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

[Bluelion7]

Even the clubs themselves need protection from their owners.

If you wake up and suddenly find the 70% of your £400m "revenue" is entirely fictitious paper accounting and you've got £200m a year commitments on staffing costs alone you'll have had better days

This would be easy to do without restricting clubs though. You could have a deadline where the solvency of any money to be spent that year needs to be in certain accounts, verified by the league.

Verifying money really exists would be much easier than verifying where the sources of the money are.

The problem with making the PL completely “fair” is that it has never been constructed with that in mind.

The NFL has spending “minimums” as well, not just spending caps, for instance. And how are some teams supposed to meet that without going under? They spread the league income out evenly, even licensing.

But then you don’t have the massive investment to compete with other leagues, and a system like that just doesn’t work with the multi tier relegation model.

All of this stuff is just an absurd level of complexity to prevent money from coming into the league that people should be welcoming, frankly. It is making the PL a superior product to other leagues and drawing the best players.

More money will come in and you’ll see even more teams going through transformations. It will be harder to qualify for CL… BUT the PL itself will be loads better and unless they try to rig it, the CL winner will come from here nearly every year eventually.

If loads and loads of Billionaire entities were putting money into la Liga they would not have the same level of concern for the PL and “fairness”.

The ONLY thing that should be off limits is being owned by state entities and ruling families, because that is an entirely different issue than just money.

And of course breaking the law is an entirely different issue altogether. Disagreeing with the rules is one thing, but breaking the non-footballing law to get around them is an entirely different conversation.

 

[ayushreddevil9]

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?

I would say chances of that happening is close to a 100%.

0 if it was Utd.

 

[Gums]

Does anyone actually think Pep is a man of morals and values? He’s fully in on the scam and a character fraud.

Before he came to City, I thought he could be a principled person, who would eventually move into politics, using his popularity and fame to help push for Catalonia’s independence. My opinion has shifted.

I think his recent support of City is calculated. If he publicly presumes his employer is innocent, he has laid the foundation for his next act, in which he will claim that he was also duped all along. And if City manages to wriggle their way out of this one, he can enjoy continuous support of his chosen regime.

 

[mshnsh]

It is obvious that City have been financially doping for years now. But any hopes for them to get severe punishment are bound to end in disappointment.v

 

[Bert_]

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?

Thankfully he turned down Arsenal and joined us

 

[FrankFoot]

It is obvious that City have been financially doping for years now. But any hopes for them to get severe punishment are bound to end in disappointment.v

Yep

The idea that City might get relegated seems unreal

Given how close are UAE and UK government, i doubt City is getting relegated, the worst that can happen to them it's a lot of points deducted(enough to stay in mid table for a long time) and no european football for some seasons.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

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?

Yet united were not the top spending club in the 90s or 00s.

Maybe success should be earned through good management, coaching and youth development instead of simply out spending every other club and breaking the rules of the game like it looks like City have done for over a decade, breaking premiership spending records. Also, the allegations of faking sponsorships and paying managers/ players off the books means they've probably spent even more than we know about!

 

[Fluctuation0161]

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.

1) He's no stranger to doping scandals
2) he must be in deep with the owners personally

https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/footba...-guardiola-fails-second-drug-test_186390.html


https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nchester-city-pep-guardiola-brother-questions

 

[Jeppers7]

You have a special thread dedicated to calling anyone an ABU who says something you don’t agree with- go use that.

Re-read your own post. It’s the definition. What strange behaviour to regularly post on a forum of a club that you loathe.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

Now all we need is Kloppo’s response to Peps rant.

 

[terraloo]

I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned, but the BBC released a good podcast today on the Sports Desk. I'd advise everyone to give it a listen, they do quite a good job of summing everything up in just under an hour.

They invite a City fan on for his opinions and he does okay...although he's understandably defensive. One thing he does mention is how 'fantastic' (he uses that word a lot to describe them) their owners have been for the local community, building houses and a college and whatnot. I've been hearing that a lot recently, especially as a comparison with the Glazers (completely ignoring that we agree that the Glazers should never have been allowed to buy the club) and it's such self-serving bollocks. Anyone can invest in a community out of the goodness of their heart, that doesn't mean you have to cheat so the football team you own in that area is the best. You don't have to be much of a cynic to argue that one is just trying to build goodwill to help with the eventual fallout from the other...

One good point that was made towards the end of the podcast (I can't remember by whom) was about FFP just being a way to protect the richest clubs. The reporter agreed that there is an element of that, those clubs are always going to have an advantage due to their popularity after all, but he also argued that FFP has revolutionised football finances. It's main aim is to stop overspending that sees clubs like Bury completely destroyed, and it still does it's best to restrain the spending of the traditional powers. Look how Chelsea and others are constantly looking for loopholes.

He also said that thinking billionaire owners being allowed to buy the odd club here and there is a terrible way to introduce fairness. The best way to do this would be to find a way to more fairly redistribute the wealth that football generates, which is actually made harder by these greedy owners, especially the Glazers and their ilk. The thing is, this would only ever truly work if it was agreed across all of the world's league's, in some form. Germany obviously already has something like this, but good luck getting Madrid and Barca to share the wealth a bit more. They're still pushing the Super League idea so they can take even more of it away from the rest of Spanish football.

The aim of FFP wasn’t initially to restrict spending it was to stop clubs getting into debt ok one may lead to another but it has always been the case that individuals have put money into their clubs . From the Moore’s family on Merseyside to Walker in Blackburn and yes even Utd have benefited from cash injections as opposed clubs living within their means

Bury were never subjected to UEFAs version of FFP so despite any claims that it has helped clubs like Bury , like Portsmouth it hasn’t indeed most football clubs even at non league which are as important to their local community as any PL club haven’t been afforded any protection from it.

 

[Fortitude]

So City get to play on with their bent squad for the entire time this case takes to come to a conclusion? Are the other 19 teams not up in arms about that?

Playing against a club you know are cheating whilst they continue to benefit from said cheating in competition against you is absolutely absurd.

 

[Blackbeard]

You have to admire Pep’s forward planning in all this. He has obviously brought in Haaland to prepare for all those long balls in the lower leagues.

 

[Mullet_Man]

Its funny that they say they haven't done anything wrong yet they haven't cooperated with the PL since 2018, rules which they argee with to play in the PL.

5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:
(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16; and
(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16.

 

[Member 125398]

Wonder how many mob films Pep watched to psych himself up for that gangster act today.

If he'd really wanted to make an impact he should've had a folded up piece of paper with some FACHTS.

 

[terraloo]

Of all the charges levelled against City , and yep as we know there are numerous, it’s the payments to Mancini that are , if correct, very difficult to defend

Its alleged that Mancini's first contract with City was for a base salary of £1.45m net, but his company in Italy was also allegedly paid £1.75m per annum from Al Jazira, a club where he had to coach for four days of the year as part of the arrangement.

In effect £440k plus for each day he coached Al Jazira. A decent coach yep but being paid more to do four days coaching than he was getting at City !

Mancinis company probably have been transparent and will almost certainly have or will readily confirm the validity of any such arrangement . In effect City will no doubt be quite simply be arguing nothing to do with the parent club it was a separate arrangement but let’s just reflect on that because if his base salary was indeed (only) £1.45 million for a PL manager I suspect he wouldn’t just be in the bottom half more than likely he would be in the bottom 3 in reality the going rate would be at least double the £30 k a week it is said he was earning. The tribunal will make a subjective call no doubt and if in their opinion the £30 k is not the market rate then will the ” balance of probability “ threshold be met ? I think it will

 

[Crimson King]

The aim of FFP wasn’t initially to restrict spending it was to stop clubs getting into debt ok one may lead to another but it has always been the case that individuals have put money into their clubs . From the Moore’s family on Merseyside to Walker in Blackburn and yes even Utd have benefited from cash injections as opposed clubs living within their means

Bury were never subjected to UEFAs version of FFP so despite any claims that it has helped clubs like Bury , like Portsmouth it hasn’t indeed most football clubs even at non league which are as important to their local community as any PL club haven’t been afforded any protection from it.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make...is it that you're opposed to FFP, or just don't think the authorities have done a good enough job enforcing it? Because I think it's only more recently that the FA and English leagues have introduced their own more stringent versions of financial regulations. Clubs like Bury and Portsmouth acted as the catalyst for that, which is why they weren't protected by it.

I think the issues further down the leagues are more complicated, and you missed the point about trying to make sure more money trickles down the leagues. The FA is supposed to make sure the money makes it to the grassroots, but as we know it's arguable how successful they are at doing that. The EPL and EFL are currently negotiating a new system of distribution. I think parachute payments might be scrapped, or replaced with something else.

And you're right, individuals have always invested in football clubs and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's only recently it accelerated to a point where it became problematic, with first oligarchs and then state funds getting involved.

United haven't had any real cash injection probably since the Edwards family acquired the club in the 1960s. Even then, that was less of a cash injection and more an acquisition of shares. You have to go back to 1902 and then the 1930s for that, when United were twice saved from administration by investors. They lived on their own steam and own revenue pretty much since then. The Glazers certainly haven't invested any of their own money.

 

[Sandikan]

Read that legal "experts" think this might take another 4 years to wrap up!
Pep will be long gone before this is wrapped up. So no-one should get too excited.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

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?

Yet before the greatest manager ever turned up at OT we were into a second decade without a title, and since he left we’ve gone a full decade and lots of lots of non oil/investment clubs have finished above us in the league.

Fergie was the difference, not some unfair big club dominance. If he’d gone to Liverpool after Dalglish, they’d have remained the dominant club, if he’d have gone to Arsenal they would’ve been the dominant PL club.

 

[Chief123]

I think ultimately the greatest punishment for Man City is going to be the fact they probably can’t operate how they have been doing anymore. They’ll be under scrutiny. If they operate within the rules, they won’t be able to sustain their current cheating and subsequently become unable to compete with the big clubs.

 

[SirAnderson]

Over 30 pages since I last visited this thread. Anything to report or we all still holding our breath?

 

[Barbara Charles]

This isn’t an invalid argument, but the problem is they didn’t make that argument, they committed fraud rather than make the effort.

People seem to keep focusing on FFP. Rory Jennings, he Chelsea YouTuber was talking about how disgusting it was that teams in the PL were using their “filthy money” (and he wasn’t talking about how the money was earned … just that it was lots of money … and that money is filthy..,) to suck up all the talent from teams around Europe and it was evil.

This conflating of different things is the only thing I find annoying about this situation. Money isnt inherently bad; that’s stupid, and Marxist. The PL should in NO way feel bad for having more success and drawing more talent to it every year. That’s also dumb.

Madrid people in no way “felt bad” about the government manipulating property sales to sell/buyback land to Madrid for huge profits for tons of money .. and then took everyone’s best players.

I also get annoyed with the “living within their means” thing. We aren’t talking about a welfare house for war orphans. This is one of the biggest sports leagues in the world. Nobody asks Ferrari formula 1 teams if they are “living within their means”. The idea of treating football teams, like they are a cross between steady profit steel mills and community centers is just weird.

Real investment of real money should be encouraged. If you don’t want s nation-state or royal family to buy teams (which I would agree with), then don’t let them. It isn’t like people didn’t know.

The issue that should sink City here is that they have real partners and investors, including the league itself, that have s legal right to accurate information in making their own decisions, and City robbed them of that information through what appears to be intentional fraud. FFP isn’t even a league rule, it’s a multi league agreement. FRAUD is the law. The breaking of the actual law.

Excellent post.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I think ultimately the greatest punishment for Man City is going to be the fact they probably can’t operate how they have been doing anymore. They’ll be under scrutiny. If they operate within the rules, they won’t be able to sustain their current cheating and subsequently become unable to compete with the big clubs.

But they've already acquired 2 high quality first team, starting 11s.

 

[johanovic]

Even a blind man can see there is no chance in hell that City are creating more commercial revenue than United, Barca, Madrid, Liverpool and others if it were not for "creative" methods they are using. City have so much less matchday revenue than others it is staggering to claim they have a bigger base than those teams mentioned here above.

In regards to Pep his press conference was quite something. If City have nothing to hide why have they been fighting in courtrooms for the past years trying to stop the PL from investigating them? Why have they been no compliant regarding handing over info they are supposed to do by PL rules? Then Pep and the club come out and claim to be happy about the matter coming to a close because it will prove them innocent. Why then fight and slow down the process for all this time? Should they not have been happy to speed the process up if they are so sure of beining innocent?

 

[NicolaSacco]

Yet before the greatest manager ever turned up at OT we were into a second decade without a title, and since he left we’ve gone a full decade and lots of lots of non oil/investment clubs have finished above us in the league.

Fergie was the difference, not some unfair big club dominance. If he’d gone to Liverpool after Dalglish, they’d have remained the dominant club, if he’d have gone to Arsenal they would’ve been the dominant PL club.

I guess neither of us can prove our points. We don’t know what would’ve happened under different circumstances. To me, Wenger was a genius, (and an equal manager to Fergie) who could break the pattern for a while, but in the end Utd’s superior finances held sway, a bit like Dortmund/Bayern in the Bundesliga. Without the oil clubs I think we’d be having a Bayern Munich style dominance from Utd, even now. But as I say at the beginning of this there are lots of hypotheticals which are impossible to prove or disprove.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

I agree with everything but the last 7 words. This whole thing would be pretty shit if were talking about a historically significant club and they'd been accused of cooking the books.

I don't follow, why would Pep want to run the risk of tainting his whole managerial career for a club like City, when he could have done the same things if not better for a historically top club, without the need to run the risk of been associated with a club been accused the things City are.

 

[I’m loving my life]

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?

100% this will happen.

It is all for show.

The PL/FA should not have allowed Roman to purchase Chelsea.

They should not have allowed countries to buy City and Newcastle and the three clubs should not have been allowed to distort the competition completely.

Same for the Glazers and their treatment of our club.

All have been allowed to happen.

The authorities value the money over anything (including FIFA and the World Cup).

Since Chelsea started financially doping 20 years ago it has all been allowed and the competition has been effectively over. So if Qatar buys us, morals or not, it’s just a continuation of what has already been permitted.

ABUs like Jonathan Liew have not got a leg to stand on as they have kept their mouths shut until now

 

[terraloo]

We all will remember with amusement that rant from the BFSW all those years ago

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make...is it that you're opposed to FFP, or just don't think the authorities have done a good enough job enforcing it? Because I think it's only more recently that the FA and English leagues have introduced their own more stringent versions of financial regulations. Clubs like Bury and Portsmouth acted as the catalyst for that, which is why they weren't protected by it.

I think the issues further down the leagues are more complicated, and you missed the point about trying to make sure more money trickles down the leagues. The FA is supposed to make sure the money makes it to the grassroots, but as we know it's arguable how successful they are at doing that. The EPL and EFL are currently negotiating a new system of distribution. I think parachute payments might be scrapped, or replaced with something else.

And you're right, individuals have always invested in football clubs and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's only recently it accelerated to a point where it became problematic, with first oligarchs and then state funds getting involved.

United haven't had any real cash injection probably since the Edwards family acquired the club in the 1960s. Even then, that was less of a cash injection and more an acquisition of shares. You have to go back to 1902 and then the 1930s for that, when United were twice saved from administration by investors. They lived on their own steam and own revenue pretty much since then. The Glazers certainly haven't invested any of their own money.

I am not opposed to the principal of FFP but for me a far bigger danger to a clubs very existence is accumulated debt as opposed to someone putting money in as long is there isn’t any charge or debt levied on the club.

Grass Roots football clubs by and large pay far more out than they reasonably can afford and my guess would be if they received extra money all that would happen is players would get extra.Not sure it’s still the cash but may EPL clubs supporters are subsidised ( if that’s the right word ) to circa 50% of the gate by way of PL distribution

But are we really talking about grass roots ? There are far far more clubs outside the EFL &PL combined yet other than parachute payments from EFL 2 to the NL those 100s of clubs receive diddly squat and rely to a very large extent of owners cash yet no body really factor in these clubs

 

[Rayman96]

You have a special thread dedicated to calling anyone an ABU who says something you don’t agree with- go use that.

No mate. You really are. Do you think we cant spot a WUM as blatant as you.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

To me, Wenger was a genius, (and an equal manager to Fergie)

feck me, what absolute drivel.

But we can however prove our points by the sheer fact that pre Fergie we won feck all, despite our finances and post Fergie we’ve won feck all.
Let’s not pretend that in a Cityless World, the likes of Liverpool wouldn’t have absolutely battered United since Fergie left, as they have done, hell even Spurs, despite United’s size and apparently unfair advantage.

 

[Jeppers7]

I guess neither of us can prove our points. We don’t know what would’ve happened under different circumstances. To me, Wenger was a genius, (and an equal manager to Fergie) who could break the pattern for a while, but in the end Utd’s superior finances held sway, a bit like Dortmund/Bayern in the Bundesliga. Without the oil clubs I think we’d be having a Bayern Munich style dominance from Utd, even now. But as I say at the beginning of this there are lots of hypotheticals which are impossible to prove or disprove.

Jesus.

How would we be having United dominance even now? Because the evidence does not back up your claim. We went 26 years without a title pre SAF and currently 10 years post SAF. I’d suggest taking your ABU blinkers off and realising that the evidence is smack bang in front of your face.

The fact that you’d rather financial doping and blatant cheating of the entire league than see United be successful is where your issue lies.

 

[Beachryan]

The point here isn't the unfairness of football finances, the lack of policies that would make a more fair 'league' in terms of wage spend and so forth. That's a fair and valid discussion that should be had.

City signed up to rules which they actively, knowingly broke for years on end. Then lied about breaking them, then hid the evidence, then refused to cooperate with the regulators.

Arguing about the validity of the PL rules is akin to getting caught just over the limit, fleeing the scene, then perjuring yourself about the incident happening - and then publically saying you believe that the limit is too low, and you were perfectly safe driving and no one was really at risk. It doesn't matter, the rules be the rules.

 

[Hughie77]

Just to be clear on this- did the investigators actually say that City were guilty but they couldn’t do anything because of the time barring? Or did they just say they couldn’t look at it, full stop?

Read it for yourself its will be clear to you then. And make your own mind up.

 

[Chief123]

But they've already acquired 2 high quality first team, starting 11s.

Yes they have and they deserve plenty of punishment. But my point is they won’t be able to continue their “success” going forward as they can’t fund their cheating any more. No matter how much they try, they just can’t make themselves generate the revenue they’ve been showing on the books. Even a lot of City fans have convinced themselves they are innocent and fully believe they generate more revenue than all of Europe’s big teams.

 

[roonster09]

To me, Wenger was a genius, (and an equal manager to Fergie)

 

[NicolaSacco]

feck me, what absolute drivel.

But we can however prove our points by the sheer fact that pre Fergie we won feck all, despite our finances and post Fergie we’ve won feck all.
Let’s not pretend that in a Cityless World, the likes of Liverpool would have absolutely battered United since Fergie left, as they have done, hell even Spurs, despite United’s size and apparently unfair advantage.

Agree to disagree. I think Fergie was an example of an excellent manager working under excellent conditions. Wenger was an excellent manager working under less than excellent conditions.

 

[Señor Sloppy]

I’ll be absolutely shocked if Manchester City get anything much harsher than the proverbial slap on the wrist.

The ultimate question in this matter is – are the Premier League really going to be gunning for the harshest possible sentence on Manchester City?

A sentence where the most star-studded and globally attractive team in its league is irreparably damaged, where iconic moments in the Premier League’s recent history are irreparably tarnished, where the reputation of the Premier League itself could well be irreparably damaged?

One where Manchester City then strike back and unveil every last bit of dirt they have on the internal dealings of the Premier League’s administration and clubs, through every avenue within the media and courts? Where the President of the UAE, possibly also even those of his close regional allies, call up the British Prime Minister to tell him how the actions of our football league are jeopardising bilateral relations during a turbulent geopolitical period?

Or would the Premier League prefer a “soft” win – or even no win at all - which allows them to save face as a robust football regulator whilst avoiding most of the above fallout?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

To be fair our lack of success both pre & post Fergie is so damning to his argument, he kinda has no choice but to come up with some absolutely outrageous drivel to pretend that it was United’s unfair size/finances rather than a genius manager that made us successful.

How can anyone dispute that lots of none oil funded teams would’ve wiped the floor with post Fergie United considering Leicester fecking City managed it, we’ve finished 7th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 2nd, 6th, 3rd, 2nd, 6th

 

[Djemba-Djemba]

Wenger an equal manager to Fergie ?

Have we gone back to 2004? Surely anyone that used to think that now sees it's a ridiculous view.

 

[roonster09]

To be fair our lack of success both pre & post Fergie is so damning to his argument, he kinda has no choice but to come up with some absolutely outrageous drivel to pretend that it was United’s unfair size/finances rather than a genius manager that made us successful.

How can anyone dispute that lots of none oil funded teams would’ve wiped the floor with post Fergie United considering Leicester fecking City managed it, we’ve finished 7th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 2nd, 6th, 3rd, 2nd, 6th

Yeah, it's not like SAF walked into club that was a winning machine, we were a club that didn't win league title for 20 years, he was the one who transformed the club.

Man was a genius, absolute genius.