Guilty of 114 charges

[Killers Knee]

5 minutes ago, Cabrone said:

This is even more motivation to get promoted this season, imagine a championship with City + 2 other parachute payment teams + most of the teams we are already scrapping against this season.

What a dog fight that would be.

Dont forget Spurs

[saintant]

4 hours ago, Killers Knee said:

There is precedent for clubs suing clubs guilty if cheating for loss of income, Burnley/Everton.

Should Southampton warm up the Lawyers?

2015-16. Saints took 3 of 6 from City (lost 3-1 at the Etihad, won 4-2 at home). Final table: City 66, United 66, Saints 63. United took the leftover Europa group spot after winning the FA Cup; Saints still went into the Europa League groups.

If Saints had won both, they gain 3 and City lose 3: Saints 66, United 66, City 63. Saints’ goal difference was +18 against United’s +14, so Saints would have been 4th and in the Champions League. 
 

Do we have a claim?

Surely it goes deeper than just the 2 matches we played against them that season. Every game they played they'd cheated. On that basis they should be reduced to zero points in every game for seasons these charges apply to.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Killers Knee said:

Dont forget Spurs

🤣🤣🤣

[sockeye]

It's not those who lost out on a cup or Champions League place that were affected by Man City's misdemeanours. It is quite literally every single team they played in that period. A City that rejects the path of financial doping creates a timeline that is completely different, as every game a team plays has many second- and third-order effects. Watford lost to City in their FA Cup final, but so did Brighton in the SF - if Brighton beats that weaker City, they get to participate in the final and potentially win it themselves. Even a minnow beaten in the third round could have theoretically won it all.

And what about the academy? In a world where City play fair, they are likely less successful, having less profit to invest into a top-quality academy and less clout to lure in prospects. These fine margins could have led to some players not joining City and compounding their success when sold on for large profits or integrated into the first team. Then that weakens City further in the older age groups and men's first team squad.

It's an absolutely disgraceful situation.

Edited 53 minutes ago by sockeye

[Divergent]

If the Premier League expel Man City from the Premier League I don’t think the EFL have to accept them automatically into any of the leagues they control. They could refuse and City could find themselves without a league to play in. 
This would leave PL one team short without upsetting the number of teams in the lower leagues unless PL and EFL come to a one off agreement on 2 less teams being relegated from PL or one more team being promoted from Championship. 
Does that make sense and is that scenario also a possibility even if unlikely?

[St. Ciervo]

None of that is going to happen. Its not like they set an analyst up behind a tree with a phone or anything. A short transfer ban, a low 7-figure fine, and a secret payout to top officials will suffice, am I right?

[do i not like fizzy pop]

And so the softening up in the media for the eventual slap on the wrist begins 

[St. Ciervo]

This might help us though. They cannot let City off and then hammer us in the same breath...right? Oh.

[The Kraken]

I remember when we got the punishment from the EFL, I know it’s a different governing body but the speakers man said that the 4 point deduction was for the league transgressions, and with punishments like that they always try to look forward rather than back. 

With Man City, while I firmly expect a relatively light punishment, I’d be 99% sure that any punishment will only affect future competitions and will not look to strip them of anything.