Aren’t the nature of the cases and the alleged misdemeanours entirely different? Didn’t both Everton and Forest quickly admit to their charges, which were basic breaches of the profit and loss rules?
I don’t for one minute claim to know the ins and outs of the situation, but everything I’ve read has suggested that the Man City case is complex, whereas both Everton and Forest’s breaches were beyond question. I think I’m right in saying that both of those clubs offered mitigating circumstances and appealed against the severity of their punishments rather than denying they had broken the rules in the first place.