We could not see Ferran Soriano’s lower half in his video address to his concerned colleagues at Manchester City so cannot say for sure whether his pants were on fire. What we do know is this chief executive had seen his club accused of housing liars.

In the words of the independent commission, a number of witnesses called on City’s behalf were ‘dishonest’, delivering evidence which ‘they knew to be untrue’. Furthermore, the club ‘made concerted efforts to stop and frustrate the PL investigation’. They ‘breached duties of co-operation’. They were accused by the Premier League of making ‘inaccurate, dishonest and/or misleading statements when responding to questions from the PL’.

Soriano responded to this verdict by insisting City hold ‘irrefutable evidence’ which will prove upon appeal how they are entirely innocent of orchestrating the biggest cheating scandal in the history of British football. By the reading of the commission’s written reasons, the Premier League might have liked to see this smoking gun during the initial crossfire.

Instead, this 40-page document painted a picture of a club claiming it has nothing to hide and a league sick of seeking answers, and that takes us to Chelsea.

They were investigated by the Premier League, too. Chelsea’s offences centred on secret payments made to players and unlicensed agents between 2011 and 2018 and at a time when Eden Hazard et al were winning trophies under a regime led by Roman Abramovich. Their charges differed from City’s, but were still serious enough.

However, Chelsea escaped with little more than a £10.75million slap on the wrists for their wrongdoing, for a few reasons which City should not bank on relying upon now.

BlueCo bought Chelsea from Abramovich towards the end of May 2022, but it was prior to completing that purchase that they self-reported to the Premier League and Football Association. Their new ownership, now led by Behdad Eghbali, had identified potential financial irregularities while doing their due diligence. BlueCo pledged to investigate, and two months later in July, delivered those interim results to the relevant governing bodies.

That initiated the Premier League’s own probe, and when their decision arrived, Chelsea’s co-operation was described as ‘exceptional’. They self-reported. They co-operated. They provided approximately 200,000 documents to the Premier League, and arranged interviews with former club employees who no longer fell within the investigation’s jurisdiction. They would not have breached the Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) had these payments totalling £47.5m been booked. They proved how none of the perpetrators were still working for Chelsea.

For that, they won leniency, the Premier League even conceding they might have struggled to prove the old Chelsea got up to no good without the new Chelsea’s voluntary compliance.

By contrast, when the Premier League submitted its Statement of Charges against City for the commission’s consideration, they added a note on to the end of Charge 4, the section centred on co-operation. The league reserved the right to assert that if City are found guilty of cooking their books – as they then were to the tune of approximately £900m – it should be considered how their eight-time champions had ‘committed additional and perhaps more egregious acts of non-cooperation’. These assertions were not added to the existing charges.

Save for City winning Charge 4(B) – you’ll never sing that – everything else was proven by the commission. It was a full house for the Premier League, including in all other accusations of failing to co-operate. Chelsea’s wrongdoing would not prevent talk of trophies tarnished among fans, but their honesty made for a mild penalty in mitigation. The potential punishments facing City now are extreme, from points deductions to stripped titles to transfer bans and beyond.

So while some supporters of City may be clinging to the hope that they too can avoid a serious sporting sanction even if their appeal is unsuccessful, the comparisons to the Chelsea case should not provide comfort but rather concern.