Thirty six years ago, the team I support, Swindon Town, were severely punished for financial irregularities that pale into comparison with those of Manchester City (Manchester City found guilty of breaking Premier League’s financial fair play rules, 25 September). We were initially sentenced to be relegated two divisions but, after appeal, refused entry to Division One. It was an incredibly painful experience for us as fans and I feel for those City fans who have enjoyed the last years so fully, but now see it tainted through no fault of theirs.
At the time, a number of journalists made the case that, as off-field crimes had resulted in on-field success, the punishment was fitting. What is different this time is the scale of the offences and the amount of on-field success. Once the appeal process has concluded, and if Manchester City still face punishment, a proportionate scaling up of consequences from those that we experienced in 1990 could mean that club facing relegation and removal of titles.
The question is whether the footballing authorities are willing to deal with one of their marquee brands with the same dispassionate ruthlessness that they used to deal with us 36 years ago.
Tim Beaumont
Liverpool
• It’s unusual for me to find fault with anything that the wonderful Barney Ronay writes, but I must dispute his piece about Manchester City (The age of asterisk: Manchester City’s glittering era of success is tainted now, 25 September) on two counts.
As a supporter of 50 years’ standing, I would not be unhappy to see my beloved club relegated or hit with any other fully justified punishment. But if money alone ensured success, a number of English clubs would have won far more trophies in the past 10 or 20 years.
Money did not enable City players to train harder or run faster, let alone put together all the manifold and complex qualities that go into making the remarkable football team that they have been at various times.
As the magnificent Rodri has said, City’s victories were paid for with effort, with partnership and with being shoulder to shoulder each and every day. Furthermore, the claim that City wouldn’t have won this or that trophy without this or that player is impossible to prove.
Richard Bryant
London
• As a lifelong Liverpool supporter I might be expected to indulge in a little schadenfreude at the kicking that Manchester City is receiving, but it is obvious that over the last 15 years or so, the club has brought much more than footballing glory to Manchester. Tens of millions of pounds have been spent on the successful regeneration of a huge area of urban decay and the club’s City in the Community scheme has benefited large numbers of children through its training sessions in schools and imaginatively planned multifunctional play areas in parks.
Marilyn Rowley
Didsbury, Manchester
• Barney Ronay might be right to feel some sympathy for Manchester City followers. But this should surely be restricted to children and to longstanding supporters who endured years of miserable underachievement. It’s harder to shed a tear for anyone who discovered a love for the club after the money poured in from a federation of monarchies with no political parties and a dreadful human rights record.
John Wheatcroft
Author, The Strange Death of Football
• Should the reported findings that Manchester City has broken many of football’s financial fair play rules be confirmed and upheld after any appeals, there will remain the difficult question: what is the fairest thing to do about all the honours that the club and its players won – at the expense of other clubs, coaches and players? I suggest that the fairest solution from a sporting standpoint would be for City’s players and coaching staff to be allowed to keep their medals, but the club (which would be the “guilty” party) be stripped of the trophies.
The clubs that finished second and their players and coaches should receive winners trophies and medals. A messy solution, but arguably the fairest, given the circumstances. The financial resolutions could be guided by a similar principle.
Alan Murphy
London
