the main reason not to vote for expulsion because, if you leave Man City with nothing, why wouldn’t they plead for their existence?
In a world where people talk off record, what if the punishment stopped at a points deduction that meant life in the Championship next season, a deadline to pay the approximate £900 million that was made without organic revenue, and restrictions on their FFP going forward?
Why that would represent middle ground is that City wouldn’t have the wealth they once relied on, but it would let them still breathe.
In a game of bluff, that offer would be take it or leave it.
On record, though, we are past that point.
City could be laughed out of the High Court as well, but given how long that adds to the process, and that Man City might have a point – the one time in this case they would have – is the juice worth the squeeze?
A High Court won’t listen to crying about a points deduction; they would only intervene if a ban was forever.
Should a club formed in 1880 be blown up because of the actions of a few?
A few who will get on with their lavish lifestyles and not lose much sleep?
Would that be fair on fans who were there long before them?
What happened in Italy in 2006 was a bigger scandal, and all lived to tell the tale. Drug takers in other sports have been given second chances, etc.
So why would Man City be treated more extremely?
City would argue that a forever ban is so wildly disproportionate, cruel and arbitrary that no reasonable tribunal in the history of English law would call it appropriate.
Hence, many may not vote to give a judge the opportunity to ask that question.
