His tenure hurt us more than it did us good. But that's a different discussion.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th Sep 2024 | Concluded 9th Dec 2024 - Awaiting outcome
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
His tenure hurt us more than it did us good. But that's a different discussion.
Martial out for 4 months with a strained wrist
You are correct they should have nominated 1 of the 2 arbiters but you are wrong if you’re implying they can nominate anyone. It is supposed to be someone without bias/potential bias which I think it’s pretty clear isn’t the case here. Obviously both sides nominate someone who will fight their corner but to have someone fighting their corner who ran a firm which represented the very company which made the fraudulent payments seems, to say the least, shady. I did see City said at the time that because he’d never represented them physically (as in members of his team did not him) it was fine.
They are not supposed to nominate the chairman, no one seems to know why they did. The Guardian supposedly contacted them about it but got nothing. That to me is also very shady.
Mate, no.
Someone doing their job just happens to be an Arsenal fan?
More likely points deduction.
There's been precedence for this with Serie A though.
Nah, feck them - everything City has achieved isn't right. They should be relegated and have all their titles stripped. It will be a good day for football.
Yeah but if its a massive points deduction it might result in them getting relegated. Hopefully.
I mean playing in a lower leagues wont be new for them, on the contrary.
Goes till 2018.
2018-current they are being charged with not co-operating with investigations. Regardless, that's why I said if it goes to 2022.
So Solskjær would have 1 title? Would they give the title to whoever came 2nd that year or just no one wins it.
Yeah, I believe Uefa competition spots are nominated by the PL (as in the PL/FA can distribute them however they like) so regardless of our legal standing with Uefa, the PL can simply not put City forward for the CL if I'm remembering correctly.
The more I read, the more it becomes apparent that there are so many complex repercussions to any form of stern action, retrospective or otherwise.
The financial compensation for clubs affected and how to estimate that for each club ( PL position based finish winnings, relegated clubs whose losses came against City, ) across every season in a way that is acceptable is itself a massive minefield. And it gets murkier when you take player compensations based on those finishes into account. Players miss out on title winning, CL-qualifying, and relegation-avoiding bonuses. Transfer clauses that are now rendered null due to retrospective chalking up of titles. And their agents. Whom do Mino's agents sue for Pogba missing out on CL bonuses because City cheated them?
And all this before the broadcasters join the party. Will Sky be eligible to compensation for televising what they thought was a title-winning game over a significant alternative? Will City's legit sponsors sue the PL if they feel their brand image has been damaged by information released much later than it could have been? Will UEFA sue the PL for fielding an unfair competitor in the CL all these years? Who should KDB and Walker sue for missing out on wages they have already committed to spending? We think City should be relegated, but what if the league PL relegates them to refuses to accept them into the fold since there is technically no legal basis?
Will the UAE folks get so incensed this will lead to policy changes towards the UK in general? Price of oil is the obvious one, what other vengeful consequences can the government expect, especially if people in power are complicit in shady deals that can be held leverage over them?
The financial compensation for clubs affected and how to estimate that for each club ( PL position based finish winnings, relegated clubs whose losses came against City, ) across every season in a way that is acceptable is itself a massive minefield. And it gets murkier when you take player compensations based on those finishes into account. Players miss out on title winning, CL-qualifying, and relegation-avoiding bonuses. Transfer clauses that are now rendered null due to retrospective chalking up of titles. And their agents. Whom do Mino's agents sue for Pogba missing out on CL bonuses because City cheated them?
And all this before the broadcasters join the party. Will Sky be eligible to compensation for televising what they thought was a title-winning game over a significant alternative? Will City's legit sponsors sue the PL if they feel their brand image has been damaged by information released much later than it could have been? Will UEFA sue the PL for fielding an unfair competitor in the CL all these years? Who should KDB and Walker sue for missing out on wages they have already committed to spending? We think City should be relegated, but what if the league PL relegates them to refuses to accept them into the fold since there is technically no legal basis?
Will the UAE folks get so incensed this will lead to policy changes towards the UK in general? Price of oil is the obvious one, what other vengeful consequences can the government expect, especially if people in power are complicit in shady deals that can be held leverage over them?
I'm looking at something similar, but for very different reasons.
I agree, it seems that way IF found guilty, but it may also be not guilty territory.
Whatever you might think about City I seriously doubt that their lawyers would advise them to just openly commit financial crimes with no way of hiding or denying that that’s what they’ve done. Abu Dhabi invested enormous amounts of money to build up a valuable brand- this is only worthwhile for them if City retain their status. Ignoring whether they are actually guilty or not of breaking FFP, I’d guess that both sides feel they have a pretty strong case.
I would not be too upset if Ipswich got promoted this season and met Man City on their way down though! Would be the biggest match at PR for quite some time.
I know, but even though we'd be one of the two clubs who would gain from it it just wouldn't feel right.
Winning those titles would feel incredibly cheap, where everyone in the world would know that they weren't real. Nobody would take them seriously and it'd actually be somewhat of a meme. In other words, it'd feel exactly like what all of City's titles have felt like over the last 13 years.
We're all pretty sure the same sort of stuff was/is happening for players too. Their fans used to bat off everyone as conspiracists for believing the likes of Aguero, Silva etc. spent their peak years in half packed stadiums "only" on £200k or so a week.
I keep seeing random Berts saying City will bring down the league and that they will uncover all the dirt they have on the other big clubs.
What in the Ben Sherman are they going on about?
What in the Ben Sherman are they going on about?
It probably won't happen anyway, but not a fan of giving retroactive titles to other teams, even if it means we get 2 extra titles.
Voiding the titles on the other hand, should definitely be in the cards.
Voiding the titles on the other hand, should definitely be in the cards.
Aaaah. Interesting.
You honestly think something other than maybe a massive fine will come out of this??? highly unlikely
Pep's brother myseteriously ended up owning 44.3% of Girona, I wonder how that came about.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nchester-city-pep-guardiola-brother-questions
Please not this again. He is a very limited counter attacking manager. Should never have been made permanent. Waste of three years.
If they lied to guardiola he’s walking 
It's the delusions of grandeur brought about following them winning the lottery. They've tried to convince themselves they're a genuine club and everyone is against them.
On past president they should be kicked out of the EPL.
They should be made to change their stupid fecking badge back, too.
I see lots of mention Chelsea will be next to be investigated, but why?
We've never been suspected of cooking the books like City have. Sure the club have posted financial losses, and sure Abramovich injected a lot of money into the club over the years but unlike City's owner spending masked as dodgy sponsorship deals the Abramovich investment was always done completely out in the open and there were never any rules preventing him from doing so, as long as the club still stayed within the boundaries of the FFP rules which we always did because for starters the FFP rules allow for a ton of deductibles and even after all that they still allow for clubs to post a fixed amount of losses over the monitoring period as long as they are covered by the club owner. Maybe the rules are/were flawed that he was allowed to do it but you can't change the rules for past seasons.
In City's case the charge is that they cooked the books and would have failed FFP if they hadn't so it's all very different to what's been going on at Chelsea. Nobody would have prevented City from doing things the same way we have but if they did they just wouldn't have been able to spend as much money because when the FFP rules became a thing their starting point was much lower than ours. The timing is key here. When Abramovich bought Chelsea and made all those huge money investments in 2003-2010 there was no FFP yet, which allowed us to openly post massive losses and gain higher revenues through legit sponsorships etc. due to already being competitive over a multitude of years. When FFP rules were implemented we were already in a better position where the club still wasn't profitable but could continue to operate within the rules and using owner money to cover the allowed losses.
As for Chelsea's spending since the ownership change, it's again all out in the open and the club are not trying to hide anything. It's a shit load of money invested in new players but I don't think there's anyone claiming we're boosting our revenues with fake sponsorships and/or making off the books payments to clubs/agents/players to hide the costs. There's every chance this high-risk strategy causes the club to fail FFP monitoring and leads to some sanctions down the line if we fail to make CL in the coming seasons and also fail to increase other revenues, but as for right now we haven't fallen foul of any rule yet and if the high-risk strategy works out in our favor we might never do so. If we do fail FFP, there will be immediate sanctions that don't need this kind of further investigating because the accounts will already show how much losses the club have made. This all remains to be seen over the next few years.
We've never been suspected of cooking the books like City have. Sure the club have posted financial losses, and sure Abramovich injected a lot of money into the club over the years but unlike City's owner spending masked as dodgy sponsorship deals the Abramovich investment was always done completely out in the open and there were never any rules preventing him from doing so, as long as the club still stayed within the boundaries of the FFP rules which we always did because for starters the FFP rules allow for a ton of deductibles and even after all that they still allow for clubs to post a fixed amount of losses over the monitoring period as long as they are covered by the club owner. Maybe the rules are/were flawed that he was allowed to do it but you can't change the rules for past seasons.
In City's case the charge is that they cooked the books and would have failed FFP if they hadn't so it's all very different to what's been going on at Chelsea. Nobody would have prevented City from doing things the same way we have but if they did they just wouldn't have been able to spend as much money because when the FFP rules became a thing their starting point was much lower than ours. The timing is key here. When Abramovich bought Chelsea and made all those huge money investments in 2003-2010 there was no FFP yet, which allowed us to openly post massive losses and gain higher revenues through legit sponsorships etc. due to already being competitive over a multitude of years. When FFP rules were implemented we were already in a better position where the club still wasn't profitable but could continue to operate within the rules and using owner money to cover the allowed losses.
As for Chelsea's spending since the ownership change, it's again all out in the open and the club are not trying to hide anything. It's a shit load of money invested in new players but I don't think there's anyone claiming we're boosting our revenues with fake sponsorships and/or making off the books payments to clubs/agents/players to hide the costs. There's every chance this high-risk strategy causes the club to fail FFP monitoring and leads to some sanctions down the line if we fail to make CL in the coming seasons and also fail to increase other revenues, but as for right now we haven't fallen foul of any rule yet and if the high-risk strategy works out in our favor we might never do so. If we do fail FFP, there will be immediate sanctions that don't need this kind of further investigating because the accounts will already show how much losses the club have made. This all remains to be seen over the next few years.
Some people, eh?
it would be three titles including 2012 season as well
No, Citys tenure hurt us, ole was robbed!
For me it seems highly unlikely they’ll be found not guilty based on everything we know.
They weren’t exonerated last time UEFA simply messed things up.
Will be very interesting to see what happens and I can’t see other clubs letting it go.
I keep seeing random Berts saying City will bring down the league and that they will uncover all the dirt they have on the other big clubs.
What in the Ben Sherman are they going on about?
Liverpool and their asthmatic players.
What in the Ben Sherman are they going on about?
Liverpool and their asthmatic players.
I’m not commentating on his abilities as a manger?
I’m not interested in litigating Ole’s tenure here or even if we’re retrospectively awarded trophies City “won” at the time, but City need to punished for what they have done to bring disgrace to the game. And guardrails need to be put into place to make no ever gets away with this again.
Couldn't be bothered to read your thesis but I doubt Chelsea will get into trouble beyond some FFP violations.
There are certain levels of culpability where no amount of lawyers and money will save you. Depending on how solid the PL's proof is, and how determined they are to make the charges stick, they could do it. Lawyers and money can only do so much, and only if there are potential holes in the case or people on the prosecuting side who can be persuaded to waive the consequences. If there are none of those, the only other salvation for City would be to challenge the case in the Court of Arbitration for Sports, and last time they did that, they only got off because the case had exceeded the time limitations. There is no such statute in the PL's case.
This all comes off the back of talk of an independent regulator entering English football, and it may just be that the FA is sufficiently averse to having an outsider calling the shots that they've finally decided to do what clearly needs to be done. Prior to this, it might have seemed easier and safer to just look the other way and preserve the league's image, but with an independent regulator, that would not be possible; and then the PL would rather police itself than have someone else do it.
That's not to say that anyone ought to feel 100% confident that anything comes of it, but the possibility is very much there.
I know, I was just quoting you for others reference