City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th Sep 2024 | Concluded 9th Dec 2024 - Awaiting outcome

Of course it makes sense

United capitalised on there huge unmatched wealth in the 90’s and 00’s, Chelsea absolutely did on a hole new level etc

But now City have done it, let’s take their titles away? I think it would be ridiculous to do so when all they have done is capitalise on their wealth just like other clubs do, except City have done it in a era where there are rules too stop such p*ss taking.

I haven’t said City should get away with it though, I clearly stated they should have the book thrown at them via either relegation, long transfer bans or points substantial points deductions if indeed found guilty of breaking said rules

I just think stripping them of their titles for what other clubs have similarly done would be ridiculous.

United were 4th in transfer spending in the 90s. Behind Newcastle in 1st, Blackburn in 3rd. Can you guess who was 2nd?

United were also 4th in the 00s. This time just ahead of your lot, by 30m.


Sorry to disturb your badly spelt rant with some facts.
 
Of course it makes sense

United capitalised on there huge unmatched wealth in the 90’s and 00’s, Chelsea absolutely did on a hole new level etc

But now City have done it, let’s take their titles away? I think it would be ridiculous to do so when all they have done is capitalise on their wealth just like other clubs do, except City have done it in a era where there are rules too stop such p*ss taking.

I haven’t said City should get away with it though, I clearly stated they should have the book thrown at them via either relegation, long transfer bans or points substantial points deductions if indeed found guilty of breaking said rules

I just think stripping them of their titles for what other clubs have similarly done would be ridiculous.
I can't believe people still think City are just doing what others have done.
Even with all the commentary on the subject in the public domain :lol:
 
Of course it makes sense

United capitalised on there huge unmatched wealth in the 90’s and 00’s, Chelsea absolutely did on a hole new level etc

But now City have done it, let’s take their titles away? I think it would be ridiculous to do so when all they have done is capitalise on their wealth just like other clubs do, except City have done it in a era where there are rules too stop such p*ss taking.

I haven’t said City should get away with it though, I clearly stated they should have the book thrown at them via either relegation, long transfer bans or points substantial points deductions if indeed found guilty of breaking said rules

I just think stripping them of their titles for what other clubs have similarly done would be ridiculous.

:lol:
 
Of course it makes sense

United capitalised on there huge unmatched wealth in the 90’s and 00’s, Chelsea absolutely did on a hole new level etc

But now City have done it, let’s take their titles away? I think it would be ridiculous to do so when all they have done is capitalise on their wealth just like other clubs do, except City have done it in a era where there are rules too stop such p*ss taking.

I haven’t said City should get away with it though, I clearly stated they should have the book thrown at them via either relegation, long transfer bans or points substantial points deductions if indeed found guilty of breaking said rules

I just think stripping them of their titles for what other clubs have similarly done would be ridiculous.
United made money by being successful, delivering attractive football, using youth and bring worldwide fan to them. Also, we did not outspend everyone btw.
Arsenal made money by scouting, investing in youth, developing them and selling them. They constantly lost their best players to balance the books because of their stadium.
Chelsea invested abramovich money into players (later when rules came into force, they sticked to it Bought cheap and sold for profit).
City on the other hand had none of those issues. They simply cooked the books, funneled money into offshore accounts, under declared the salary of their players, made fake sponsorships, used state funds and laundered money.
When probed, they refused to cooperate, threatened to sue and used every single tactics in their arsenal to delay and divert.

You became so desensitised to their crimes because they bought nearly a decade by delaying and stalling the case and burying it under piles of paperworks. You've now grown to accept it. That was their strategy all along.
 
Of course it makes sense

United capitalised on there huge unmatched wealth in the 90’s and 00’s, Chelsea absolutely did on a hole new level etc

But now City have done it, let’s take their titles away? I think it would be ridiculous to do so when all they have done is capitalise on their wealth just like other clubs do, except City have done it in a era where there are rules too stop such p*ss taking.

I haven’t said City should get away with it though, I clearly stated they should have the book thrown at them via either relegation, long transfer bans or points substantial points deductions if indeed found guilty of breaking said rules

I just think stripping them of their titles for what other clubs have similarly done would be ridiculous.
Can't say I've ever seen a bertie pretend to be a dipper before.
You seem to be experiencing double-think.
Punish them for cheating but not titles because other clubs spent money they earned.:confused:
 
Of course it makes sense

United capitalised on there huge unmatched wealth in the 90’s and 00’s, Chelsea absolutely did on a hole new level etc

But now City have done it, let’s take their titles away? I think it would be ridiculous to do so when all they have done is capitalise on their wealth just like other clubs do, except City have done it in a era where there are rules too stop such p*ss taking.

I haven’t said City should get away with it though, I clearly stated they should have the book thrown at them via either relegation, long transfer bans or points substantial points deductions if indeed found guilty of breaking said rules

I just think stripping them of their titles for what other clubs have similarly done would be ridiculous.
We actually didn't, our net spend and wage bill compared to the opposition will show this.
 
Of course it makes sense

United capitalised on there huge unmatched wealth in the 90’s and 00’s, Chelsea absolutely did on a hole new level etc

But now City have done it, let’s take their titles away? I think it would be ridiculous to do so when all they have done is capitalise on their wealth just like other clubs do, except City have done it in a era where there are rules too stop such p*ss taking.

I haven’t said City should get away with it though, I clearly stated they should have the book thrown at them via either relegation, long transfer bans or points substantial points deductions if indeed found guilty of breaking said rules

I just think stripping them of their titles for what other clubs have similarly done would be ridiculous.
It's nice when it's clear so early on in a post that there's no point carrying on reading.
 
Unmatched wealth that was obtained legitimately and NOT by cheating, these sort of posts are just ridiculous and so blinkered it’s untrue

I mean

Wether your buying the league legitimately via being an institution that has created history over the years

Or by wealthy owners coming in, it matters not

The league is none the less being bought

That’s the problem with our system, and with many other systems outside the English Leagues, it’s not real competition, it’s battle or the finances

The richest institutions or clubs bought by those with the deepest pockets, Win

Your all kidding yourselves if that’s not true

Not saying we should adopt an American system, but who’s won the EPL since its conception 35 years ago? 7 Clubs? 2 or 3 of which were one offs

It an unfair sport ruled by business and not merit of the sporting ability, not when all the best sporting ability are harboured in just a handful of clubs purely because of the finances involved

Probably won’t see a Leicester situation again for decades

It was long enough since Blackburn!!

But hay, you keep telling yourselves it’s ok too buy leagues when your finances have come from built up institutions, but not if it’s a club bough by a billionaire

Both still buy leagues and I ain’t arsed about it anymore, I realised that when I wasn’t actually arsed about Liverpool being top of the league and champions league, couldn’t really care anymore
 
The premier league would look like mugs if they allowed their rules to be flouted so egregiously and the team who did so for 10+ years only gets a slap on the wrist. They have to send out a warning to anyone else thinking of doing the same.

I think this is the point that most aren't assessing. City have put themselves in a position where the league aren't only going to punish them but ensure there's a ramification. The ramifications is what will deter other billionaires / owners from doing what City have done or taking up a similar course of actions.

The punishment, will likely be a fine but the ramification if being serious should either be relegation with some form of transfer ban for consecutive windows or stripping titles.

As you stated they need to deter others that in hindsight will be the most important dynamic.
 
I mean

Wether your buying the league legitimately via being an institution that has created history over the years

Or by wealthy owners coming in, it matters not

The league is none the less being bought

That’s the problem with our system, and with many other systems outside the English Leagues, it’s not real competition, it’s battle or the finances

The richest institutions or clubs bought by those with the deepest pockets, Win

Your all kidding yourselves if that’s not true

Not saying we should adopt an American system, but who’s won the EPL since its conception 35 years ago? 7 Clubs? 2 or 3 of which were one offs

It an unfair sport ruled by business and not merit of the sporting ability, not when all the best sporting ability are harboured in just a handful of clubs purely because of the finances involved

Probably won’t see a Leicester situation again for decades

It was long enough since Blackburn!!

But hay, you keep telling yourselves it’s ok too buy leagues when your finances have come from built up institutions, but not if it’s a club bough by a billionaire

Both still buy leagues and I ain’t arsed about it anymore, I realised that when I wasn’t actually arsed about Liverpool being top of the league and champions league, couldn’t really care anymore
Might want to check some facts about the 90s PL
 
If you believe owners of certain clubs should be allowed to artificially generate their income because they can't generate as much as rival clubs organically, why would you then have a problem if their players used steroids because they aren't as naturally athletic as other players? It's essentially the same thing.
 
I mean

Wether your buying the league legitimately via being an institution that has created history over the years

Or by wealthy owners coming in, it matters not

The league is none the less being bought

That’s the problem with our system, and with many other systems outside the English Leagues, it’s not real competition, it’s battle or the finances

The richest institutions or clubs bought by those with the deepest pockets, Win

Your all kidding yourselves if that’s not true

Not saying we should adopt an American system, but who’s won the EPL since its conception 35 years ago? 7 Clubs? 2 or 3 of which were one offs

It an unfair sport ruled by business and not merit of the sporting ability, not when all the best sporting ability are harboured in just a handful of clubs purely because of the finances involved

Probably won’t see a Leicester situation again for decades

It was long enough since Blackburn!!

But hay, you keep telling yourselves it’s ok too buy leagues when your finances have come from built up institutions, but not if it’s a club bough by a billionaire

Both still buy leagues and I ain’t arsed about it anymore, I realised that when I wasn’t actually arsed about Liverpool being top of the league and champions league, couldn’t really care anymore
Stop spouting absolute rubbish.
 
I think this is the point that most aren't assessing. City have put themselves in a position where the league aren't only going to punish them but ensure there's a ramification. The ramifications is what will deter other billionaires / owners from doing what City have done or taking up a similar course of actions.

The punishment, will likely be a fine but the ramification if being serious should either be relegation with some form of transfer ban for consecutive windows or stripping titles.

As you stated they need to deter others that in hindsight will be the most important dynamic.

A fine for a club that's been cooking the books and pumping in money illegally would be an absolute joke.
 
I actually think stripping of titles would be the wrong action to take.

United, Chelsea, even Arsenal possibly? in the 90’s and early 00’s all bought their titles using their financial might in some capacity. But didn’t have the stringent rules in place we have too day like what City face. I think it would be hypocritical too take their titles off them but not others Clubs, who at some point didn’t exactly the same, just in a different era

I believe relegation, humongous points deductions, transfer bans etc are all exactly the way to treat them if found guilty.

United and Arsenal were not outspending their rivals, never mind to the level of Chelsea and City were at various stages to win League titles.
 
It's kinda weird to mention Arsenal, Chelsea, and United spending money to win titles but not mention their own beloved club, Liverpool, in the same air. Let alone the entire spiel being a bizarre attempt to play down City's cheating.
 
A fine for a club that's been cooking the books and pumping in money illegally would be an absolute joke.

On its own it certainly would be a joke but I'm saying that I can see the league doing both, they will likely fine City and then ensue the ramifications of either relegation or stripping titles.

I think relegation is the most realistic, stripping titles opens Pandora's box for clubs who were relegated with mitigation and or those missing European places having loss of revenue as a result. If my business operated in those very circumstances as a threshold claiming compensation and damages would be done in an instant.

So relegation gives the league and it's resources far less issue, combined with a transfer ban or two of so years (four windows).
 
If you believe owners of certain clubs should be allowed to artificially generate their income because they can't generate as much as rival clubs organically, why would you then have a problem if their players used steroids because they aren't as naturally athletic as other players? It's essentially the same thing.
As a supporter of a small club and United, I suppose the obvious thing is that the status quo is being kept if you say clubs can only grow organically.

At the moment you can romp through non league and leagues 1 and 2 as owner donations don't affect the financial rules. But when you get into the championship there's much tighter rules.

So a new club storming through have to rely on brilliant management and incremental growth, however rich their owner is, so in effect will never catch the giants.

Obviously City have just run roughshod over these rules, but there is an element of truth in their moans about the status quo or "cartel" as they'd put it stopping a club stepping up into that elite group. So you're relying on an absolute one every 50 years miracle season like Leicester.
 
Might want to check some facts about the 90s PL

dont even bother. when something is just in facts and black and white and has been for decades, but a person still doesnt admit to it, its because they dont want to. Surprise surprise some liverpool fan wants to parrot the same tripe online.

It doesnt matter to these people that in the first 10 years of PL football, United were the 4th highest spenders, spending 6 million more than the failing liverpool, 3 million more than everton, and less than villa blackburn and newcastle. He doesnt want to know this because it doesnt suit his point, and when he does know this he'll just hammer it into some shape that kind of looks like hes making the same point.

My favourite one, as an aside, is that in all of fergusons time at united, United were also the 4th highest spenders in england. Behind chelsea, city and liverpool. It's hard to take getting battered for two decades by a team that spent less than you.
 
dont even bother. when something is just in facts and black and white and has been for decades, but a person still doesnt admit to it, its because they dont want to. Surprise surprise some liverpool fan wants to parrot the same tripe online.

It doesnt matter to these people that in the first 10 years of PL football, United were the 4th highest spenders, spending 6 million more than the failing liverpool, 3 million more than everton, and less than villa blackburn and newcastle. He doesnt want to know this because it doesnt suit his point, and when he does know this he'll just hammer it into some shape that kind of looks like hes making the same point.

My favourite one, as an aside, is that in all of fergusons time at united, United were also the 4th highest spenders in england. Behind chelsea, city and liverpool. It's hard to take getting battered for two decades by a team that spent less than you.
Yep, that's the reality of it. If they at least mentioned Blackburn when talking about buying the league in the 90s, but nope. Just United spending any money.
 
Yep, that's the reality of it. If they at least mentioned Blackburn when talking about buying the league in the 90s, but nope. Just United spending any money.

Developing the most succesful team weve ever had around a core of youth talent? Forget about it. They offer some rubbish about it being a freak thing or criticise how we scouted or something. The bitterness Ferguson's domination caused in people damaged them beyond reason
 
I didn’t think they could appeal at all?? They definitely can’t appeal to CAS though

I was having a look online and there is a facility for both sides to appeal. The appeal would go to a similar panel though, just with new members. There is also the last resort of an arbitration tribunal after that but that would only be if it was deemed that there was something amiss with proceedings.


The independent commission will be formed of three members, who will be selected by Murray Rosen KC, the chair of the Premier League's judicial panel.

The three-person panel can include any of the 15 members of the judicial panel, as well as non-members.

Once a judgement is made, the Premier League and City will be able to appeal - although it cannot be taken to the CAS.

Instead, Rosen would appoint an appeal panel made up of new members. There are currently six members of the Premier League appeal panel.

An appeal would further delay the imposition of any sanctions or points deductions but it is hoped on all sides that the matter will finally be concluded in the next calendar year
https://www.skysports.com/football/...ng-concludes-with-decision-expected-in-spring


I don't know what the criteria is for an appeal. You'd expect they'd have to provide proof that process wasn't followed correctly, that the investigation was flawed in some way or important evidence wasn't taken into account. Ordinarily you can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict.

I think it's important to note that the verdict will be decided like a civil case and judged on the balance of probabilities. I can't see how they'll got off without some kind of punishment but if it's just a fine it'll be very disappointing and not much of a deterrent to others.
 
On its own it certainly would be a joke but I'm saying that I can see the league doing both, they will likely fine City and then ensue the ramifications of either relegation or stripping titles.

I think relegation is the most realistic, stripping titles opens Pandora's box for clubs who were relegated with mitigation and or those missing European places having loss of revenue as a result. If my business operated in those very circumstances as a threshold claiming compensation and damages would be done in an instant.

So relegation gives the league and it's resources far less issue, combined with a transfer ban or two of so years (four windows).

Fair enough if you meant doing both. I must have misread your post.

On your second point, I'd agree with that. Stripping them of titles would be a massive headache for the PL and open them up to loads of clubs taking cases.
 
I was having a look online and there is a facility for both sides to appeal. The appeal would go to a similar panel though, just with new members. There is also the last resort of an arbitration tribunal after that but that would only be if it was deemed that there was something amiss with proceedings.



https://www.skysports.com/football/...ng-concludes-with-decision-expected-in-spring


I don't know what the criteria is for an appeal. You'd expect they'd have to provide proof that process wasn't followed correctly, that the investigation was flawed in some way or important evidence wasn't taken into account. Ordinarily you can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict.

I think it's important to note that the verdict will be decided like a civil case and judged on the balance of probabilities. I can't see how they'll got off without some kind of punishment but if it's just a fine it'll be very disappointing and not much of a deterrent to others.
Yeah, they can appeal but can’t go to CAS.

Given they’ve tried literally every single delaying tactic known to man, they probably will.

The rule should be “you can appeal but we can increase the penalty for a frivolous appeal”.
 
On its own it certainly would be a joke but I'm saying that I can see the league doing both, they will likely fine City and then ensue the ramifications of either relegation or stripping titles.

I think relegation is the most realistic, stripping titles opens Pandora's box for clubs who were relegated with mitigation and or those missing European places having loss of revenue as a result. If my business operated in those very circumstances as a threshold claiming compensation and damages would be done in an instant.

So relegation gives the league and it's resources far less issue, combined with a transfer ban or two of so years (four windows).
But the legal challenge would be against City not the PL? Isn’t that why a few clubs (incl us) have formally reserved our rights over future action?
 
I actually think stripping of titles would be the wrong action to take.

United, Chelsea, even Arsenal possibly? in the 90’s and early 00’s all bought their titles using their financial might in some capacity. But didn’t have the stringent rules in place we have too day like what City face. I think it would be hypocritical too take their titles off them but not others Clubs, who at some point didn’t exactly the same, just in a different era

I believe relegation, humongous points deductions, transfer bans etc are all exactly the way to treat them if found guilty.
This is such a tired and nonsensical argument. How long before it stops getting regurgitated?
 
Of course it makes sense

United capitalised on there huge unmatched wealth in the 90’s and 00’s, Chelsea absolutely did on a hole new level etc

But now City have done it, let’s take their titles away? I think it would be ridiculous to do so when all they have done is capitalise on their wealth just like other clubs do, except City have done it in a era where there are rules too stop such p*ss taking.

I haven’t said City should get away with it though, I clearly stated they should have the book thrown at them via either relegation, long transfer bans or points substantial points deductions if indeed found guilty of breaking said rules

I just think stripping them of their titles for what other clubs have similarly done would be ridiculous.
Your own club had a bigger net spend than United during the Ferguson era. As a Liverpool fan I assumed you would be well aware of that, given your clubs fondness for having a lower net spend than your rivals.
 
Only just saw the title change,
This has been concluded for almost a month now?! How can it be concluded if there's no outcome revealed?
 
Slightly missing the point. Only one way they can be relegated and that is a points deduction. People still post about relegation and I see guys talking about relegation on the TV. They should have more sense.

The punishment handed down can only really be points deductions, fines, stripped of titles & expulsion from the PL. If expelled from the PL, they apply to football league, who have no obligation to accept them as members and can also decide what level of the pyramid they start at if they do accept them.

Even if they get a points deduction and are assured of relegation that way, can the football league still reject them as members? Why would 23 other championship teams trying to make it to the PL want to compete against a bunch of cheats?
You can't imagine the 2 relegated teams and 21 others will say yes to having City in their league, as it guarantees 1 place isn't available for promotion.
But then that'd be more the case in every other division.

Although the Beazer Homes League Tier 3 teams would probably embrace the chance to fund themselves for 5 years just off the home gate v City.
 
Only just saw the title change,
This has been concluded for almost a month now?! How can it be concluded if there's no outcome revealed?

Yeah it seems quite long but they've concluded the hearing and presumably there was a lot of evidence presented which needs to be reviewed. Then they'll have to go through each of the 115 (or is it 130) charges and decide on each one.

Presumably they'll want to take it slow to lessen the chances of being overruled at appeal. We should hear the verdict by March apparently.
 
Yeah it seems quite long but they've concluded the hearing and presumably there was a lot of evidence presented which needs to be reviewed. Then they'll have to go through each of the 115 (or is it 130) charges and decide on each one.

Presumably they'll want to take it slow to lessen the chances of being overruled at appeal. We should hear the verdict by March apparently.
Yep, I suppose 2more months isn't much to worry about when this relates to stuff from about 15 years ago, and the whole thing took about 4-5 years to compile!