"Micah Richards dislikes this"
I'll never get tired of Keane saying "Did you really burst onto the scene?"
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
I'll never get tired of Keane saying "Did you really burst onto the scene?"
Said the man in the orthopaedic shoes..
Maybe you did.
Any chance of it not being a coincidence that PL hands in the charges at this exact point when Qatar and Saudi Arabia are ready to go into a bidding war over English football’s most iconic venture?
Well it seems Newcastle have got a pretty big warning as part of the takeover, hence their spending. Then you’ve got United and Liverpool up for sale with obvious investors being from the ME, you’ve only got City flouting the rules completely so they have to hammer them to send a clear message to all PL teams, especially the ones owned/potentially owned by ME investors. It also assures the non ME owned clubs that teams won’t be allowed to cheat their way out of the bottom half at their expense.
Why did they (successfully) employ the exact same uncooperative tactics against UEFA then?
I can't support Manchester United because of my ability to form objective judgements, rather than seeing everything solely through the distorted lens of a United fan?
You're defending the indefensible and are peddling the line that City are the victim of a conspiracy that's why. Are you actually claiming to be a United fan?
City 'successfully' stonewalled UEFA on FFP such that a lot of the charges and were deemed to be time-barred by CAS and the ban was overturned. They were still fined and were not exonerated. Also innocent parties don't refuse to cooperate at huge expense to themselves. It makes absolutely no sense.
With the PL investigation there is no time-barring and the charges go beyond FFP. The PL would not charge them with 115 different charges if it was all nonsense. You can't be that dim.
Why is this Wum still here. His sloppy postings make it glaringly obvious he's a Bert.
Only a Bert would describe his team as the most globally attractive in the League.
The rest of this quoted post is the same style of diatribe posted on BlueMoon.
Only a Bert would describe his team as the most globally attractive in the League.
The rest of this quoted post is the same style of diatribe posted on BlueMoon.
He also inadvertently highlights why state-funded ownership and the political influence that brings should never have been allowed into football.
It's going to be quite funny when United does all those things post-takeover, but all those contracts are going to be legitimate because of the actual status and status/prestige of the club.
His post was absolutely pathetic, reads identical to bluemoon, Khaldoon smartest man in the room shite they've been cooking up,
I'm sure this has been picked up on so far but I am surprised more is not being made of the dichotomy of the position adopted by City and its fans in the coverage of the charges that:
1. Their stated position is that they complied with the rules and deny the charges, thereby suggesting that their growth and finances are organic/legitimate; and
2. That FFP and similar PL rules were created to prevent a team like City from being able to achieve such growth and therefore are inherently unfair on them and other non-"historic" clubs such that it would be impossible for them to compete whilst complying.
Am I mistaken that you surely you can't adopt both stances as they detract from one another? The former requires City to say they are clean and therefore they (1) can have no complaint about the FFP rules, and (2) must accept that there is nothing inherently unfair with FFP. The latter would seem to be an acceptance that the rules were broken but that City consider they were justified in doing so nonetheless as it was the only way for them to beat what they consider an unfair system.
Could City realistically run both arguments with the committee appointed by the PL or have they already shown the hand (and only hand) they intend to or can play?
I know its quite common to pursue alternative arguments in legal proceedings, but it must go against them when their own arguments are diametrically opposed to one another at a factual level.
1. Their stated position is that they complied with the rules and deny the charges, thereby suggesting that their growth and finances are organic/legitimate; and
2. That FFP and similar PL rules were created to prevent a team like City from being able to achieve such growth and therefore are inherently unfair on them and other non-"historic" clubs such that it would be impossible for them to compete whilst complying.
Am I mistaken that you surely you can't adopt both stances as they detract from one another? The former requires City to say they are clean and therefore they (1) can have no complaint about the FFP rules, and (2) must accept that there is nothing inherently unfair with FFP. The latter would seem to be an acceptance that the rules were broken but that City consider they were justified in doing so nonetheless as it was the only way for them to beat what they consider an unfair system.
Could City realistically run both arguments with the committee appointed by the PL or have they already shown the hand (and only hand) they intend to or can play?
I know its quite common to pursue alternative arguments in legal proceedings, but it must go against them when their own arguments are diametrically opposed to one another at a factual level.
I didn't enjoy the last WC much, except the final.
you can enjoy the World Cup and question Qatars regime
just like you can still support United and question it
or I can agree with something someone says but still question other things they say or actions they take
we don’t live in a binary world but your kind of logic is the reason sportswashing is effective
Has anybody come up with any sort of estimate of the amount of money City may have spent off the back of the charges put forward? Be interesting to see if it's significant or not.
I just stated the reality. They showed worldcup success on our face. Despite all the pre world cup solidarity with people who suffered to build the stadiums nobody think about them after it was over.
Football fans are powerless to stop these things. Nobody will blame united fans if wealthy oil owners take over them. It's not their choice that's what I want to say even the most successful team in England not spared to wealthy oil owners despite their fans dont want it.
Good spot - definitely a City supporter pretending to be a United one.
right but why can’t people criticise them if they enjoyed the World Cup?
That would have denied the chances of half of europe to compete for a lot of the last century. feckin capitalist chauvinism
It wont happen, but tonight is kind of proof why if found guilty, expulsion is the only thing that makes sense. Any current success is the result of the cheating. You cant just pretend its all even by docking them a few points and letting them ignore the title for a year.
They are so going to win another title before getting it stripped.
This is pretty much a fraud/dishonesty case as opposed to an FFP one. A lot of the lesser charges are predicated on the fraud charges. The PL are going hell for leather; it'll be serious punishment if guilty.
- Have the PL bitten off more than they can chew? Perhaps. Their processes are not designed for anything like this.
- Will City risk an appeal to the high court, knowing it would force so much extra disclosure? Perhaps, depends on the punishment.
- Was this related to the white paper/regulation? Extremely unlikely as it's so serious.
- Why are City so bellicose in response? You'd imagine they are frantically trying to negotiate a huge fine and points deduction in the background, so the outward chest beating doesn't make much sense. It could be that they genuinely believe the PL has nothing more than the der spiegel documents and they can ride it out.
- Is it the PL that want this to end up in court? Unlikely but possible. Whatever happens, we are gonna see that their procedures are inadequate hence this could be embarrassing to them, but it could provide a genuine opportunity both for reform, and to get extra evidence.
- Have the PL bitten off more than they can chew? Perhaps. Their processes are not designed for anything like this.
- Will City risk an appeal to the high court, knowing it would force so much extra disclosure? Perhaps, depends on the punishment.
- Was this related to the white paper/regulation? Extremely unlikely as it's so serious.
- Why are City so bellicose in response? You'd imagine they are frantically trying to negotiate a huge fine and points deduction in the background, so the outward chest beating doesn't make much sense. It could be that they genuinely believe the PL has nothing more than the der spiegel documents and they can ride it out.
- Is it the PL that want this to end up in court? Unlikely but possible. Whatever happens, we are gonna see that their procedures are inadequate hence this could be embarrassing to them, but it could provide a genuine opportunity both for reform, and to get extra evidence.
Any update with this, or has it all gone quiet already?
This has really settled down now, a few more months and nobody will remember it and by then a 1 year transfer ban will seem like a harsh/fair penalty. What a joke.
What exactly are you expecting to happen on a daily basis around this?
It’s a complex case which is going to take years.
Really and truly? For City to be obliterated into obscurity as soon as possible.
But unfortunately we don’t live in a realm of such outcomes do we?
I’m surprised after the initial breaking of the news it has gone all quiet. It seems as if other minuscule matters are more of a talking point than perhaps the biggest farce the league has ever seen, which is quite surprising.
I think the reality of the news cycle is that this will take a back burner in the media and fall out of the public consciousness. Guess the concern is that could lead to a lesser punishment?
It's mid season with games coming thick and fast, they'll always dominate the news.
Come summer when journalists are struggling for things to write about this will be brought up again.
There will be questions asked about every signing City make, and rightfully so.
Exactly. Their transfer dealings will be under the microscope too.
What’s the latest on this? Feels like as with football scandals this one is disappearing into obscurity in the public’s eye whereas you’d think this is big enough for there to be a constant noise demanding action l.
You know nothing will happen, same as last time it happened with PSG and whoever that was.
This type of case won’t be settled overnight. They’ll be numerous appeals by both sides once the punishments have been decided. This could take years to end.
City will throw enough money at it and lawyer up to an extent that every single detail will be contested at great length. It's not inconceivable this could rumble on for years.
Interesting this in light of the comments made by Mr. Integrity after our cup win.
My point is that public pressure is important. And I think the other clubs should ensure that the heat is always turned up until they get what they deserve
He would probably claim that their 'sports science' is much more advanced everywhere he has been.
Lead by Dr Needles.
I'm all for data driven approaches, but this is exactly how analytical models should not be used. Correlation does not imply causation.
A caution that applies to R2, as to other statistical descriptions of correlation and association is that "correlation does not imply causation." In other words, while correlations may sometimes provide valuable clues in uncovering causal relationships among variables, a non-zero estimated correlation between two variables is not, on its own, evidence that changing the value of one variable would result in changes in the values of other variables. For example, the practice of carrying matches (or a lighter) is correlated with incidence of lung cancer, but carrying matches does not cause cancer (in the standard sense of "cause").