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

amolbhatia50k said:
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
Click to expand...
If the media were talking about this daily when there is no new developments, people would soon start to bore and fatigue of the story and City would start calling it a vendetta.

You need to be reasonable in your expectations. If City start throwing their weight around in the transfer market this summer, that’s a reasonable time to start asking questions and reviewing finances again but until either something like that happens or there’s new developments on the legal front there’s no reason for this story to keep filling column inches and yes, I appreciate that if it was Man United it would fill column inches every single day and there’s some irony in there for sure.
 
bringbackbebe said:
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").
Click to expand...

This isn't being used as evidence or foundation in any accusations. It simply supports the trove of documentation and evidence from other sources.
 
Zen86 said:
This isn't being used as evidence or foundation in any accusations. It simply supports the trove of documentation and evidence from other sources.
Click to expand...

I'm all for supporting but this hides that they're the only team that's been performing consistently at 85+ points per season over the last few years. Liverpool's is affected by 2021 and current year. If you do a similar exercise for us under Sir.Alex between 2007-2013, you'd get similar results. It shows they've been the dominant club in the league during this period. Attributing this to a gap to hidden wages is casual circumstantial evidence at best.

If anything, analysis such as this undermines the real evidence finding effort undertaken by parties.
 
Last edited:
Most said the timeframe would be 2-4 years, so I ain't holding my breath until something happens?
 
bringbackbebe said:
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").
Click to expand...

Doesnt it usually begin with correlation in order to determine causation? Its a starting point at least?
 
bringbackbebe said:
I'm all for supporting but this hides that they're the only team that's been performing consistently at 85+ points per season over the last few years. Liverpool's is affected by 2021 and current year. If you do a similar exercise for us under Sir.Alex between 2007-2013, you'd get similar results. It shows they've been the dominant club in the league during this period. Attributing this to a gap to hidden wages is casual circumstantial evidence at best.

If anything, analysis such as this undermines the real evidence finding effort undertaken by parties.
Click to expand...

It is circumstantial, but it's an interesting visual depiction of a case that is based on evidence that isn't circumstantial. Correlation doesn't mean causation, but that doesn't mean we automatically dismiss such models as irrelevant. League points generally correlates to money spent, we've always known this. And what we know about City is they have outperformed this correlation while also fraudulently reporting their spend.
 
Zen86 said:
It is circumstantial, but it's an interesting visual depiction of a case that is based on evidence that isn't circumstantial. Correlation doesn't mean causation, but that doesn't mean we automatically dismiss such models as irrelevant. League points generally correlates to money spent, we've always known this. And what we know about City is they have outperformed this correlation while also fraudulently reporting their spend.
Click to expand...

sglowrider said:
Doesnt it usually begin with correlation in order to determine causation? Its a starting point at least?
Click to expand...

Reading the fine print of the analysis:
"Figures show 'expected points', which are based on the results a team could have expected from scoring opportunities it created & conceded in each game"

So basically xG. The theory now goes:
-> A team spending "X" amount of money is expected to create "N" many chances
-> Those "N" many chances are based on another model which is also based on a bunch of assumptions not disclosed
-> Man City have created more scoring chances than what's expected of their wage bill
-> Hence they must have cheated their wage bill

It's very difficult to break something like this down into various factors. This out performance can be a result of many many things like having a better manager, better style of play, having boat load of midfielders without a striker (it's xG after all?) etc. That's why I made the reference to United between 2005-06 to 2012-2013 seasons. We averaged 86.5 points, far above any of our nearest rivals. That was mostly due to SAF.

Am I saying they didn't cheat? Of course not, that's obvious. This analysis looks more like fitting data into theory than the reverse and I'm not surprised something like this has come post the FA announcement & didn't precede it.
 
bringbackbebe said:
So basically xG. The theory now goes:
-> A team spending "X" amount of money is expected to create "N" many chances
-> Those "N" many chances are based on another model which is also based on a bunch of assumptions not disclosed
-> Man City have created more scoring chances than what's expected of their wage bill
-> Hence they must have cheated their wage bill
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Plus, the nearest dots are Man United and Chelsea. It's not like those sides have been consistently great in the period in question. They've been archetypes in how to waste money and underperform relative to resources.

Actually, remove those dots for being outliers here, and see the line tilt up :lol:
 
bringbackbebe said:
Reading the fine print of the analysis:
"Figures show 'expected points', which are based on the results a team could have expected from scoring opportunities it created & conceded in each game"

So basically xG. The theory now goes:
-> A team spending "X" amount of money is expected to create "N" many chances
-> Those "N" many chances are based on another model which is also based on a bunch of assumptions not disclosed
-> Man City have created more scoring chances than what's expected of their wage bill
-> Hence they must have cheated their wage bill

It's very difficult to break something like this down into various factors. This out performance can be a result of many many things like having a better manager, better style of play, having boat load of midfielders without a striker (it's xG after all?) etc. That's why I made the reference to United between 2005-06 to 2012-2013 seasons. We averaged 86.5 points, far above any of our nearest rivals. That was mostly due to SAF.

Am I saying they didn't cheat? Of course not, that's obvious. This analysis looks more like fitting data into theory than the reverse and I'm not surprised something like this has come post the FA announcement & didn't precede it.
Click to expand...

Honestly I agree with you. It was a clicky-bait conclusion on the part of the tweeter -- riding on the prevailing narrative of City.
 
bringbackbebe said:
Reading the fine print of the analysis:
"Figures show 'expected points', which are based on the results a team could have expected from scoring opportunities it created & conceded in each game"
Click to expand...

The problem with this analysis is that it's using an Expected Points model.

The Expected Points model is actually quite off when it comes to guessing the points for teams at the top and bottom of leagues. Clubs in the top 4, collectively, have higher Pts than xPts, and clubs at the bottom, collectively, have lower Pts than xPts.

For example, the model claims Liverpool should have obtained 83 points in 18/19 (they got 97), and 74 points in 19/20 (they got 99). It claims Arsenal should have 49 points; they have 57. City, on the other hand, tend to get an xPts that is closer to the real value.

So there is a conceptual problem here. The author is using the fact that City is an outlier in this plot ... when in actual performance, it is Liverpool and the other clubs in the top 4 which are outliers with respect to the actual points.

The model seems to have a problem with exaggerating the relationship between xG and points. Since City get the most xG in the league by far every season, it thinks they should have a gazillion more points than its rivals.
 
Last edited:
I’m loving my life said:
The football authorities have let this slide for almost 15 years. The government and MCC are happy for City’s owners to plough money into the local area. The media have given them a free pass all this time. Micah Richards has been employed as a pundit.

The whole thing is completely corrupt.

There is less than 1% chance of City being meaningfully sanctioned for this.

It has been allowed to happen all this time-why would things suddenly change?
Click to expand...
Why charge them at all then? Someone thinks they shouldn’t get away with it. But they probably will.
 
Not just saying this because I hate city

But it actually astounds me how irrelevant they are. Some of the best players in the World. Record breakers. PL title after PL title. Always in the latter CL stages... And nobody gives a feck

March 1st was the last reply about this. And everyone else seems to have just forgotten too. How huge a story would this have been if it was United, Liverpool, Arsenal?

I can't get over how pointless that club is. Hopefully their owner gets bored soon and they can go back to the Championship where a club of their stature should be
 
There was more uproar in our penalty award against Southampton while 7-0 up under Ole
 
I reckon the name should always be with an asterisk (*Manchester City*), to flag that they are fakes and irrelevant. Was done by a good few media outlets, regarding President* Trump.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
Not just saying this because I hate city

But it actually astounds me how irrelevant they are. Some of the best players in the World. Record breakers. PL title after PL title. Always in the latter CL stages... And nobody gives a feck

March 1st was the last reply about this. And everyone else seems to have just forgotten too. How huge a story would this have been if it was United, Liverpool, Arsenal?

I can't get over how pointless that club is. Hopefully their owner gets bored soon and they can go back to the Championship where a club of their stature should be
Click to expand...
Very true. I suppose plebs like us know it's going to drag on for years and can't get too excited, but it's surprising the press aren't making a big thing of it. Except it's only City, as you say.
 
Swedish_Plumber said:
These big laws in football are just like real life. If your rich and powerful you can skirt around them. Little less money etc and you find yourself punished.

Not to say these sides don’t deserve it, but a little consistency across the board would be refreshing.
Click to expand...
City will get punished. It’ll just be a huge fine and that’s it. Just so other corrupt people can get paid
 
Swedish_Plumber said:
These big laws in football are just like real life. If your rich and powerful you can skirt around them. Little less money etc and you find yourself punished.

Not to say these sides don’t deserve it, but a little consistency across the board would be refreshing.
Click to expand...
Not quite.

City’s breaches are allegedly far more severe and take more time to punish, could be years before we see an outcome
 
Do you guys have a Guido Rossi in the UK? Only chance remaining.
 
Horrifically irrelevant, slimy little club.

Their weirdo fans still think it’s some kind of Cinderella story, that P£p’s there because he loves the club….

Honestly wouldn’t shock me to see him try to jump ship to United if Qatar take over - limitless funding plus an actual big football club will be hit wet dream.
 
Heard Niemans is going to represent City.
 
No clue how legit this is but thought it was worth somewhat of an update ….

 
horsechoker said:
A city fan saying the charges have gone away
Click to expand...

A guy in his 50s who subscribes to Twitter Blue, lives in Warrington and tweets like a cocaine-fulled twenty-something doesn't strike me as an ITK. Then again, it's City, their roots are in toilet paper and their fanbase comes from Reddish. The man owns a tie, he's probably seen as some sort of intellectual amongst their fans.
 
My ITK instincts tell me they're probably going down. That's also why Liverpool pulled out of negotiations for Bellingham...

No need to compete with City as we currently know them...
 
Rooney24 said:
No clue how legit this is but thought it was worth somewhat of an update ….

Click to expand...

Considering there has been no hearing yet, I struggle to imagine how charges have been dismissed. How and by whom? Maybe some have been satisfactorily answered in City’s replies and they’ve been withdrawn or discontinued, but that number seems out of whack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.