Ah ok, you're one of those. Carry on then.
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
You do realise the evidence in the UEFA case is public record and you were not acquitted, but merely your legal team argued the legality of how the evidence was obtained.
Everyone knows you're guilty, pull the other one.
I think admitting the emails were valid to CAS doesn’t help their case. And despite lots of blue tickers and “journalists” repeatedly saying CAS found them not guilty, they didn’t.
On top of other things, I don’t see how anyone can think they’re innocent… and the PL definitely wont
Everyone knows they're guilty. Maybe not of all 115 charges but they've been taking the piss. They were already found guilty but there was a poxy time-bar on the charges.
Your wrong-headed indignation is hilarious
I think my post was reasonable, and think you're struggling to look at this from a logical point of view - which is fair enough. The football team you support is a tough bias to overcome.
If I see evidence that all of this was a huge misunderstanding I'll be the first to say I was wrong. I wonder if you'll do the same should the opposite prove to be the case.
I'd also say that this "Utd were in the right place at the right time" argument is somewhat true but blown out of proportion - we were the strongest team at the time but we weren't the only strong team either, other teams were winning things as well. What the club was great at was recognising the opportunity that presented itself in terms of marketing and global branding and running with it - with other teams acting a bit later. The fact they were less savvy business-people at that time isn't something that is "unfair" or remotely close to the City situation, and it's not even semantics - it's just plain disingenuous.
They could just do like Barca did and have the wages deferred for a season
Fact of the matter is that City is guilty in the court of public opinion. They have brazenly spent their way to success and their only arguments against injecting billions into a club for geo-political reasons and for a seal of respectability within elite European circles.
Whether “rules” were broken or not is almost irrelevant. Look at their first 3/4 summer transfer windows post takeover. Absolute insanity, effectively new teams purchased each summer.
They have then been forced to find loopholes to counter rules enforced to prevent this happening again - because what City have done is undermine the fabric of a historic and competitive competition.
Fact of the matter is that dynasties come and go within football. Money is at the top of the game, because that is the most competitive part of the process. “Oh no the big cartel want to keep all the power and hate that little ol’ City upset the apple cart”. No you doughnuts, you (and Chelsea, who lest we forget started this wave of corruption) have manipulated a league through financial doping. It’s like playing poker, losing all your chips and then instead of buying back in by the table limit you purchase every single chip. Now you can bully everyone else.
Personally think they will be found very much guilty. Who knows what the punishment will be, but it will not be enough.
Whether “rules” were broken or not is almost irrelevant. Look at their first 3/4 summer transfer windows post takeover. Absolute insanity, effectively new teams purchased each summer.
They have then been forced to find loopholes to counter rules enforced to prevent this happening again - because what City have done is undermine the fabric of a historic and competitive competition.
Fact of the matter is that dynasties come and go within football. Money is at the top of the game, because that is the most competitive part of the process. “Oh no the big cartel want to keep all the power and hate that little ol’ City upset the apple cart”. No you doughnuts, you (and Chelsea, who lest we forget started this wave of corruption) have manipulated a league through financial doping. It’s like playing poker, losing all your chips and then instead of buying back in by the table limit you purchase every single chip. Now you can bully everyone else.
Personally think they will be found very much guilty. Who knows what the punishment will be, but it will not be enough.
But then wouldn't they be paying more in the coming years, with no European football, less revenue, so the budget for wages would be down.
To be honest, there is so much that could come from this, it's impossible to get your head around it.
Teams losing out on European football, relegation, cup finals, league titles. It's actually a minefield waiting to explode if they do throw down the hammer
My point is, if they’re found not guilty - which they might be (unlikely though) it won’t end the matter.
It’ll lead to a breach in the game, ultimately fecking them over anyway.
In 2018 they started refusing to co-operate and provide information. A lot of the 115 charges are related to that. If they refuse to hand over their accounts form that period then it's obvious the cheating continued. I hope this is taken into account when their punishment is being decided.
And the seasons being left with no winner in the history books actually adds to City's shame as people will always sonder why there was no winner that year then discver City cheated to win. In the future it would be more easily forgotten if United and Liverpool were declared winners for those seasons.
They were awarded one, the season that had just ended but not the previous ones before that.
C’mon, there’s every reason to suspect their guilt. If City were innocent they wouldn’t withhold the documentation requested by the FA. In principle you make a decent point, and I would expect courts to abide by that principle, but to people having a casual conversation it’s well above board to say City seem guilty without you charging in with kangaroo court claims.
And yet United's success wasn't based upon outspending their rivals year after year.
The claims that United always outspent everyone and had some kind on monopoly on the transfer market are nonsence, we were only top spenders in 5 of Sir Alex's 21 seasons with only 3 of those 5 being title winning seasons and the first time we were top spenders was 98/99 (due to signing Stam and Yorke for 12 and 12.8m respectively) so we won our first 4 Premier League titles while being outpent by other teams.
Honestly, football is really tiresome, the media spin so many false narratives, and football fans can't even be bothered to do their research, so they just continue to spout the same nonsense.
The hate for Man United in the media and with other clubs fans is huge, they would rather create a false narrative to make the club look bad, even if it is a load of rubbish. Happens all the time.
Whoever edits the skysports website is a massive ABU. Headlines are hysterical and over dramatic - where as with Liverpool its always a positive slant
Indeed, and yet we still have posters like @Eboue trying to equate United's dominance under Ferguson to Man City's which has been based on cheating.
United dominated through very fair means. We had the best manager, we had the best academy and we spent smartly. All while spending less on transfer fees and wages than our rivals most years.
Last edited:
Ah right, fair enough. I'd like to share your optimism but I sadly don't.
Mike Sumerbee and Curly Watts
Wasn’t expecting this in the replies 
Strange precedent?
By showing that if you are involved in state sponsored corruption, money laundering and financial doping over almost two decades then you will have a proportionate consequence?
5 years expulsion for 17 years of the biggest sporting corruption scandal in living memory is very, very light.
SAF broke the British transfer record seven times during his time at United.
1989: Pallister – £2.9m
1993: Keane – £3.75m
1995: Cole – £7m
2001: Van Nistelrooy – £19m
2001: Veron – £28.1m
2002: Ferdinand – £29.1m
2008: Berbatov – £30.75m
I don’t think that’s relevant to what I said?
It probably is.
When the EPL was formed the top spending club was spending in a season what one decent player costs now, breaking transfer records tends to inflate the whole market.
United have been the biggest spenders in the EPL on five occasions, Chelsea I think are top with nine seasons, now closely followed by City, all paying inflated prices for some average players.
Hence if clubs want to get to the top and have the money to spend, and are allowed to spend it without question and frequent checks, it breeds corruption and rule breaking.
It happens in every (most) sports until retrospective punishment is administered, an athlete is found out to be cheating in one way or another, an inquiry is held, and in most cases is stripped of the rewards, he/she is just an individual.
The sport most akin to the EPL is football, all of the big five teams have been caught "cheating" in some way or another, have any of them been thrown out of the sport?
F1 needs the likes of Ferrari, Red Bull and Mclaren more than they need F1.
The same goes for the EPL, we shall have to wait until at least December to find out.
The monetisation of Football began in 1983 when Spurs became the first club to float on the stock market years before we did and 10 years before our first Premier League title, when it came to the formation of the Premier League Sky TV throwing money at it and elevating it to a whole new level was down to Spurs again who's then Chairman Lord Alan Sugar alledgedly used his contacts and pull at Sky (aquired from the fact he owned Amstrad the company that made all of Sky's Decoder boxes) to encourage them to make a bid for the TV rights that would blow an offer that had been accepted from ITV out of the water.
I'd totally forgotten about this, and nver formed the financial link between Sugar and Sky, when you think about it, Sugar would ultimately benefit with the massive increase in sales of his Sky boxes.
I'd always blamed the downfall of football as a working mans game on Sky, but never thought of Sugars role in that.
Yeah, the ball bag faced cnut has always been a slimy, self serving Spurs fan.
Karma has well and truly kept Spurs and his face from ever winning anything
Rather a kangaroo than an ostrich, your head must be deep in the sand.
Yet spent less than other clubs almost every year, because we invested heavily in our academy and had a great manager. This is false equivalence to City cheating.
What point does that even make? We didnt break any rules?
7 out of 26 years. That's 27% of the time. For the biggest club in England and maybe the world, that's not a lot. It's like once in every 4 transfer windows. Where United were successful was through their academy. I don't need to list the quality that's come through there. United also made a huge amount of money by selling academy players. A million here and a million there adds up over time when it costs very little in the first place to produce them. We have had a youth player from the academy in every single matchday squad for 85 years in a row. Stuff like that made our identity and that's what Manchester United is. Building up the youth is what makes us successful.
I don't see what that stat has to do with City breaking over 100 FFP rules. United never broke any rules in signing those players.
What relevance does this have? We didn't break any rules and we earned that money to buy those players fair and square.
The only "cheat code" we had was our GOAT manager, our shrewd buying and selling policy, and our excellent academy.
What do you mean gifted? City are cheats. If they're punished this season we rightfully get the top spot as we are the second best side (hopefully).
Or do you mean if we are 6 points behind them after 20 games and they are docked points according to you we shouldn't get anything? How does that even make sense.
Arsenal fans used to complain about City's cheating since 2010s and would get told to shut up and stop making excuses as United were still winning something. I still remember this.
This argument is so stupid. When you go to the grocery store, the amount you have to pay is not based on the single most expensive item. It's the entirety of the bill.
United very, very rarely outspent the rest of the league each year. In fact, across the decade of the 90's, Liverpool spent more, and I think Spurs were close too.
You'd have a stronger argument if you looked at wages, where United was almost always towards the top if not the highest.
As to the City thing: it doesn't even matter how much they spent - it's all about the fact they signed up to a set of rules and then deliberately, systematically broke them over the course of many seasons, and then lied about it, and now are trying to lawyer their way out of it.
But it's entirely natural - how many of the ruling elite from the Emirates do you think actually have to deal with laws? Those don't apply to people like them. And this attitude pervades.
Sorry probably should have used a different word. You would absolutely deserve the title if 2nd this season and you deserve the last two as well. What I was trying to get across is that Liverpool and Utd also deserve 3 each but if City only get one season of docked points only Arsenal would benefit.
His point is laid out very clearly and if you didn't start typing nervously as soon as you saw the word "Arsenal" you'd understand it - yes it would be fair for you to get the title this year, but City are being judged for actions since 2008, so if it's a points deduction for this season, how does that make sense for the past 16 years? What about all the other clubs that were cheated by City?
This didn't happen, and especially not from Utd fans.