Chelsea and united spent as much but spent badly so why it was one sided league in favour of city in my opinion.
Competition a welcome trait but if you want to stop overspending then there must be cap for spending and make competition equal for all.
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
Competition a welcome trait but if you want to stop overspending then there must be cap for spending and make competition equal for all.
Don't agree that the difference 'matters feck all', I don't think City have proven their innocence in this matter so therefore it's a bit off for Pep to pretend they have (and if they are truly innocent they would presumably want everything out in the open so that the world can see they are innocent), but I also don't want to open the OJ can so I'll leave it there, guy.
That isn't hugely relevant to the point I made from what I can tell.
Unless your point is that City could have won just as much without huge investment.
Not saying your point isn't valid just not particularly relevant to what I was saying.
They wouldn't have had free reign though
Don't agree that the difference 'matters feck all', I don't think City have proven their innocence in this matter so therefore it's a bit off for Pep to pretend they have (and if they are truly innocent they would presumably want everything out in the open so that the world can see they are innocent), but I also don't want to open the OJ can so I'll leave it there, guy.
I get ya, I do, as I said I don't think we are innocent either and its my club. But the idea he's gonna come out and be all like "even though we got off we're not innocent" is kinda improbable.
But that's not the choice is it? He doesn't have to say "we're not innocent" and he doesn't have to say "we're completely innocent", especially if, as he says, he is a football manager and not a banker.
You're fairly level-headed about this topic for a City fan so I won't belabor this point, though ... and fair enough you say that you don't think you're completely innocent, so now I genuinely should leave it there. You're almost the only City fan left on deck here so fair play
But that's not the choice is it? He doesn't have to say "we're not innocent" and he doesn't have to say "we're completely innocent", especially if, as he says, he is a football manager and not a banker.
You're fairly level-headed about this topic for a City fan so I won't belabor this point, though ... and fair enough you say that you don't think you're completely innocent, so now I genuinely should leave it there. You're almost the only City fan left on deck here so fair play
Its all good buddy, I don't mind a bit of discussion and I like disagreement for the most part, I find it leads to more interesting conversations.
I guess all we can really do is sit back and watch the drama unfold (weirdly something I've been dealing with and doing the last 35 years as a City fan)
You make a good point, and in the interest of honesty I should say that I don’t have a definitive answer about how much is too much, when it comes to dominance. Nor can I see an obvious solution that stops it. All I’d say is that Utd’s dominant period seemed to last a lot lot longer, and without a ‘new money’ club in the form of Chelsea, I think it would be even more extreme.
In the first 19 seasons of the Premiership, with Ferguson as manager, before City win the league, you have the following breakdown
Utd - 12 titles
Oil/big investment clubs - 4 titles
Non-oil clubs - 3 titles (all Arsenal)
If you take out the oil clubs, or clubs (that would nowadays fail FFP) then how can you say that this is in any way interesting or competitive?
Last edited:
I just don't get Pep, he is such a great manager, and virtually every top club would have hired him and given him lots of money to spend, yet he's choosen to properly nail his colours to City, like it's so personal for him.
If you're so good, then why run the risk of been remembered for things like this, for such a insignificant club like City.
If you're so good, then why run the risk of been remembered for things like this, for such a insignificant club like City.
"I'm here to talk about football, I don't know about financial matters"
Practice that line for next time, Pepito.
Practice that line for next time, Pepito.
True - but it wasn't a "not guilty" verdict.
They were found very much guilty of not having cooperated with the investigation.
(And, as such, they ended up being sanctioned: slap on the wrist, yes, but they were sanctioned. Which makes Pep's comment about "innocence" factually incorrect. I mean - the problem with the comment is that it's feckin' shameless, not that it's factually incorrect, but it is factually incorrect.)
Yes, I don’t really see the Glazers furiously working on which rules they could break to allow them to pump their own money into United.
In my mind that would be a slap on the wrist - if guilty - to have defrauded the entire division for 15 years and then just get one season points deduction and a transfer ban which probably lasts one or two seasons max just won’t cut it. The benefit you have gained at other’s expense won’t go away so unless the punishment is dissolution (which obviously won’t happen) City win out of this whatever happens.
Demotion? You will come straight back up.
Title strip? You won't have to give back the hundreds of millions won from 1st place and brand recognition you've been growing.
Transfer Ban? Will you even care, you'll still get CL football and just ride it out
Kicked out of the League/Banned for a period of time? You just join the super league and then come back.
Kick the owners out? Good luck.
Shock horror the guy who failed two drugs tests as a player and took as much Emirati money as he could get, is also happy to come out swinging for them.
He's a shameless hypocrite who has been a deified as some sort football purist while managing the club thats damaged British football more than any other
He's a shameless hypocrite who has been a deified as some sort football purist while managing the club thats damaged British football more than any other
Yep, and I agree that it’s incorrect, at least in the spirit of the law, rather than the exact wording. But it seems that to make such a big deal about that for someone speaking their second (3rd, 4th?) language whose literal job it is to represent his club, is somewhat pedantic.
I bet if you quoted verbatim everything that SAF said during his tenure, and went through it with a fine tooth comb, you’d find multiple examples of hypocrisy, falsehoods, and down right lies. Now get Fergie to do the same in Spanish and see what you come up with!
Does anyone know what the burden of proof is for the 3-person tribunal? For a criminal case I believe it is “beyond reasonable doubt”, which can be difficult to prove, but for some civil cases it is “on the balance of probabilities”. If it is the latter I think City are screwed.
I think they're going to get absolutely hammered punishment wise. The fact the charges have been put in the public domain mean that's inevitable now. Premier League (as in the organisation) is finished if not.
It's juat about how much it gets marked down when City also inevitably take it through the legal courts.
Similar to with UEFA except they won't have the time bar get out clause this time. Just don't see how it ends well for City as if the numbers don't add up even after they've been given 4 years to invent a way to make them, whatever is put in front of a judge isn't going to look good.
Not sure about fully in on but they were never found innocent of the UEFA charges and the Courts upheld a £10m fine, so he is full of shite. If he was going to walk away if City were found guilty he'd be gone already.
It's juat about how much it gets marked down when City also inevitably take it through the legal courts.
Similar to with UEFA except they won't have the time bar get out clause this time. Just don't see how it ends well for City as if the numbers don't add up even after they've been given 4 years to invent a way to make them, whatever is put in front of a judge isn't going to look good.
Not sure about fully in on but they were never found innocent of the UEFA charges and the Courts upheld a £10m fine, so he is full of shite. If he was going to walk away if City were found guilty he'd be gone already.
He's as complicit as they come.
He's very bitter about falling short of his own expectations, too. All that money pumped in, all the systemic revamping of the entire club structures, all those riches on the pitch and the luxury of a second team better than most first teams, and he still can't win a CL to save his life, or hold a candle up to the success of United or Liverpool.
Hope people bring up this rant whenever he's even mentioned in the same breath as SAF. Heck, he's not as good as Klopp, either. An entire nation state's legal and illegal resources and Liverpool were still a point away from two of their titles.
Hope they're found guilty, and the club and the manager's titles are all voided before they're kicked down to lower leagues. Bald corrupt fraud, indeed.
He's very bitter about falling short of his own expectations, too. All that money pumped in, all the systemic revamping of the entire club structures, all those riches on the pitch and the luxury of a second team better than most first teams, and he still can't win a CL to save his life, or hold a candle up to the success of United or Liverpool.
Hope people bring up this rant whenever he's even mentioned in the same breath as SAF. Heck, he's not as good as Klopp, either. An entire nation state's legal and illegal resources and Liverpool were still a point away from two of their titles.
Hope they're found guilty, and the club and the manager's titles are all voided before they're kicked down to lower leagues. Bald corrupt fraud, indeed.
Wonder how many mob films Pep watched to psych himself up for that gangster act today.
Last edited:
The one who has ever critised City breach of FFP was Arsene Wenger. Since day one. With his Master degree in economics I knew best than the others trainers/managers
City telling him everything is fine and they aren't doing anything wrong and he's believing it, deep down he knows am sure.
He also knows he won't be around by the time any sanctions happen.
He also knows he won't be around by the time any sanctions happen.
You are SO angry at him it’s ridiculous!
They aren't legit though. That's why there's emails of your execs being caught red handed.
108 charges. Innocent on every charge? Nah, PL got nothing to worry about.
Are there any city fans that genuinely believe they generate more revenue than the biggest teams in the world?
Did people honestly expect him to bite the hand that feeds?
He’s balls deep. In on the racket. Of course he’ll keep defending them. Until the well runs dry, or the unlikely event that he, one way or another, decides that he’s finally satiated.
He’s balls deep. In on the racket. Of course he’ll keep defending them. Until the well runs dry, or the unlikely event that he, one way or another, decides that he’s finally satiated.
City fans on talk sport saying "We need everything everything out in the table to prove City have done nothing wrong.. and all the charges are exactly the same as last time, they are only being victimised because the champions league is a closed shop and they don't want City in it....Tsk :0)
I was struck by a fairly similar thought as I watched the news at 6
It sounded almost like he was threatening other teams
"Be careful" - mind you don't have an unfortunate accident
I have a feeling he only signed that new deal because they have him by the balls somehow or other.
Lest we forget St Pep's drug ban as a player.
That's multiple drug bans. The guy is a known sporting cheat who did not fall into bad judgement but willingly decided to cheat twice. People can change, but Pep becoming some untouchable football guru over the last twenty years is strange. He is a fantastic coach but has proved himself in the past to be a "by any means necessary" type of guy, even if that means cheating. Do we really think he is not raking in cash from City's owners behind the scenes and outside what they report?
Yeah, silly me.
So all City need to do is time-bar 106 of them, leaving just two for their lawyers to get dismissed again. Then they will be completely and utterly innocent...oh wait a minute.
Why fight when you can easily cooperate and prove innocence, to end up getting off on technicalities ? Makes zero sense
You’re nothing more than an ABU. Fancy posting on a United forum.
You have a special thread dedicated to calling anyone an ABU who says something you don’t agree with- go use that.
Is there a chance nothing even comes of this except a punishment in the way of a fine which isn't even punishment for City?
M-maybe, for around two seconds or so. But it’s clear he’s signalling to his owners. It’s all there. They better look after him. He has said ‘if they lied to me’, and ‘Just in case we are not innocent we will accept what the judge decides’… that’s how he plans to try and clean up the slaughterhouse if the ‘very good lawyers’ of the nation state don’t come to the rescue.
It had the air of a hostage giving clues to his family in a video. ‘Just in case we are not innocent we will accept what the judge decides’
It’s been made clear to him by the paymaster - that one’s off the table. What was the name of that perfume?
Complicit. .
He pretended to be a man of morals. But as we all know paying lip service to ‘“I will walk if we cheated” and actually having the strength of conviction to walk when you realise your bosses cheated is another matter.
He’s been blinded by the money though. And to be fair who else will pay him 2 salaries to do his job?