Aye but all clubs agreed to these rules, City are producing thousands of documents but so did Everton and Forest and they had 1 charge (which they admitted to). All the clubs including City agreed that there would be no time frame on how long a charge/case would take, again its on the PL as they shouldnt have went after 117 charges, they should have picked out the best 10/15/20 and went after them. Its basically been an example of how to be idiots by the Premier League the entire thing. They have been advised by the clubs on how to police the clubs, another example is clubs bypassing PSR and then having a meeting to decide if they should be able to get away with it or close the loophole. The whole thing stinks but the clubs all agree to it.
No it wouldnt, change the rule broken to a completely different one, in a totally different competition, change it from 117 charges to 1, change it to admitted fault to denying it and then add in that there will be a time frame accepted within Swindon's charge to absolutely no time frame for the EPL then it might be different but sadly there are 2 completely different things you are trying to compare its a waste of time trying to compare them.
If Man city are guilty I hope they get the book thrown at them BUT they are currently innocent, the length of time is due to the powers at the EPL allowing the clubs to agree that there would be no time frame when this was set up, its now changed as per the Everton and Forest cases. The amount of documents they produced in their defence is perfectly fine and the counter claims they are produced are fine as thats what happens in cases like these. We shouldnt compare them to totally different things as it helps nobody.