City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024

Josep Dowling said:
The media should be all over this as this could impact British football forever. Nothing on the BBC yesterday. The journalist on Talksport this morning was suggesting that City wouldn't suddenly make their sponsorship unrealistic if they win the case. They are already inflating their sponsorship revenue now, and saying they have the largest revenue in the Premier League. What exactly does he think they'll do with FFP removed? So sick and tired of media being bought by these scumbags. At this point their owners should be forced to sell the club just like Abramovich had to. Remove all state ownership from football.
Click to expand...
yeah it's pathetic there is one small section on the bbc,you just know if this was united there would be uproar and constant media attention just shows you who's been bought off over the years imo.
 
Dean60 said:
City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th. At the end of the day given United’s net spend they should have done better.

Arsenal, Liverpool and United have all wrangled the FFP rules to their own advantage(amongst other things, e.g. cup rules) , whilst hiding behind sponsors from unethical companies with sweat shops / funding terrorists etc. Then cry foul because City have spent less(but more than you’d like) and dared to get into the self appointed elite. The only thing you lot care about is your position.

The teams in the league who are supporting City make sense to me. If you want the rest of the league on side introduce a wage cap and salary cap that is obtainable for everyone! or why shouldn’t we want to burn it down? the rest are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Crying about your own position being taken whilst trying to pull up the draw bridge on everyone else is hilarious. Also Liverpool’s sponsor being linked to terrorism is a big deal, people cry about betting companies yet turn a blind eye to this it seems. Frankly, it’s all disgusting.

https://www.givemesport.com/every-p...et-spend-since-pep-guardiola-joined-man-city/
Click to expand...
It's incredibly shortsighted to make that point without factoring in how in the 8 years between City's takeover and Pep's arrival, they spent at least £660m net (£870m gross) on transfer fees. The sales of those stockpiled players balanced out the books considerably from 2016/17, although the true figures are obviously unlikely to be reflected in the headline amounts alone.

In those same seasons, United spent around a third of the amount City were spending - £236m net (£522m gross - with almost half of that figure being spent in 2014/15 and 2015/16).

To think those seasons had no bearing on what followed is ludicrous. Saying United spent badly and achieved poor results with their transfers is less likely to find complaint, although the context is clearly that the increased spending on a lower quality of players was a direct result of City's transfer strategy and massive distortion of the market.

The only way you can say they "spent less" is by totally ignoring the seasons when - out of absolutely nowhere - they outspent every other team by hundreds of millions per season.
 
Last edited:
Infra-red said:
There won't be many Tories left by this time next month.
Click to expand...

People never learn with this. Everyone prepares for them to lose, and then they go out and vote for different random parties, while all the rich people consistently vote Conservative, therefore ensuring that they win because everyone else can't vote for one party.
 
Von Mistelroum said:
People never learn with this. Everyone prepares for them to lose, and then they go out and vote for different random parties, while all the rich people consistently vote Conservative, therefore ensuring that they win because everyone else can't vote for one party.
Click to expand...

I agree that a danger for Labour is that people who think the election result is a forgone conclusion don't bother to go out to vote for them. However, this is not the thread for that discussion!
 
It's funny seeing people trying to diminish the East German Manchester side's blatant cheating over many years when I remember it being discussed openly on Sunday Supplement before it was cancelled, indeed even as far back as Yaya Toure getting a bumper deal it was reported his wages were underreported.

@vonmistelroum I suspect this will be our equivalent of Canada 1993.
 
V.O. said:
Why do people keep posting this guy in the thread?

It's literally just a City fan account.
Click to expand...
I was just about to post this, look through his posts and it's obviously a City fan, no reason to keep posting his stuff.
 
Crimson King said:
What absolute tosh! Transfer fees aren't just lump sums, they don't take into account agents fees and wages, not to mention a whole host of other things only accountants care about. Do you really think Haaland only cost City £50m? Because that's what it'll say on their accounts. Easily covered by selling two reserve GKs to championship clubs, which isn't suspicious at all.

All that really matters is revenue, and clubs can spend every penny of that if they want to. That's the whole point of this 115 farce. City didn't, and still don't, make enough money to match the ambitions of their nation state owners, so they've been inflating that through fake sponsorships.

Honestly, if all you care about is a clubs net spend and how well they do in the 'transfer balance book league', then you might as well support any old business. Go and support IKEA when they next have a match against B&Q or DFS.
Click to expand...

Net spend not being the only metric that matters does not make it "tosh". It is an extremely informative metric which tells us how a club's transfer dealings impact their finances.

City's accounts will not say that Haaland cost them £50m. They will include the transfer payments to Dortmund, the fees to Raiola's company, and the fees to Haaland's dad.

The 115 charges are about inflating income from sponsors, deflating wage expenditure, not cooperating, and failing FFP/PSR based on what the adjusted accounts say. Nothing to do with transfer fees in or out.
 
Dean60 said:
City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th. At the end of the day given United’s net spend they should have done better.

Arsenal, Liverpool and United have all wrangled the FFP rules to their own advantage(amongst other things, e.g. cup rules) , whilst hiding behind sponsors from unethical companies with sweat shops / funding terrorists etc. Then cry foul because City have spent less(but more than you’d like) and dared to get into the self appointed elite. The only thing you lot care about is your position.

The teams in the league who are supporting City make sense to me. If you want the rest of the league on side introduce a wage cap and salary cap that is obtainable for everyone! or why shouldn’t we want to burn it down? the rest are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Crying about your own position being taken whilst trying to pull up the draw bridge on everyone else is hilarious. Also Liverpool’s sponsor being linked to terrorism is a big deal, people cry about betting companies yet turn a blind eye to this it seems. Frankly, it’s all disgusting.

https://www.givemesport.com/every-p...et-spend-since-pep-guardiola-joined-man-city/
Click to expand...
Firstly, City haven't spent less. Since City were taken over they've spent almost a billion pounds more than any other team (though Todd is doing his bestest to reduce that gap). And that's just on gross transfers, they've also been at the top of the (declared) wages for 15 odd seasons. Now, City have had great success in that time, so you can argue it's 'worth' it. But it doesn't change the amount nor the fact that they're charged with breaking rules that they signed up for.

As to the rest of the league, well look at it without City there. Spurs, United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool - all have had periods not just outside the top 4, but outside the top 6. None of them have been consistent in challenging. When squads have ebbed and flowed, as their fortunes. When generational managers have left, as has success. In that time teams like Brighton, Villa, Leicester, Everton, West Ham have all been up in the top 6 and top 4. There was a title race between Spurs and Leicester not so long ago.

Now, can Ipswitch challenge this year? No. Will Crystal Palace likely sell off some key players, rather than make a top 4 run? Yes. Does that mean the league is broken? I don't think so.

What City lack is risk. When Pep leaves, they will be able to spend anything necessary to get the next manager exactly what they want. And if it doesn't work out, they'll try, try again until it does. You don't get Maguires at City. And how can they be so ruthless, throwing away sunk costs like that? Well because their sponsors are so much bigger than everyone elses. And why is that? Their, erm, global appeal and fanbase.
 
So it looks like Villa are also proposing an increase the amount you can lose under PSR rules.

I feel like Villa may just be trying to ensure they can maintain and improve on their current league position which will obviously be difficult with limitations. Maybe they will back away from supporting City if the PSR issue is resolved.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Net spend not being the only metric that matters does not make it "tosh". It is an extremely informative metric which tells us how a club's transfer dealings impact their finances.

City's accounts will not say that Haaland cost them £50m. They will include the transfer payments to Dortmund, the fees to Raiola's company, and the fees to Haaland's dad.

The 115 charges are about inflating income from sponsors, deflating wage expenditure, not cooperating, and failing FFP/PSR based on what the adjusted accounts say. Nothing to do with transfer fees in or out.
Click to expand...
The last time I tried to 'read' City's accounts it was almost impossible due to the way that they bury costs across entities. Maybe that has changed and in the notes they release things like what you mention, but it's certainly not clear purely from the statements.
 
Seems to be a universally accepted truth in here that they have bought FA, the media, and whatever faction in the government?
 
Sir Erik ten Hag said:
Seems to be a universally accepted truth in here that they have bought FA, the media, and whatever faction in the government?
Click to expand...

You'd have to be a bit dense at this point not to see the vast political sticky mess this is. The British government are firmly in bed with UAE, and thus in bed with City. Same with the Saudi takeover of Newcastle. It's sadly a lot more convoluted and complicated than simply just football.
 
Woodzy said:
So it looks like Villa are also proposing an increase the amount you can lose under PSR rules.

I feel like Villa may just be trying to ensure they can maintain and improve on their current league position which will obviously be difficult with limitations. Maybe they will back away from supporting City if the PSR issue is resolved.
Click to expand...
Maybe if these clubs try to buy from the others they should just charge minimum of 100m for a player.
 
Dean60 said:
City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th. At the end of the day given United’s net spend they should have done better.
Click to expand...

Net Spend is a nonsencical figure though that means nothing as it doesnt account fot the agents fees they pay, wages and bonusses they pay, the massive fees paid to players parents, and the fees they pay to intermeadarys all of which are alledgedly a lot higher than other clubs pay.

City also paid out a world ammount of wages last year.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Net Spend is a nonsencical figure though that means nothing as it doesnt account fot the agents fees they pay, wages and bonusses they pay, the massive fees paid to players parents, and the fees they pay to intermeadarys all of which are alledgedly a lot higher than other clubs pay.

City also paid out a world ammount of wages last year.
Click to expand...
Also only based on declared expenses, not the parallel salary in the UAE or to offshore accounts.
 
One of the biggest red herrings in this whole conversation has been the spotlight on Uniteds spending. Which has been awful. Nobody is ever saying city haven't spent well or implemented an excellent management and off pitch football operation. Of course they have and they can get all the praise they like for it, but it will still come caveated by the fact that none of it was possible without cheating. Pivoting to 'but United have spent a fortune' has nothing to do with anything, we're making our mess all by ourselves. United are proof that even with money, any team will go through sporting black holes. City are proof that with STATE money and cheating, you'll win it all - robbing other clubs of the chance to take Uniteds spot
 
Dean60 said:
City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th.

https://www.givemesport.com/every-p...et-spend-since-pep-guardiola-joined-man-city/
Click to expand...

You've definitely fallen for the City project hook line and sinker.

They've managed to get into a position of high strength by their initial huge spending, fuelled by dodgy sponsorships and manipulation of funds.

This has meant they've won loads and are in a position of strength where they can sell players for high fees whilst picking 1 or 2 signings to add each summer making it appear that recently they're not spending much.
 
SER19 said:
One of the biggest red herrings in this whole conversation has been the spotlight on Uniteds spending. Which has been awful. Nobody is ever saying city haven't spent well or implemented an excellent management and off pitch football operation. Of course they have and they can get all the praise they like for it, but it will still come caveated by the fact that none of it was possible without cheating. Pivoting to 'but United have spent a fortune' has nothing to do with anything, we're making our mess all by ourselves. United are proof that even with money, any team will go through sporting black holes. City are proof that with STATE money and cheating, you'll win it all - robbing other clubs of the chance to take Uniteds spot
Click to expand...

This is it.
It has to be said that City have managed their signings brilliantly in the main, unlike United who have barely made a wise one in a decade.
But City have hyped the market up, meaning even fullbacks can be 50m now, so teams well behind have to lash out wildly and put the wages in to match. But unlike City, other clubs can't just write off relative failures, and have 100m England wingers on the bench for example.
 
Sandikan said:
This is it.
It has to be said that City have managed their signings brilliantly in the main, unlike United who have barely made a wise one in a decade.
But City have hyped the market up, meaning even fullbacks can be 50m now, so teams well behind have to lash out wildly and put the wages in to match. But unlike City, other clubs can't just write off relative failures, and have 100m England wingers on the bench for example.
Click to expand...


Yeah as much as i can praise their business, people forget at how easily they've been able to move on from flops
 
SER19 said:
Yeah as much as i can praise their business, people forget at how easily they've been able to move on from flops
Click to expand...

And let’s not forget throwing lots of cash at youth players parents to monopolise the market and weaken other clubs ability to develop their own from within.
 
SER19 said:
One of the biggest red herrings in this whole conversation has been the spotlight on Uniteds spending. Which has been awful. Nobody is ever saying city haven't spent well or implemented an excellent management and off pitch football operation. Of course they have and they can get all the praise they like for it, but it will still come caveated by the fact that none of it was possible without cheating. Pivoting to 'but United have spent a fortune' has nothing to do with anything, we're making our mess all by ourselves. United are proof that even with money, any team will go through sporting black holes. City are proof that with STATE money and cheating, you'll win it all - robbing other clubs of the chance to take Uniteds spot
Click to expand...
It really doesn't, I agree, and I find it weird that it's used as an argument by fans and pundits alike - it's incredibly lazy and doesn't stand the test of scrutiny.
 
Wondering why Villa, Chelsea and Newcastle are backing City? Because they could be next for punishment under profit and sustainability rules

 
It’s funny how English made this huge protests over SuperLeague but are happy to stay on their couches now that City is literally trying to takeover the PL and make their own rules :lol:. “Football is for the fans”
 
Dean60 said:
Financial Fair Play, that stops spending and growing whilst keeping the turnover for the top 6 artificially high. My sentence on a wage cap and salary cap would be true FFP. For example, all teams can spend the same, or spend the turnover of the largest club turnover.

If you think FFP stops the bigger clubs, that’s madness, it locks their turnover in at 2/3 times the competition hence the one sided top 4 positions(only Everton Leicester Newcastle Villa been in sparingly) and the trophy wins of the last 30 years. FA Cup winners old top 4 clubs repeatedly + Everton(points deduction) Wigan(relegated) Portsmouth(relegated + points deduction) + Leicester(relegated+ 2 point deductions incoming + prior FFP fine) and City(huge investment 115 charges) see a pattern here!? pure protectionism.

Everton have had to sell their best players below market value, lost their position from 5th to 8th in and around Europe to fighting relegation. And then deducted 8 points to boot and now you want Branthwaite on the cheap to meet FFP. When the new stadium comes with increased turnover and with a rich benefactor we could be right up there, hence the coming after us.

I look at City’s case like this, if the current FFP rules protect position and turnover the only way round that is a rich owner which is not allowed. So the only way anyone can progress is a rich owner(based on last 30 years) if City win the case rich owners become a possibility. Hence support for them, unless a more equitable solution is put forward.

People saying Arsenal, Liverpool and United will protect the football pyramid whilst they are cancelling cup replays etc are frankly deluded. I don’t want a league where Nike sponsor determines the winner any more than a state owner club ploughing money in.

Also Net spend is just a measure of players brought in and out, however much City have “cheated” if they have, they still spent 4th on players in the last 8 years or so. Also factor in wages. In the end, net player spend + wages = final position and trophies, almost with a 1-1 correlation over time so it is very relevant. You could also argue rigging the rules in your favour via threats to leave is “cheating”
Click to expand...
No I meant it didn't make sense, so can you explain what the original point was. Wage cap would help smaller clubs so I am not sure what you are saying.

FFP is not perfect but it's misunderstood because smaller clubs want something tangible to point to as an inhibitor but let's actually look at it. FFP came into play in 2012, people always say it was to stop City the reality was the league was a financial pit for most clubs, hard ot imagine now everyone is enjoying the pie but it wasn't until 2014 the combined clubs were in profit. Anyway. back to FFP, here are the revenues from the clubs 2012/13.

Club(m)2023 (m)% increase
United363583+160
Arsenal283367+130
City271619+228
Chelsea260481+185
Pool206594+288
Spurs147442+300
Newcastle96179+186
WHUM91255+280
Everton86181+210
Villa84217+258

Obviously City's % is much higher if you go back another couple of seasons pre takeover. Point out this cartel to me that is stopping the growth of these other clubs?

The protectionism comment degrades your post, that clubs who win the FA cup will then get done away with is madness. Everton I will address below, Leicester ironically City probably harmed more than anyone as their model needed CL qualification and they missed out 2 years running so couldn't buy anyone, the irony of bringing up Pompey should not be lost on you in an FFP conversation. Wigan were bought by an owner who basically destroyed them, look up Kieran Maguire's commentary on this and, again, ironic to bring them up in an FFP conversation.

Your Everton comment makes me think you are very young or just trolling, Everton put themselves in the shit by having back to back mental windows for a club of their size, buying terribly and reaping the rewards. Moshiri even admitted this. There's that bonkers fact about them spending more than Real and Bayern since 2014.

What's the issue with not having cup replays, we need to cut down on # of games? I'd rather England games got canned but that's just me.

No idea what you mean re threatening to leave as you can't mean the ESL as City were in on that.
 
SER19 said:
One of the biggest red herrings in this whole conversation has been the spotlight on Uniteds spending. Which has been awful. Nobody is ever saying city haven't spent well or implemented an excellent management and off pitch football operation. Of course they have and they can get all the praise they like for it, but it will still come caveated by the fact that none of it was possible without cheating. Pivoting to 'but United have spent a fortune' has nothing to do with anything, we're making our mess all by ourselves. United are proof that even with money, any team will go through sporting black holes. City are proof that with STATE money and cheating, you'll win it all - robbing other clubs of the chance to take Uniteds spot
Click to expand...
It also totally ignores the fact that United's spending has ramped up as a necessity due to City's spending. And City's spending has meant that the quality of the players available to us has declined while their prices have increased dramatically. Add in incompetance at board and managerial level at United and you get the expensive mess we're currently in.

Just for context though, while we've got supposed neutrals in this thread praising City for spending less than everyone else, let's look back on the transfer climate from three years either side of City's takeover:

'Big Four/Cartel' + Manchester City transfers, pre-Abu Dhabi takeover, between 2005/06 to 2007/08:

United: 19.5 (13.5) + 18.7 (-5) + 59.1 (25.8)
Chelsea: 54.7 (27.7) + 66.3 (39.3) + 36.5 (4.5)
Liverpool: 26.7 (12.7) + 27.2 (14.4) + 71.9 (37.9)
Arsenal: 36.9 (30.1) + 13.9 (-17) + 31 (13.4)
City: 8.3 (-13.9) + 3 (-2.5) + 50 (43.1)

Total spend seasons 2005/06 - 2007/08 (net figures in brackets, top spenders in bold, lowest spenders in italics):
United: £97.3 (£34.3m)
Chelsea: £157.5m (£71.5m)
Liverpool: £125.8m (£65m)
Arsenal: £81.8m (£26.5m)
City: £61.3m (£26.7m)

Average spend per season:
United: £32.4 (£11.4m)
Chelsea: £52.5m (£23.8m)
Liverpool: £41.9m (£21.7m)
Arsenal: £27.3m (£8.8m)
City: £20.4m (£8.9m)

Post-Abu Dhabi takeover, between 2008/09 - 2010/11

United: 42.5 (35.5) + 21.5 (-64.6) + 28.1 (13.3)
Chelsea: 24.2 (-10.8) + 23.5 (17.5) + 94.6 (82.6)
Liverpool: 39 (6.5) + 36.6 (-8.2) + 84.6 (-2.4)
Arsenal: 15.8 (-3.5) + 10 (-31) + 14.5 (6.8)
City: 126.9 (118) + 144.5 (123) + 153.7 (124.8)

Total spend seasons 2008/09 - 2010/11:
United: £92.1m (-£15.8m)
Chelsea: £142.3m (£89.3m)
Liverpool: £160.2m (-£4.1m)
Arsenal: £40.3m (-£27.7m)
City: £425.1m (365.8m)

Average spend per season:
United: £30.7m (-£5.3m)
Chelsea: £47.4m (£29.8m)
Liverpool: £53.4m (-£1.4m)
Arsenal: £13.4m (-£9.23m)
City: £141.7m (£121.9m)

In short, Chelsea were outliers in terms of transfer spending in the Premier League following their own takeover by Roman Abramovic. They spent double the amount United were spending and a considerable amount more than second-top spenders Liverpool. Meanwhile, City went from having a net spend of £7.6m less than United did between 2005/06 to 2007/08, to spending four times what Chelsea were, while having commercial deals at the time such as a Thomas Cook shirt sponsorship worth £1.5m per season.

They were bringing in £6.5m in sponsorship revenues in 2008/09, yet were able to spend 18 times that on transfers! And within a year or so, on the back of winning absolutely nothing at that point, they suddenly increased their sponsorship income to £32.4m a year. £29m of that came directly from Abu-Dhabi-based organisations. And in 2011 - after spending £425m on transfers since the takeover, and winning a solitary FA Cup, they suddenly got multiple world-record sponsorship deals totalling £400m. All from an airline that had yet to record an operating profit, but is owned by the family of the guy who bought City. What a coincidence!

It was blatant financial doping back then, and yet it's all been forgotten about and rewritten as City having been scrappy underdogs.
 
Last edited:
giggs-beckham said:
Playing devil's advocate, what would be the plusses to them winning. If there are any.
Click to expand...

That's the most cowardly stance and hate it when I hear Jay Motty use it on Stretford Paddock. Going back to your actual question there aren't any plusses whatsoever.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Net spend is the metric if you want to compare how well clubs are investing their money on transfers, and there is no evidence of anything being wrong with those numbers from City.
Click to expand...

Net spend is a high level metric only, and can be somewhat contorted by things such as lucky, one-off transfers that mask a lot of bad buys (Coutinho @ Liverpool for example). It is also open to misdirection, like the city situation and some of the multi-club shenanigans that have been going on, Watford back in the day were a prime example of this.

Adisa said:
Was always going to happen. The football regulator could possibly nuke the case.
Click to expand...

The football regulator is proposed to get control of finances, and promote stability, not open up spending to go completely wild.

Infra-red said:
There won't be many Tories left by this time next month.
Click to expand...

Adisa said:
A judgement is not likely to come until 2025. A lot of time for UAE to put political pressure on the new government.
Click to expand...

Josep Dowling said:
I'm sure there will be plenty of Labour politicians willing to accept brown envelopes as well.
Click to expand...

Wish people would stop banging on about the Tories, there will be a Labour government and they would have to be the ones pressuring the PL, the Tories will be toast and irrelevant to the whole thing. With the context of the proposed Regulator it also seems unlikely that any government would involve themselves in this, but you never know with the successive brain trusts we've had for years.

The other side to this is if you consider it as having the possibility to affect investment in Manchester (Labour Council, Labour Mayor) maybe there is some scope for politicians to be open to some "persuasion" (blackmail). Nationally too, new government won't want to be seen to be anti-business/investment. I'd hope there are stronger morals at play, but will they view investment in the city as a higher priority than who wins the Premier League.

As a side not - on the proposed regulator surely the "best" thing for the PL is if the government try to interfere, since it is a blatant support of unfettered spending by a nation state, that will surely promote instability if clubs try to keep up. The PL could then point out the hypocrisy of the government and tell them to bugger off with regards to any regulation.

Interesting times to put it mildly.
 
Charrockero said:
It’s funny how English made this huge protests over SuperLeague but are happy to stay on their couches now that City is literally trying to takeover the PL and make their own rules :lol:. “Football is for the fans”
Click to expand...
Yet it's the fans who have had enough. Don't believe everything you see or hear in the media. Liars, shills and sycophants have championed the cheating 115 for too long and now they're turning tails like the self preserving scum they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.