The wait for a verdict on Manchester City’s alleged breaches of Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules has been labelled ‘ludicrous’.
A hearing into the 130 charges against the Premier League side concluded in December 2024.
However, a decision has yet to be announced 20 months on.
City were first charged with 115 alleged breaches of FFP in February 2023.
The charges were alleged to have occurred during a nine-year period from 2009 to 2018.
An additional 15 charges were later tacked on to take the total amount to 130.
A hearing was held into the alleged breaches between September and December 2024.
City charges update
With a verdict still yet to be delivered, football finance expert and regular talkSPORT guest Stefan Borson has provided an update.
He joined White & Jordan on Tuesday, where he was asked if it is fair that City have signed Elliot Anderson for a British record £116million despite the charges hanging over them.
The England midfielder completed a move to the Etihad Stadium from Nottingham Forest earlier this month.
Borson responded by explaining: “Well, it’s fair because what do you want City to do? To stop everything whilst the whole case was ongoing?
“The case has been ongoing for many years. It’s not acceptable, but there’s no decision in the case.
“That’s clearly completely ludicrous that we are now 20 months on from the end of the hearing and we don’t have a decision, assuming there is no decision.
“The last I heard was probably the end of June and there didn’t seem to have been a decision.
“It may have come since, but even so 19, 20 months , we are now at the edges of whatever happens in any of these cases.”
‘No justification’
Whilst Borson believes it is ‘not acceptable’ that a decision has yet to be made, he added that it could still take several months.
Arbitration cases can last up to 24 months in some instances, meaning a verdict may not be announced before November.
He continued: “I spoke to a KC (King’s Counsel) recently and said, ‘have all your cases, all your litigation, courts of appeal, wherever, what’s the longest you’ve waited for a decision?’
“And he said, ‘five months’ and even that he had contact with the judges being in touch with him. Arbitration is different and some arbitration does go to 24 months.
“But it does put the judgement when it comes in a territory where if it goes against one of the parties, they may well say, ‘look, this is just unsafe now. This has just been too long. You’re not close enough to the evidence that you heard two years ago, nearly, to be able to conclude fairly on this case.’
“So it just opens up another issue for the panel. That’s obviously a very difficult appeal to win, but it’s the sort of thing that people are going to run these silly arguments or these challenging arguments if the case goes against them.
“And if you want 19, 20 months, you increase the chance of people making these sort of arguments. I don’t see that there’s any justification for how it’s taken so long.”
City won three of their eight Premier League titles during the period when the alleged breaches occurred.
Having appointed new manager Enzo Maresca this summer, they are set to begin the new season at home to Bournemouth on August 23.