Guilty of 114 charges

[Football Special]

1 hour ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

They stole star players from across the premier league and the world. 
They stole youth players. 
They stole trophies, dreams and memories from every other club. 
 

It’s absurd they got away with it for so long. 

I fully acknowledge that I lack the intelligence to understand most of this, but if the crime is money was paid by the owners instead of the sponsors , then why didnt the owners funnel the cash through the sponsor anyway,  they owned Etihad as well as Man City didnt they, all their money regardless , just pay the money from a Etihad account ?

[gio1saints]

I think owners ought to be able to spend whatever the hell they like on their team. If the owners of Man city want it to win medals and trophies - and were willing to pay the best players to get them - then they should be allowed. 
 

Has what they did in not so clandestine fashion ruined “the beautiful game”? Has it fuck. It’s already ruined, open your eyes!
 

But it’s also been entertaining and generated £Billions in revenues for the sport.  Think the Picture of Dorian Gray. Sky TV makes it look beautiful but underneath it’s been rotted, corrupt and despoiled for quite some time.  Dare I mention Portsmouth buying the FA Cup or Abramovich buying well whatever Cups he wanted - Real Madrid basically supported by the Spanish National Government , Italian teams of the eighties all blood doped and even MLT having his stupid little bets on first throw in? The list is almost endless. 
 

A lot of the outrage being expressed right now at Man City owners is virtue signalling hypocritical bollox. Just like with what’s happening / happened with Saints. 

 

 

[Osvaldorama]

29 minutes ago, Football Special said:

I fully acknowledge that I lack the intelligence to understand most of this, but if the crime is money was paid by the owners instead of the sponsors , then why didnt the owners funnel the cash through the sponsor anyway,  they owned Etihad as well as Man City didnt they, all their money regardless , just pay the money from a Etihad account ?

The crime is that the sponsors are all fake. 
 

The “sponsors” are actually just the owners injecting money into the club, through fake sponsors. 
Fake websites, fake staff, fake everything. lol 

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, gio1saints said:

I think owners ought to be able to spend whatever the hell they like on their team. If the owners of Man city want it to win medals and trophies - and were willing to pay the best players to get them - then they should be allowed. 
 

Has what they did in not so clandestine fashion ruined “the beautiful game”? Has it fuck. It’s already ruined, open your eyes!
 

But it’s also been entertaining and generated £Billions in revenues for the sport.  Think the Picture of Dorian Gray. Sky TV makes it look beautiful but underneath it’s been rotted, corrupt and despoiled for quite some time.  Dare I mention Portsmouth buying the FA Cup or Abramovich buying well whatever Cups he wanted - Real Madrid basically supported by the Spanish National Government , Italian teams of the eighties all blood doped and even MLT having his stupid little bets on first throw in? The list is almost endless. 
 

A lot of the outrage being expressed right now at Man City owners is virtue signalling hypocritical bollox. Just like with what’s happening / happened with Saints. 

 

 

Never ceases to amaze me how you can be so wrong on every single topic 

[Cuddles]

2 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

They stole star players from across the premier league and the world. 
They stole youth players. 
They stole trophies, dreams and memories from every other club. 
 

It’s absurd they got away with it for so long. 

That is staggering!

[LiberalCommunist]

I get where Gio is coming from. Man Utd where chucking around £30M on a single player in the 90's. They had a massive head start. So of course obscenely rich Arab owners where going to come in and just do what they do, chuck obscene amounts of money at the problem. However, City knew these rules were in place, so they needed to tidy up the whole affair, not double down on the injustice. 

Side note. I bet if the same forensics was applied to Utd's books they would find similar tricks in a lesser extent. So I take their outrage with a pinch of salt. Villa and Toon should feel pretty hard done by though, they seem to  be the only two clubs who have been totally captured by the financial ceiling. 

In saying that, very welcome sharing the pain from dealing with the governing body, I just hope more are sucked in. Burn it all down as far as I'm concerned. 

[egg]

17 minutes ago, gio1saints said:

I think owners ought to be able to spend whatever the hell they like on their team. If the owners of Man city want it to win medals and trophies - and were willing to pay the best players to get them - then they should be allowed. 
 

Has what they did in not so clandestine fashion ruined “the beautiful game”? Has it fuck. It’s already ruined, open your eyes!
 

But it’s also been entertaining and generated £Billions in revenues for the sport.  Think the Picture of Dorian Gray. Sky TV makes it look beautiful but underneath it’s been rotted, corrupt and despoiled for quite some time.  Dare I mention Portsmouth buying the FA Cup or Abramovich buying well whatever Cups he wanted - Real Madrid basically supported by the Spanish National Government , Italian teams of the eighties all blood doped and even MLT having his stupid little bets on first throw in? The list is almost endless. 
 

A lot of the outrage being expressed right now at Man City owners is virtue signalling hypocritical bollox. Just like with what’s happening / happened with Saints. 

 

 

Not sure where to start with that. 

There's no "virtue signalling hypocritical bollox". Just people rightly outraged that one club has cheated to this extent, and to the detriment of other clubs. 

I take your point that the game has not been holier than thou, but none of the stuff you highlight is anywhere near this.

[Football Special]

1 minute ago, gio1saints said:

I think owners ought to be able to spend whatever the hell they like on their team. If the owners of Man city want it to win medals and trophies - and were willing to pay the best players to get them - then they should be allowed. 
 

Has what they did in not so clandestine fashion ruined “the beautiful game”? Has it fuck. It’s already ruined, open your eyes!
 

But it’s also been entertaining and generated £Billions in revenues for the sport.  Think the Picture of Dorian Gray. Sky TV makes it look beautiful but underneath it’s been rotted, corrupt and despoiled for quite some time.  Dare I mention Portsmouth buying the FA Cup or Abramovich buying well whatever Cups he wanted - Real Madrid basically supported by the Spanish National Government , Italian teams of the eighties all blood doped and even MLT having his stupid little bets on first throw in? The list is almost endless. 
 

A lot of the outrage being expressed right now at Man City owners is virtue signalling hypocritical bollox. Just like with what’s happening / happened with Saints. 

 

 

I agree, surely what Pompey did was loads worse,  spending other people's money they had no intention of repaying (stealing) 

Man City have broken ACCOUNTING rules to enable them to spend more of their OWNERS money , the whole FFP is a charade anyway 

[Football Special]

23 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

The crime is that the sponsors are all fake. 
 

The “sponsors” are actually just the owners injecting money into the club, through fake sponsors. 
Fake websites, fake staff, fake everything. lol 

But if it wasn't for FFP and we just went back to how it used to be they'd have just been allowed to spend their own money , still dont know why they couldn't invest millions in Etihad airways and use their marketing budget to sponsor Man City 

[Turkish]

27 minutes ago, gio1saints said:

I think owners ought to be able to spend whatever the hell they like on their team. If the owners of Man city want it to win medals and trophies - and were willing to pay the best players to get them - then they should be allowed. 
 

Has what they did in not so clandestine fashion ruined “the beautiful game”? Has it fuck. It’s already ruined, open your eyes!
 

But it’s also been entertaining and generated £Billions in revenues for the sport.  Think the Picture of Dorian Gray. Sky TV makes it look beautiful but underneath it’s been rotted, corrupt and despoiled for quite some time.  Dare I mention Portsmouth buying the FA Cup or Abramovich buying well whatever Cups he wanted - Real Madrid basically supported by the Spanish National Government , Italian teams of the eighties all blood doped and even MLT having his stupid little bets on first throw in? The list is almost endless. 
 

A lot of the outrage being expressed right now at Man City owners is virtue signalling hypocritical bollox. Just like with what’s happening / happened with Saints. 

 

 

You've started early. Dealer got some pure stuff in this week?

[Football Special]

I get why clubs shouldn't be able to run up massive debts and end up like Leeds United a few years ago, but if an owner just wants to invest their own cash on their own team why shouldn't they be allowed? 

[egg]

15 minutes ago, Football Special said:

I agree, surely what Pompey did was loads worse,  spending other people's money they had no intention of repaying (stealing) 

Man City have broken ACCOUNTING rules to enable them to spend more of their OWNERS money , the whole FFP is a charade anyway 

That suggests that you have no issue with them cooking the books for years, cranking up prices and wages so other clubs a) can't compete with them for players and b) can't stay within FFP/PSR rules because of said increases. I'm not on board with that. 

FFP/PSR is nonsense, agreed, but that doesn't make any of this right. 

[egg]

13 minutes ago, Football Special said:

I get why clubs shouldn't be able to run up massive debts and end up like Leeds United a few years ago, but if an owner just wants to invest their own cash on their own team why shouldn't they be allowed? 

That's a different issue. They weren't/aren't. 

[LiberalCommunist]

The debate going on in this thread shows that the punishment could be anything. Literally anything. 

Its like Spying. It wasn't even a rule break, until they made it so.  

But now its the worst rule break ever. Its kinda funny. Football has done this to itself. 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by LiberalCommunist

[Osvaldorama]

43 minutes ago, Football Special said:

But if it wasn't for FFP and we just went back to how it used to be they'd have just been allowed to spend their own money , still dont know why they couldn't invest millions in Etihad airways and use their marketing budget to sponsor Man City 

You may dislike FFP, as do I,  but those are the rules. 
 

Every other club signed up to them and followed them, stupid though they are. The fact city had free rein to spend what they like has distorted football. 
 

They have damaged football massively. 
 

This is much worse than what Pompey did because it was £900million pounds, systemic and went on for ages. Not sure what planet people are on. 
 

In my eyes it’s the equivalent of Lance Armstrong’s doping scandal. They performed at a level way higher than they should have been able to. Actually it’s probably worse, because they also weakened the opponents around them by buying their players, which they shouldn’t have been able to buy. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Osvaldorama

[Football Special]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a different issue. They weren't/aren't. 

Isn't it why FFP was introduced to prevent over spending ? Or was it to deter new owners from spending to compete with established elite who already had high turnover thanks to global fanbase, corporate sponsors and Champions league money? 

[Football Special]

8 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

You may dislike FFP, as do I,  but those are the rules. 
 

Every other club signed up to them and followed them, stupid though they are. The fact city had free rein to spend what they like has distorted football. 
 

They have damaged football massively. 
 

This is much worse than what Pompey did because it was £900million pounds, systemic and went on for ages. Not sure what planet people are on. 
 

In my eyes it’s the equivalent of Lance Armstrong’s doping scandal. They performed at a level way higher than they should have been able to. Actually it’s probably worse, because they also weakened the opponents around them by buying their players, which they shouldn’t have been able to buy. 

Much worse than Pompey who stole from charities? 

Isn't Man City the opposite of stealing? They wanted to spend more of their cash that they would never see back

Modern football is fucked anyway unfortunately, hard to get that worked up about this 

[Osvaldorama]

39 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Much worse than Pompey who stole from charities? 

Isn't Man City the opposite of stealing? They wanted to spend more of their cash that they would never see back

Modern football is fucked anyway unfortunately, hard to get that worked up about this 

Yeah, it’s only a billion pounds of fraud and cheating, who cares? 

[Saint86]

3 hours ago, gio1saints said:

I think owners ought to be able to spend whatever the hell they like on their team. If the owners of Man city want it to win medals and trophies - and were willing to pay the best players to get them - then they should be allowed. 
 

Has what they did in not so clandestine fashion ruined “the beautiful game”? Has it fuck. It’s already ruined, open your eyes!
 

But it’s also been entertaining and generated £Billions in revenues for the sport.  Think the Picture of Dorian Gray. Sky TV makes it look beautiful but underneath it’s been rotted, corrupt and despoiled for quite some time.  Dare I mention Portsmouth buying the FA Cup or Abramovich buying well whatever Cups he wanted - Real Madrid basically supported by the Spanish National Government , Italian teams of the eighties all blood doped and even MLT having his stupid little bets on first throw in? The list is almost endless. 
 

A lot of the outrage being expressed right now at Man City owners is virtue signalling hypocritical bollox. Just like with what’s happening / happened with Saints. 

 

 

Throughout this period, the rules allowed rich owners to invest their money into a club to boost their competitiveness - upto agreed upon limits.

Man city have done that, and then smashed through it with flagrant cheating and a litany of dodgy deals and sham (a legal term) sponsorship contracts - In so doing, they have essentially stolen the money invested in, and the efforts of, all other clubs they have competed against.

Let alone poaching players, staff, and academy products etc.

Leicester were an example of owners investing up to the allowed limits - and actually its evident that Man City directly stole multiple seasons of champions league qualification from them during this period - and now look at the state of Liecester, a club that could very likely cease to exist in the next few years, thanks in part to City's cheating.

It is hard to fathom how anyone can justify the scale of damage that City have done to the football pyramid. Why on earth anyone thinks its remotely reasonable for sovereign wealth funds etc., to be able to use their wealth to utterly out-compete with owners like Gao etc (and just eradicate any merit of sporting or business competence with oil money) i don't know... but how anyone can then go one stage further and excuse cheating those rules (and on this scale) is mind boggling. If that is what you are meaning to say, then honestly, i would say to think about it again and potentially reconsider the impacts this has had on a significant number of clubs within the 92.

Edited 7 hours ago by Saint86

[Osvaldorama]

It’s not inconceivable that this is the end of Man City as a club. 

*If* other clubs are allowed to sue them for loss of earnings off the back of this, the damages would be absolutely huge. It would make more sense for them to fold and begin again.

- ⁠They lose the appeal and sanctions are expulsion or a deduction that is functionally relegation.
- The EFL will not accept the existing company (or only on punitive terms).
- Damages claims + unpaid fines make the old company insolvent or not worth buying.
- Owners are barred from putting fresh money in (or forced to sell the club). 
- Players and sponsors leave faster than a buyer can be found.

Then the old company is a litigation shell and a phoenix in a lower division looks cleaner.

 

I doubt it goes this far, but it’s not that inconceivable at this point….

[Sparkkyy]

4 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

It’s not inconceivable that this is the end of Man City as a club. 

*If* other clubs are allowed to sue them for loss of earnings off the back of this, the damages would be absolutely huge. It would make more sense for them to fold and begin again.

- ⁠They lose the appeal and sanctions are expulsion or a deduction that is functionally relegation.
- The EFL will not accept the existing company (or only on punitive terms).
- Damages claims + unpaid fines make the old company insolvent or not worth buying.
- Owners are barred from putting fresh money in (or forced to sell the club). 
- Players and sponsors leave faster than a buyer can be found.

Then the old company is a litigation shell and a phoenix in a lower division looks cleaner.

 

I doubt it goes this far, but it’s not that inconceivable at this point….

I think something like this is very likely. If their current owners aren't prepared to be successful within the rules, their appetite for the punishment process will be the opposite. Never taking responsibilty, we haven't done anything wrong, our evidence was ignored. It would be cleaner for them to ride off into the sunset and wash their hands. Every single opponent will want compensation and all players who missed out on bonuses, the list goes on. Imagine thier stadium in the northern prem. 

[Middlewordie]

They broke the rules in place for 9 years, lied about it by saying they didn't break them, then obstructed the investigation. We did the same, didn't lie about it, or obstruct the investigation. We got expulsion from the EFL playoffs. They should expect expulsion from Premier League and to be refused entry to the EFL. Anything less will be a legal minefield for both football organisations. I'm sure HMRC will be interested to read the findings too...

[bpsaint]

5 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

They stole star players from across the premier league and the world. 
They stole youth players. 
They stole trophies, dreams and memories from every other club. 
 

It’s absurd they got away with it for so long. 

One suspects there may well be an investigation into the last 7 seasons now this has blown up, and if that graph is anything to go by some eye watering numbers paid/hidden by the ADUG..

[Sunglasses Ron]

8 minutes ago, Sparkkyy said:

Imagine thier stadium in the northern prem. 

I hear Man Utd. are after a new stadium.

Red seats. Job done.

[saintant]

1 minute ago, bpsaint said:

One suspects there may well be an investigation into the last 7 seasons now this has blown up, and if that graph is anything to go by some eye watering numbers paid/hidden by the ADUG..

Does anyone think they stopped doing this 7 seasons ago? Their MO would not appear to have changed.

[bpsaint]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

Does anyone think they stopped doing this 7 seasons ago? Their MO would not appear to have changed.

Not at all, and considering the last 7 years includes them buying the champions league I suspect some much bigger numbers spent, and a likely new investigation by UEFA.

 

[Lighthouse]

15 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

Not at all, and considering the last 7 years includes them buying the champions league I suspect some much bigger numbers spent, and a likely new investigation by UEFA.

 

Genuine question, for anyone else who knows more about this than me, but have they actually broken any UEFA or CL specific rules? If they’ve only broken English PSR in the PL I’m not sure they’ll face any legal proceedings regarding European competitions.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Genuine question, for anyone else who knows more about this than me, but have they actually broken any UEFA or CL specific rules? If they’ve only broken English PSR in the PL I’m not sure they’ll face any legal proceedings regarding European competitions.

Helpful article...uefa rules breached too.

https://www.mishcon.com/news/manchester-city-independent-commission-publishes-decision-on-premier-league-charges

 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Genuine question, for anyone else who knows more about this than me, but have they actually broken any UEFA or CL specific rules? If they’ve only broken English PSR in the PL I’m not sure they’ll face any legal proceedings regarding European competitions.

Do they have a catch all "bringing the game into disrepute" rule?

[Saint86]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Genuine question, for anyone else who knows more about this than me, but have they actually broken any UEFA or CL specific rules? If they’ve only broken English PSR in the PL I’m not sure they’ll face any legal proceedings regarding European competitions.

5 of the charges directly relate to breaching UEFA's FFP rules.

54 then relate to "Failing to provide a true and fair view of club revenue, sponsorship, and operating costs" - which may include (you would imagine it does include) the UEFA FFP rule breaking. 

14 offences relating to, "Failing to fully disclose accurate remuneration details in contracts", which must also surely tie in with breaching UEFA FFP rules - as they're essentially accused of lying about their staff/player wage costs.

The remaining offences are exclusive to the EPL - 7PSR breaches, and 35charges relating to not cooperating with the EPL investigation.

Edited 7 hours ago by Saint86

[Osvaldorama]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Genuine question, for anyone else who knows more about this than me, but have they actually broken any UEFA or CL specific rules? If they’ve only broken English PSR in the PL I’m not sure they’ll face any legal proceedings regarding European competitions.

Probably easier to find the rules they haven’t broken at this point 😁

 

 

[BH_Saint]

City need to be removed from the football league and disbanded. Just like Leeds City were in 1919.

 

Quote

Following the conclusion of the war a scandal ensued and the club was accused of financial irregularities, including breaking the ban on paying players during the war, that led to the club's dissolution in 1919. They were expelled from The Football League eight games into the 1919–20 season. The harsh punishment was handed down mostly because of the behaviour of the club's directors, who refused to co-operate in an FA inquiry, and refused to hand over the club's financial records.

Not too dissimilar to what's happened at City. 

 

Quote from Wikipedia.

[saintant]

54 minutes ago, BH_Saint said:

City need to be removed from the football league and disbanded. Just like Leeds City were in 1919.

 

Not too dissimilar to what's happened at City. 

 

Quote from Wikipedia.

So as Leeds City presumably came back as Leeds Utd could Man City come back as Man Utd? Ah, there's a huge fly in that particular ointment.

[CSA96]

 

[tdmickey3]

Just now, saintant said:

So as Leeds City presumably came back as Leeds Utd could Man City come back as Man Utd? Ah, there's a huge fly in that particular ointment.

Manchester Community Football Club

[Disco Stu]

They were called Man Blue on PES.

Edited 4 hours ago by Disco Stu

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, CSA96 said:

 

He 'hopes it can be resolved quickly" 🤣

Nobody tell him it's already been ongoing for three and a half years!

[Willo of Whiteley]

What’s that? Five games into the new season? What a time to do it.

That’s why they’ll be points deduction, big financial fine (but drop in the ocean to the owners) and no relegation.

[sockeye]

What a clown.

Our PM bought and sold by the UAE's sportswashing

[sfc4prem]

21 minutes ago, sockeye said:

What a clown.

Our PM bought and sold by the UAE's sportswashing

Ridiculous comment from a supposed socialist.

[Willo of Whiteley]

23 minutes ago, sockeye said:

What a clown.

Our PM bought and sold by the UAE's sportswashing

Bit of a silly statement, they’ve invested considerable amounts across the city in terms of regeneration.

I’m pretty confident if Markus Liebherr invested hundreds of millions in the city of Southampton no one would complain.

It doesn’t make the cheating ok by any means, but it certainly doesn’t make their efforts elsewhere wasted - they’ve invested in areas other than the football club that have seen upturns in the city.

Edited 1 hour ago by Willo of Whiteley

[Osvaldorama]

24 minutes ago, sockeye said:

What a clown.

Our PM bought and sold by the UAE's sportswashing

WTF has it got to do with him? Bell end 

Bet they’ve paid him off as well 

[sockeye]

15 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

I’m pretty confident if Markus Liebherr invested hundreds of millions in the city of Southampton no one would complain.

They aren't owned by Liebherr though, they are owned by a wealthy gulf state with allegations of human rights abuses, and this is exactly the kind of thing done to curry favour with the public and apparently Burnham himself now. Perhaps he was reminded of some gifts sent his way?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/21/great-english-city-sold-abu-dhabis-elite-manchester

May I point you to an interesting article about how the council sold public land to Abu Dhabi for a fraction of its value?

Manchester City must be hammered into oblivion. Anything less is allowing a foreign state to make a mockery of one of the UK's most significant vectors of soft power.

Edited 1 hour ago by sockeye

[Osvaldorama]

If City get any sort of leniency to appease international relations, at the expense of fair play and basic moral values, then that’s a desperately sad state of affairs, not just for the Premier League, but our country as a whole.

[VectisSaint]

10 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I wonder if the FA, when they get their turn, will consider the 114 charges to have 'brought the game into disrepute'?  If they do, who are they going to 'punish' though as I doubt there is anyone still around who was involved over a decade a go...

The owners, directors, primarily but yes it could come down to any manager, coach, player that was knowingly involved. Probably won't include any interns though.

[23rdSaint]

33 minutes ago, sfc4prem said:

Ridiculous comment from a supposed socialist.

Worth listening to Tuesday's Guardian Football Weekly and today's News Agents podcasts to understand why Andy Burnham has an interest in this. "Manchesterism" is largely the result of Abu Dhabi investment. If City are punished severely, their owners may question why they are investing so much in the country and decide to walk away

Edited 1 hour ago by 23rdSaint
Added links for those interested

[saintant]

1 hour ago, sockeye said:

What a clown.

Our PM bought and sold by the UAE's sportswashing

That's not a very sensible thing for him to come out and say imo. Imagine if City were to get away with the majority of the charges and/or receive a very light punishment - fingers might well be pointed Burnham's way suggesting some involvement from him. Dodgy ground.

Edited 59 minutes ago by saintant

[Turkish]

The Earling Haaland transfer is a strange one. Official fee 51m now saying it could have been up to 180m with Dortmund told not to release the fee and journalists paid to report 51m. How can you just hide those sort of figures?

[VectisSaint]

4 hours ago, saintant said:

So as Leeds City presumably came back as Leeds Utd could Man City come back as Man Utd? Ah, there's a huge fly in that particular ointment.

They did, you learn something every day.

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

The Earling Haaland transfer is a strange one. Official fee 51m now saying it could have been up to 180m with Dortmund told not to release the fee and journalists paid to report 51m. How can you just hide those sort of figures?

That fee, even at that time, was very low.

Got to me far more to it than that. No doubt his wages are very 'complicated' also