Inside Man City's FFP charges hearing as 'bombshell moments' predicted amid Newcastle concern

The club's FFP charges hearing started in London on Monday morning.
-Credit: (Image: Danehouse/Getty Images)


Manchester City fans have been cautioned not to hold their breath for extensive details emerging from the ongoing Premier League hearing in London.

The club was initially hit with charges by the Premier League in February 2023, citing 115 alleged breaches of Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations spanning from 2009 to 2018. However, subsequent clarifications revealed that City faced a total of 130 charges due to initial reporting inaccuracies.

The football community has been on tenterhooks for news about the commencement of the hearing into these allegations. Manchester City has consistently denied the claims, asserting they possess "irrefutable evidence" to vindicate themselves.

READ MORE:Referee who saved Bruno and shocked Shearer last season in charge of Newcastle's clash with Fulham

READ MORE:I do not regret leaving Newcastle United - but seeing them now makes me so happy

After a lengthy 19-month wait, the proceedings finally started in London this week, with media outlets disclosing the location. Yet, former Everton CEO Keith Wyness, in conversation with Football Insider, suggested that further information will be scarce: "The secret location was leaked, there were photographs of the lawyers going in and the lead lawyer, David Pannick, is reportedly on £5,000 per-hour. But we're not going to be hearing much. They have been very clear about that."

He added: "The chairman of the commission will only disclose things he wants to be disclosed, and there'll be no further reporting. Of course in football, we're all looking for leaks and, if there are no leaks, then people would be making up leaks, so we're going to have to be very careful with the information coming out."

Recent reports indicate that a number of Premier League clubs, with Newcastle understood to be among them, are frustrated with what is perceived as the 'secrecy' surrounding the charges and hearing, arguing that justice should be both done and clearly seen.

Wyness shared this sentiment, suggesting journalists' presence could enhance transparency. "I do believe it should be transparent, because it would add to the penalty," Wyness stated. He holds that public scrutiny may serve as a deterrent against misconduct.

"It will bore people for the next two months. The detail and minutiae will be incredible and very boring, but there will be bombshell moments."

Wyness, familiar with such proceedings, remarked on their tedium and lack of entertainment value but affirmed the importance of public visibility for upholding justice. "There's some value in having some reporters there and giving us an update on proceedings each day. That would be helpful and important."