This is an interesting point. A lot of our argument about the first charge related to a change in the rules for allocating stadium costs against losses. We thought we could, but then they said no. Ok, we get hit with the first charge, then.
But because the whole process of the first charge wasn't resolved until during the next season, we were then unable to do anything to bring ourselves in line with their eventual ruling, because the time period had already closed during that long wait. It's not like we could go back retroactively and deal with it.
But if we had known before the summer, we could have sold someone and then presumably been in compliance. So no second breach. In other words, the very process itself could be said to have caused the second breach.
Granted, there are rebuttals to that, so it's not exactly air-tight, but maybe it will provide some mitigating thought towards the second charge.