Integrity brought into question of undisclosed people associated with Man City

[Getty Images] "To cheat, trick, deceive, delude with false pretences; to impose upon, take in, hoax." That is the Oxford English definition of the word 'sham'. It is a word that appears eight times in the independent commission's ruling , published on Tuesday, which found Manchester City guilty of all charges related to serious breaches of financial rules - and all but one in relation to a failure to co-operate with the investigation. The 40-page document makes fascinating reading. It catalogues how the club's owners, Abu Dhabi United Group, knew from the 2009-10 season that there would be major overspends if the club was to reach the level they wanted to get to. So, the ruling says, Manchester City found a way to boost sponsorship income - season, after season, after season. For nine seasons, in fact. These were ambitious new owners who didn't just want the club to be competitive, they also wanted to have the best players and to be winners. That wasn't going to be possible without spending more money, and lots of it. Total losses for the 2009-10 campaign were going to exceed what was, at that time, the record single-season financial loss by a Premier League member club. That was previously set at £140m by Chelsea in 2006. According to the ruling, that was a record that Manchester City's owners were adamant the club should not break. And, not only that, but the club knew they would likely continue to suffer large losses for at least the following five seasons. This was when both Uefa and the Premier League were about to bring in financial fair play rules, so it was clearly going to be a problem. To address this, the only option was to significantly increase commercial revenue and reduce the reliance on their owners. "The club made concerted efforts to stop and frustrate the Premier League investigation," the independent commission's ruling continued. It is another damning section which brings into question the integrity of undisclosed people associated with Manchester City. The club served witness statements or documentary evidence from 24 individuals, most of whom who gave evidence at the hearing. At present, no one has been named so we don't know the positions of the people the ruling referred to. However, it said the evidence given by a number of important factual witnesses "was false in a number of key respects". The ruling also said that Manchester City knew their annual accounts "did not provide a true and fair view of the financial position" and the club "was reckless as to whether those annual accounts provided a true and fair view". All of this, it was said, showed the club failed to act "with utmost good faith" and "breached duties of co-operation that it owed to the Premier League". Read the full article here