Premier League chief makes Man City 115 charges admission as case drags on

The ruling into Manchester City’s 115 breaches of spending rules is ‘taking longer than expected’, Premier League CEO Richard Masters has admitted. City were charged with more than 100 breaches of the division’s financial rules following a lengthy investigation.

As yet, an independent commission is yet to publish a ruling, more than 18 months after a disciplinary hearing came to an end. From their end, City have also maintained their innocence.

Speaking to the BBC, Masters admitted that the process has taken longer than first thought, but has underlined that certain rules have to be followed in such cases.

"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," Masters 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."

Get our comprehensive football coverage, with news, updates, opinions, analysis and everything that matters to you, straight to your inbox.

To get it, it's a quick and easy one-two:

1. Head THIS WAY

City are not the only Premier League side to have been charged for breaches of Premier League rules. Everton, Nottingham Forest and Leicester City have all fallen foul of Profit and Sustainability rules over recent seasons and faced points deductions.

Meanwhile, Chelsea were fined £10m and given a suspended transfer ban for breaching rules relating to payments to agents. A points deduction was also dealt out, albeit was cancelled upon appeal.

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 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.

"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."