To be quite honest, every single conga dancing, banana waving, gloat merchant in that fanbase, who vehemently defends the owners and shuts every 115 discussion down with "cry" or waffle about grass length, deserves everything that they get.
Personally i don't think the trophies would be awarded to anyone retrospectively. The Italian FA didn't when they relegated Juve, they just scratched those years from the records instead.
I agree, void them BUT the Italian FA awarded I think 1 of them to Inter, then voided the other 1. Maybe the numbers are wrong but Inter, and ironically, Mancini, were given at least 1 default title.
2004 was voided while 2005 was given to inter.
Ah good to know!
I actually prefer Liverpool winning the league next year, if the other alternative is City. I hate City extra much for making me feel that way.
What was the reason for voiding one and awarding the other out of interest?
Milan won it in 2004, 2005 was voided, and 2006 was awarded to Inter after court hearings snd Juventus being moved to the bottom of the table
It was controversial, die hard juve gans claim the federation was in on it with inter considering the latter finished third in both of those season behind Milan and juve.
I would be fine with that personally. Not taking away trophies means you are saying you still won even though you cheated.
I'd love it if they kept them as winners but with a big fat asterisk next to it. Would be even better than giving the title to the runner up.
I hope they get the Chris Benoit treatment
I would rather the titles to be stripped and leave a void there with an asterisk saying title holder stripped due to serious fraudulent & violation of rules. This will be a reminder to all future generation of their dirty past.
Yes however the part that people are missing he is being paid in the UAE for work in the UAE, it was mentioned that a lot of city recruits would be asked to do 3 or 4 days ambassadors work in the contract with a separate contract for the players manager self employed company, so if they earned money in the US for 3 or 4 days work they would have to pay US tax on the payment which would normally be paid into a us bank account, he would only be liable for UK tax if the money was paid from a US company into a UK bank account.
Its a joke.
No, if you are domiciled in the UK and go for 10 days to the UAE to do work in the UAE and get paid in the UAE you still have to declare that income and pay tax on it. If the UAE doesn't tax you that makes it even easier and far less protracted.
What you're saying is football is winning at the minute?
Been saying this for years. At least the scousers have a genuine football club. You can respect them.
That wage doesn't even surprise me. I'm pretty sure he's not getting what city say he is.
Do you think, based on what we know, that they have broken the law?
That's what I've always appreciated about Liverpool - though the rivalry is fierce, there has always been grudging respect between the two clubs, as each recognizes the other as being a genuinely big club.
I'd support Spurs...safe to say for me because that choice doesn't come into play, but any rival goes ahead of cheats.
Not sure why people keep bringing up the Haaland transfer. The structure of the deal is well known and it was also well known when he first joined Dortmund. Dortmund agreed to a contract where they would get him for a certain amount of years until his release clause kicked in, where they would then get a less than 50% of the total «transfer fee», where the rest of the transfer fee is agent fees to Raiolas company and Haalands father. In reality the fee was over £110mill. Haaland&Co wanted an agent that would bring in as much money as possible and Raiola was well known for doing exactly that. Every contract extension, every transfer, Raiolas company and Haalands father will bank millions.
That’s exactly why I don’t want them winning as much as a swimming certificate. It hurts more.
People keep bringing up the Haaland transfer because despite the player being hugely in demand and seemingly available for a bargain fee. There was no scramble for his signature. If it was such a cut price deal why didn't we hear about all the teams that were lined up to sign him. City signed him pretty much on the quiet. Most of us think that the situation just like City's declared finances, doesn't quite add up.
Ehm, but everyone knew he wasn't available for a bargain fee. The total costs of the transfer fees was over £110mill. Just because Dortmund got less than 50% of that it doesn't mean that the overall fee was a fecking bargain. Plenty of clubs were in contact with Raiola, just as they were in contact before he joined Dortmund in the first place, but not many clubs are going to accept deals where they end up losing the player for feck all in return for him potentially scoring a lot of goals over a short period of time at the club.
The Haaland deal cost at least £260 million in total.
And that's just the official accounts.
Sorry to be the bust your bubbles, Apparently we are at the first trail stage so it has definitely gone somewhere.
How do you know this? Its highly unlikely City will be succesfull in their ridiculous court action thats currently ongoing and there is still a very real possibility that they will be found guilty and expelled when the face their hearing for the 115 charges in November.
You wonder how on earth it's legal for a fee to go to 3 different parties like that.
