While you're always at pains to tell us that football journalism is covering Man City well, the poster you replied to was fairly stating the delay between charges being brought and anything further coming out about it. I know it's complicated and all that, but does anyone here really think that the wait is so that they can really punish City properly? I'm 99% sure it'll be an absolute fudge-job, where they at most get a small points deduction and a transfer ban for a window or two.
And while you're correct that there's a handful of journalists who do cover City properly (and you can add Philippe Auclair and Nicholas McGeehan to your list), it's a very small percentage in the mainstream who have said anything remotely critical.
It's simply nowhere close to good enough and doesn't move the dial at all as regards the general public perception. Constantly acting as though journalism is in rude health and there are plenty who cover these huge problems isn't correct and - in my opinion - spreads a false message.
There is only so much that can be said before the case has been proven. Where I go, I see plenty of stuff out there and journalists are prepared to talk about it. But they can only claim so much before the case has been proven. City are
denying the charges, so no newspaper is going to go big on their being guilty before its been proven are they?
As for the time it's taken, yes it is complicated. The last article I read from Harris suggested there are a number of witnesses who need to be interviewed that in itself takes a lot of time, especially if
they are not all UK based. Once this starts it will become a much bigger story in itself and then perhaps we will get more information coming out.