Premier League

[Ham]

35 minutes ago, chara said:

Serious question Ham, no sarcasm from me...what do you consider a just punishment?

Relegation to the championship at the very least. 

What they've done is absolutely unforgivable. Not only the act but they way they threatened anyone who attempted to challenge it. 

Their biggest mistake was putting their heads so far over the parapet as to put themselves number one in the world on turnover ahead of the likes of Man U, Barcelona and Real Madrid. 

Nobody is buying that. 

[My Blood Is Blue]

7 hours ago, Ham said:

Relegation to the championship at the very least. 

What they've done is absolutely unforgivable. Not only the act but they way they threatened anyone who attempted to challenge it. 

Their biggest mistake was putting their heads so far over the parapet as to put themselves number one in the world on turnover ahead of the likes of Man U, Barcelona and Real Madrid. 

Nobody is buying that. 

Completely agree with all of this. I think being kicked out of the Premier League is the punishment they should be getting. My understanding is that should this happen, the EFL then have to decide whether they accept Man City’s request to join their leagues and where exactly they ‘enter’ the structure.

Whatever happens, it’s going to be years before a decision is made and I imagine they’ll have added a few more trophies to the cabinet by then as well. So what happens to all these trophies? I don’t think they will strip them of any titles, I think that causes all sorts of headaches in so many areas… every club in the league and potentially the championship could then start pointing to extra winnings they should have got, entry into European competition and even promotions etc, therefore lost revenue. Messy.

[east lower]

8 hours ago, Ham said:

Yes they did on the subject of the UEFA investigation because they knew they had technicalities up their sleeve. They even taunted UEFA about how they would bankrupt the organisation if needed. 

I reckon they're a lot more nervous this time round. 

 

 

If they’d do as you say to UEFA, then the PL won’t worry them. The owners have absolute power in their world, and we know the saying about what that does. Maybe the owners do think that they can manipulate the rules to their own devices. However, I think that this situation is more than just about rule breaking. The PL possibly do not want the PL title to be like the Bundesliga, where one team dominates. PG is on record as saying that if he’s been lied to on as regards their dealings then he’s ‘gone tomorrow’.

8 hours ago, chara said:

@martin1905 @east lower Corruption comes disguised as many things but still is corruption....WC corruption was so blatent on one hand but in a sophisticated bullet proof dinner jacket. 

I expect to see such dealings as the case proceeds.

Bullish?...yep but only GP goes into battle touching his forelock.

IF this is a serious effort by the FA then monetary punishment will not suffice if the case  is proven....

Again..innocent until etc but pointless title retractions and fines are worthless except for bank accounts somewhere.......real punishment means at least serious points deductions at the start of a season as well as during..clubs in financial disarray get that as standard,,,Derby v Citeh on a scale of misbehaviour? 

Relegated ?...hmm...how long would the $$$ pipeline and/or ownership continue?

Ahh, the World Cup………….what happened to the Emirati on that one, and the world and his wife knew how they won that and the lives lost in the build-up to it. 
 

TBF the city fans of 20 years ago were loyal with crowds of 20 thousand plus in the old third division - They’d rally together and be ok with it. The real or perceived ‘injustice’ would bind them together. 
 

On the ownership, as long as the owners had a choice, I think they’d stay with it. One punishment that hasn’t been discussed here I believe is that they are so unequivocally guilty of serious and deliberate breaches that they are barred from ownership under the fit and proper owner rules that the PL operates. 
 

But, I’m also minded that people should be careful what they wish for. Todd’s already caused a revision of the rules, following others clubs questioning UEFA/PL. I really hope the new ownership’s done it all by the rule book, they’ll be a few investigations going on to try and find flaws and report it.

[Bob Singleton]

1 hour ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Completely agree with all of this. I think being kicked out of the Premier League is the punishment they should be getting. My understanding is that should this happen, the EFL then have to decide whether they accept Man City’s request to join their leagues and where exactly they ‘enter’ the structure.

Whatever happens, it’s going to be years before a decision is made and I imagine they’ll have added a few more trophies to the cabinet by then as well. So what happens to all these trophies? I don’t think they will strip them of any titles, I think that causes all sorts of headaches in so many areas… every club in the league and potentially the championship could then start pointing to extra winnings they should have got, entry into European competition and even promotions etc, therefore lost revenue. Messy.

Indeed... The West Ham/Sheff Utd Tevez affair was messy enough and United got £10m compensation I believe. Just imagine the mess if City had titles stripped retrospectively... loads of clubs wanting compensation of one sort or another. That's why those with a modicum of legal expertise (rather than supporter's knee-jerk reactions) are saying it'll be punishments going forward rather than going back.

[CarefreeMuratcan]

I find it hilarious that some rival fans are bringing us into this discussion and saying "we're next". They are clueless. Putting money in isn't morally wrong or against the rules, if done above board. City have done it the wrong way. 

[Mark Kelly]

6 minutes ago, CarefreeMuratcan said:

I find it hilarious that some rival fans are bringing us into this discussion and saying "we're next". They are clueless. Putting money in isn't morally wrong or against the rules, if done above board. City have done it the wrong way. 

I think they've put Putin + Abramovich together and equalled bad money .

All the while forgetting that Abramovich paid that bill by having his football club ceased by the government and raffled off.

Our bills are paid.

[Mark Kelly]

19 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think they've put Putin + Abramovich together and equalled bad money .

All the while forgetting that Abramovich paid that bill by having his football club ceased by the government and raffled off.

Our bills are paid.

Sorry , should say "seized" not ceased , edit not available.

[JaneB]

52 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Sorry , should say "seized" not ceased , edit not available.

Three dots in top right hand corner Mark

[xceleryx]

16 minutes ago, JaneB said:

Three dots in top right hand corner Mark

Could've also missed the timeframe to edit. 

[chara]

4 hours ago, CarefreeMuratcan said:

I find it hilarious that some rival fans are bringing us into this discussion and saying "we're next". They are clueless. Putting money in isn't morally wrong or against the rules, if done above board. City have done it the wrong way. 

The "move the goal posts" amendment,,,what one could call "ChelseaRules"...all football matters are applied differently to Chelsea, as we see most match days,...was/is over completely open contract arrangements between employer/employee...nothing underhand and certainly no attempt to disguise the dealings..and nothing in the rules to prevent such dealings.

Why is a 7 year contract "shady" practice but not a 4 year or 3 year contract?

One could argue that a one month contract is unfair to a player.

Citeh are accused of financial misbehaviour not for having the financial strength..

And Chelsea?...abused just for having the finances.

[boratsbrother]

I don't think other fans are after us for what we spent under Roman. From what I've read, it's more a case of them thinking Boehly and co's huge spending is being financed behind the scenes by undisclosed, dirty Saudi money.

[Ham]

1 hour ago, chara said:

The "move the goal posts" amendment,,,what one could call "ChelseaRules"...all football matters are applied differently to Chelsea, as we see most match days,...was/is over completely open contract arrangements between employer/employee...nothing underhand and certainly no attempt to disguise the dealings..and nothing in the rules to prevent such dealings.

Why is a 7 year contract "shady" practice but not a 4 year or 3 year contract?

One could argue that a one month contract is unfair to a player.

Citeh are accused of financial misbehaviour not for having the financial strength..

And Chelsea?...abused just for having the finances.

Nothing wrong with 7 year contracts as evidenced by the numerous players around Europe who already have them. 

[chrisb]

City using the same lawyer that defended them against UEFA, Lord Pannick KC who charges up to £80,000 a day. Could be a nice little earner for him if it goes on for a while.
 

[east lower]

18 minutes ago, chrisb said:

 Lord Pannick KC who charges up to £80,000 a day. 
 

Pannick, not the best of names given the scenario, but at least given the quoted earnings he'll fit in just fine at City @ £400k if he can be asked doing the full 5 day week.

[xceleryx]

9 hours ago, boratsbrother said:

I don't think other fans are after us for what we spent under Roman. From what I've read, it's more a case of them thinking Boehly and co's huge spending is being financed behind the scenes by undisclosed, dirty Saudi money.

Not sure I'd agree with that being the reason. To me it seems more about using long contracts as a loophole to amortise our transfers over longer periods, therefore granting us more spending ability in the present. We were always going to have money to spend, that was made pretty clear when the change of ownership happened. It's just that it's happened all at once, opposed to taking several years to build up to this point. With so much spending upfront taken place it's ruffled FFP feathers about how it's possible. Conveniently forgotten though is that we've had all debt wiped out, FFP is gauged over a 3 year period (from memory) and that includes our Champions League win. Throw in that we also made a profit last season in the market despite signing Lukaku, and we've both cleared/clearing a lot of high earning contracts out and our new signings are on low base salaries with achievable incentives to receive bonuses. 

While there's risk involved with some of these longer deals, the overall concept is pretty f-ing clever. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by xceleryx

[xceleryx]

Qatari investors being heavily linked with buying Man Utd by the looks of it, with ETH being given money to burn in the process. 

[My Blood Is Blue]

5 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Not sure I'd agree with that being the reason. To me it seems more about using long contracts as a loophole to amortise our transfers over longer periods, therefore granting us more spending ability in the present. We were always going to have money to spend, that was made pretty clear when the change of ownership happened. It's just that it's happened all at once, opposed to taking several years to build up to this point. With so much spending upfront taken place it's ruffled FFP feathers about how it's possible. Conveniently forgotten though is that we've had all debt wiped out, FFP is gauged over a 3 year period (from memory) and that includes our Champions League win. Throw in that we also made a profit last season in the market despite signing Lukaku, and we've both cleared/clearing a lot of high earning contracts out and our new signings are on low base salaries with achievable incentives to receive bonuses. 

While there's risk involved with some of these longer deals, the overall concept is pretty f-ing clever. 

Exactly, it is very smart and the big difference between our owners and City’s owners is that ours bend and use the rules to make it work, whereas City‘a owners just break them.

[Ham]

3 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Exactly, it is very smart and the big difference between our owners and City’s owners is that ours bend and use the rules to make it work, whereas City‘a owners just break them.

I'm not even sure we bent any rules. We operated within them whilst few others wanted to take the risk of offering such long contacts. 

[Sciatika]

Long contracts are not illegal or against the rules. The offer of long contracts happens more often in Europe. Lifetime contracts for Casillas, Iniesta and Raul, 10 years for Denilson. However, it is not unknown in England. Fabregas was given a nine-year contract by Arsenal. He left for Barce after six years. Kepa has a seven(?) year deal. I worry about the sanity of it but not over being charged with misconduct.

[thevelourfog]

On 07/02/2023 at 07:35, east lower said:

But, I’m also minded that people should be careful what they wish for. Todd’s already caused a revision of the rules, following others clubs questioning UEFA/PL. I really hope the new ownership’s done it all by the rule book, they’ll be a few investigations going on to try and find flaws and report it.

From the outside, and I completely take your point, it looks like we may recklessly break the rules, particularly if (when) we fail to qualify for the CL and can't sell off any of the bloated squad. We'll be punished, and quite rightly, but I do think we and the football world should be careful about conflating recklessness with systematic cheating and fraud. And it is clear, whatever moral stance any of us choose to take on it, that this is what City have done.

I don't see any meaningful punishment for City. They are owned by a state, a wealthy state our state absolutely needs to maintain diplomatic and economic terms with. The owners really can just do what they want. Again, many have conflated the issues around being owned by a controversial individual and being owned by a state. 

[ROTG]

34 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

From the outside, and I completely take your point, it looks like we may recklessly break the rules, particularly if (when) we fail to qualify for the CL and can't sell off any of the bloated squad. We'll be punished, and quite rightly, but I do think we and the football world should be careful about conflating recklessness with systematic cheating and fraud. And it is clear, whatever moral stance any of us choose to take on it, that this is what City have done.

I don't see any meaningful punishment for City. They are owned by a state, a wealthy state our state absolutely needs to maintain diplomatic and economic terms with. The owners really can just do what they want. Again, many have conflated the issues around being owned by a controversial individual and being owned by a state. 

It will push the teams back down the European/world super league route.

I am sure the TB and other wealthy owners would love the game move to a kind of Harlem globe trotters type league where games are played around the world.

thats my take on where football could go if the Football governing bodies take on the money people in football.

The Saudis have started this with golf regardless of the PGA sanctions. 

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by ROTG

[boratsbrother]

13 minutes ago, ROTG said:

It will push the teams back down the European/world super league route.

I am sure the TB and other wealthy owners would love the game move to a kind of Harlem globe trotters type league where games are played around the world.

thats my take on where football could go if the Football governing bodies take on the money people in football. The Saudis are doing it with golf. 

It was only the outrage from fans which stopped the super League in its tracks. Those same fans now say they will fully support their cub quitting the EPL if City are not severely punished by relegation and significant sanctions.

All it will take is for Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal to quit and  overnight the EPL will be finished as the major league in the world. The EPL can easily do without Man City being a force but they cannot afford to lose our three biggest clubs, which is why they will throw the book at City.

 

[My Blood Is Blue]

29 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

It was only the outrage from fans which stopped the super League in its tracks. Those same fans now say they will fully support their cub quitting the EPL if City are not severely punished by relegation and significant sanctions.

All it will take is for Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal to quit and  overnight the EPL will be finished as the major league in the world. The EPL can easily do without Man City being a force but they cannot afford to lose our three biggest clubs, which is why they will throw the book at City.

 

I think this is such a good point and I touched on it with a previous comment, but Man City do not have the prestige, history and 'brand' of the 3 clubs you've mentioned, or even that of Chelsea, Tottenham and arguably others as well.

If Man City get kicked out of the league, it'll make big news around the footballing world, but then the other big clubs will take their players and move on and they'll soon be 'forgotten'. The other big clubs in England, would cause much more of a stir and really impact the PL as a brand.

When Chelsea suffered because of the sanctions, if you cut through all the noise of people claiming we deserved it etc, the more sensible journalists and pundits were quite clear that the government should not put the future of one of the country's biggest clubs at risk and must find a way to allow us to operate as normally as possible. I would be shocked if you found the same narrative this time, anywhere.

[ROTG]

33 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Those same fans now say they will fully support their cub quitting the EPL if City are not severely punished by relegation and significant sanctions.

Chitty are innocents until proven otherwise. 

[ROTG]

7 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

41 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

I think this is such a good point and I touched on it with a previous comment, but Man City do not have the prestige, history and 'brand' of the 3 clubs you've mentioned, or even that of Chelsea, Tottenham and arguably others as well.

If Man City get kicked out of the league, it'll make big news around the footballing world, but then the other big clubs will take their players and move on and they'll soon be 'forgotten'. The other big clubs in England, would cause much more of a stir and really impact the PL as a brand.

Disagree. 

Football is now a business with most of the top clubs in the PL being owned by sports media companies or Middle East companies.

Europeans elites want a piece of this pie and when you the figures being banded around for elite PL clubs, is it not logical for some of sports empires to look else where. 

The American sport industry & state owned clubs will sooner rather than later have a big say in the direction of European / world football. 

How long before a corporate clocks on to one of the big South American club that keep selling all these players to Europe.