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

[kaiser1]

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.

As a supporter of a club that has immense wealth and can get the best players, pay them wages that half of the league cannot dream of, it's easy for me to gatekeep how others get their money when we know it's not realistic for a Mainz to compete for the best players with Bayern.

What options are the fans of smaller clubs left with if they ever have dreams of winning a title in their lifetime?

 

[NLunited]

This is a fair point, there is a correlation between club wealth and success.

That correlation is getting stronger as the game becomes more and more monetised.

There’s no disputing this on a macro level, whatever club you support.

The PL is incredibly competitive if you take City out of the equation. Which is what the PL will do.

 

[Sassy Colin]

The most annoying thing is that the first "too" wasn't just a typo. They continued to double down, not only on the ridiculous notion, but also continued using too, instead of to.

What do we do about this?

 

[calodo2003]

What is a realistic outcome from all this?

 

[BAMSOLA]

What is a realistic outcome from all this?

Not sure but the president was set with this kind of thing by Rangers in Scotland years ago so anything less than relagation to the lowest tier of professional football or perhaps beyond would be a miscarriage of justice.

 

[PlasticRed]

Seems to me that city arnt as ambitious as they used to be with transfers. When was the last time they made a blockbuster signing? Gvardiol? Dias?

 

[TheLiverBird]

The PL is incredibly competitive if you take City out of the equation. Which is what the PL will do.

It’s not though, why are you kidding yourself?

Take City out then you think the likes of Wolves, Aston Villa, West Ham, Brentford, have any chance of winning??

Of course they don’t!

Take City out, and it’ll be Liverpool, Arsenal, or Chelsea

Everyone’s version of a Competitive league has become blurred for too long, surely a competitive league is one where anyone has a chance of winning? Not just a select 3-4 clubs becuase of the size of their institution and finances

Competitive too me isn’t “in the premier league any team can beat anyone on a given day”

Winning is competition, not winning the odd game against a big club, or losing the odd game against a little club

It’s laughable

 

[B20]

It’s not though, why are you kidding yourself?

Take City out then you think the likes of Wolves, Aston Villa, West Ham, Brentford, have any chance of winning??

Of course they don’t!

Take City out, and it’ll be Liverpool, Arsenal, or Chelsea

Everyone’s version of a Competitive league has become blurred for too long, surely a competitive league is one where anyone has a chance of winning? Not just a select 3-4 clubs becuase of the size of their institution and finances

Competitive too me isn’t “in the premier league any team can beat anyone on a given day”

Winning is competition, not winning the odd game against a big club, or losing the odd game against a little club

That’s simply not the case for our so called wonderful premier league

It’s laughable

Leicester won it

 

[TheLiverBird]

Leicester won it

That was 9 years ago now

The first one off since Blackburn

That’s competitive?

 

[Daily_Blind]

It’s not though, why are you kidding yourself?

Take City out then you think the likes of Wolves, Aston Villa, West Ham, Brentford, have any chance of winning??

Of course they don’t!

Take City out, and it’ll be Liverpool, Arsenal, or Chelsea

Everyone’s version of a Competitive league has become blurred for too long, surely a competitive league is one where anyone has a chance of winning? Not just a select 3-4 clubs becuase of the size of their institution and finances

Competitive too me isn’t “in the premier league any team can beat anyone on a given day”

Winning is competition, not winning the odd game against a big club, or losing the odd game against a little club

It’s laughable

Only way to achieve that is through a transfer/wages cap.

 

[Tincanalley]

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.

Hilarious post. Well done. You had me for a second there.

 

[Stepney73]

That was 9 years ago now

The first one off since Blackburn

That’s competitive?

Blackburn wasn’t a total one off in the same way as Leicester.

They where the first club to ‘Buy the title’ with the help of a sugar daddy.

sugar daddy clubs below.

Blackburn mid 90s
Chelsea 2003
City 2009
Newcastle 2022

Blackburn had won nothing for decades before Jack Walker rocked up and have reverted back to type now he’s gone.
Chelsea have not pulled up any trees since Roman was forced to sell(even though they have another wealthy owner).
If Citys owners sold up and the new owner insisted the club was self sufficient they would be a mid table team within 5 years.
File Newcastle with city(even though FFP and PSR ate holding them back from doing another Blackburn,Chelsea or City).

 

[TheLiverBird]

Blackburn wasn’t a total one off in the same way as Leicester.

They where the first club to ‘Buy the title’ with the help of a sugar daddy.

sugar daddy clubs below.

Blackburn mid 90s
Chelsea 2003
City 2009
Newcastle 2022

Blackburn had won nothing for decades before Jack Walker rocked up and have reverted back to type now he’s gone.
Chelsea have not pulled up any trees since Roman was forced to sell(even though they have another wealthy owner).
If Citys owners sold up and the new owner insisted the club was self sufficient they would be a mid table team within 5 years.
File Newcastle with city(even though FFP and PSR ate holding them back from doing another Blackburn,Chelsea or City).

that’s fair enough with Blackburn pal, good point, but it still doesn’t change the fact we don’t have a competitive league does it? It’s still the usual suspects winning it year in year out

When you scroll through the list of League Title winners, it’s embarrassing too say the leagues competitive

Same as the FA Cup, in the last 30 years there’s been just 4 clubs that weren’t the usual suspects too win it

Same as the League cup although an ever so slight improvement where by in the last 30 years there’s have been seven clubs too win it outside the usual suspects

so much for being in it too win it, football these days for the majority of clubs in the EPL is basically all about being in it too collect the huge broadcast Money too purely barely survive.

 

[Stepney73]

that’s fair enough with Blackburn pal, good point, but it still doesn’t change the fact we don’t have a competitive league does it? It’s still the usual suspects winning it year in year out

When you scroll through the list of League Title winners, it’s embarrassing too say the leagues competitive

Same as the FA Cup, in the last 30 years there’s been just 4 clubs that weren’t the usual suspects too win it

Same as the League cup although an ever so slight improvement where by in the last 30 years there’s have been seven clubs too win it outside the usual suspects

so much for being in it too win it, football these days for the majority of clubs in the EPL is basically all about being in it too collect the huge broadcast Money too purely barely survive.

Absolutely.

The FFP and PSR has to be rigorously enforced because a proper competitive league is a better league.

The reason why the likes of forest and villa are ahead of us in the league is because they deserve to be.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

So all this money we keep hearing they have to spend is in a large part made from profit by past player sales, players if found guilty they should never have been allowed to buy, and so never made the money on.

They either need to find them not guilty, or throw the book at them, this isn't going to go away by just fining them and knocking 20 points off for one season.

 

[hellhunter]

So all this money we keep hearing they have to spend is in a large part made from profit by past player sales, players if found guilty they should never have been allowed to buy, and so never made the money on.

They either need to find them not guilty, or throw the book at them, this isn't going to go away by just fining them and knocking 20 points off for one season.

I'm not even sure the numerous knock on effects of their cheating can be determined and punished accordingly

 

[SER19]

So all this money we keep hearing they have to spend is in a large part made from profit by past player sales, players if found guilty they should never have been allowed to buy, and so never made the money on.

They either need to find them not guilty, or throw the book at them, this isn't going to go away by just fining them and knocking 20 points off for one season.

I'm not even sure the numerous knock on effects of their cheating can be determined and punished accordingly

City fans not getting this or wilfully ignoring it sound idiotic to the point of childish. In gangster terms, they're at the legitimate business front stage of a criminal enterprise. A scumbag making millions from property development after the initial money was stolen

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

I'm not even sure the numerous knock on effects of their cheating can be determined and punished accordingly

Well it clearly can't, you'd literally need to take them back to 2008, and then calculate the cost they've had against every club since then.

But all we all want is something significant to happen for once, which is the stripping of titles, and this thier owners been found not fit and proper to carry on given what they've been found guilty of.

If they get a Chelsea type buyer stepping in then so be it, but this state ownership model needs stopping for the sake of the game.

 

[LochGormanAbú]

I am conflicted on all this. City deserve to be punished if proven to have broken the rules, which looks very likely.

On the flip side, I think the general rules need to be relaxed. It doesn't sit right with me that clubs such as Forest, Everton, Villa etc. are being greatly hampered to step up and really challenge to break into the top tier of teams. Of course a club should not just buy a title winning side over a season or two, but under the current rules, it seems the top teams with most support and income have an elitist position compared to 'smaller' clubs. There will always be an exception, which will come and go.

United are actually a great example of how to do it right, they wheeled off a magnificent number of players from the academy in the 90s in particular. This allowed them to top up with one or two world class signings when needed. They also bought a lot of non world class players for reasonably low fees that were essential to a squad looking to challenge on multiple fronts. But should United always have a huge financial advantage over rivals because of their support base. It's all genuine income and flexing that in recent times, but how are other clubs suppose to get to that level now, or in reality, just to a level to consistently challenge. Whether we like it or not, Chelsea and City have added great competition to the PL and other competitions. Other clubs are now severely hampered to try and do the same. The door has been shut, draw bridge pulled up behind the top 5 or 6 teams in the PL.

As I said, rules are rules and if broken, there needs to be punishments. But again, and just in my opinion, I think there should be a bit more leeway on the FFP front, let fans of clubs dream that they may have an owner, some resources that means they can attract some top players, not have to sell their stars, that their club can become a force, challenge for titles, play champions league etc.

 

[Withnail]

I am conflicted on all this. City deserve to be punished if proven to have broken the rules, which looks very likely.

On the flip side, I think the general rules need to be relaxed. It doesn't sit right with me that clubs such as Forest, Everton, Villa etc. are being greatly hampered to step up and really challenge to break into the top tier of teams. Of course a club should not just buy a title winning side over a season or two, but under the current rules, it seems the top teams with most support and income have an elitist position compared to 'smaller' clubs. There will always be an exception, which will come and go.

United are actually a great example of how to do it right, they wheeled off a magnificent number of players from the academy in the 90s in particular. This allowed them to top up with one or two world class signings when needed. They also bought a lot of non world class players for reasonably low fees that were essential to a squad looking to challenge on multiple fronts. But should United always have a huge financial advantage over rivals because of their support base. It's all genuine income and flexing that in recent times, but how are other clubs suppose to get to that level now, or in reality, just to a level to consistently challenge. Whether we like it or not, Chelsea and City have added great competition to the PL and other competitions. Other clubs are now severely hampered to try and do the same. The door has been shut, draw bridge pulled up behind the top 5 or 6 teams in the PL.

As I said, rules are rules and if broken, there needs to be punishments. But again, and just in my opinion, I think there should be a bit more leeway on the FFP front, let fans of clubs dream that they may have an owner, some resources that means they can attract some top players, not have to sell their stars, that their club can become a force, challenge for titles, play champions league etc.

Relaxing the rules would relax the rules for all clubs though. So the clubs with the most money and bigger fan bases would still be able to spend more money than the others.

The only thing that would level the playing field would be if the same budget or wage cap was applied to all clubs. However, that would only really work in a closed system, such as the NFL, which the PL is not. You'd never attract the best players to the PL if leagues in other countries could offer them more.

Personally, I don't have an issue with it. If a historically bigger club has a bigger fan base and thus more money than so be it. Pumping in money artificially isn't really sustainable anyway. Bigger clubs are always going to have more resources than smaller ones and I can't see any workable solution which would ensure that any club could win the league.

 

[LochGormanAbú]

Relaxing the rules would relax the rules for all clubs though. So the clubs with the most money and bigger fan bases would still be able to spend more money than the others.

The only thing that would level the playing field would be if the same budget or wage cap was applied to all clubs. However, that would only really work in a closed system, such as the NFL, which the PL is not. You'd never attract the best players to the PL if leagues in other countries could offer them more.

Personally, I don't have an issue with it. If a historically bigger club has a bigger fan base and thus more money than so be it. Pumping in money artificially isn't really sustainable anyway. Bigger clubs are always going to have more resources than smaller ones and I can't see any workable solution which would ensure that any club could win the league.

I agree with most of that yep, all I'm suggesting in my long piece of waffle is that the rules could be potentially relaxed to an extent, not saying they should be done away it.

It will be interesting to see how United get on now with a rebuild very much needed now, talk of the likes of Mainoo being available as would provide 100% profit, this also seems a bizarre scenario. So yes, FFP definitely should be a thing, but I think there is a lot of scope to examine how it is best implemented.

 

[NLunited]

that’s fair enough with Blackburn pal, good point, but it still doesn’t change the fact we don’t have a competitive league does it? It’s still the usual suspects winning it year in year out

When you scroll through the list of League Title winners, it’s embarrassing too say the leagues competitive

Same as the FA Cup, in the last 30 years there’s been just 4 clubs that weren’t the usual suspects too win it

Same as the League cup although an ever so slight improvement where by in the last 30 years there’s have been seven clubs too win it outside the usual suspects

so much for being in it too win it, football these days for the majority of clubs in the EPL is basically all about being in it too collect the huge broadcast Money too purely barely survive.

Since the broadcast money the overall level of the PL has increased greatly. There are players at smaller clubs that top sides in other leagues can only dream of getting.

A third to a half of the teams in the PL are capable of challenging. You could count in Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, MU, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cheaty, Aston Villa, Brighton and the occasional overperformer which is currently Forrest.

A wage cap American style would be tricky to implement: we have historic big and small clubs instead of franchises that move around

Spreading the income around to include smaller clubs has been a smart move.

 

[MrMarcello]

I'd think most clubs in the top divisions across Europe would jump for a universal wage cap structure. A number of English clubs along with Barca, Real, Bayern, PSG, Juve, Milan, and a few others would not be in favor of (most likely). Although the Glazers would as its more money in their pockets, it's the primary reason it came to be in the NFL for owners interest (note: Glazers were not part of the NFL when the cap was established). I imagine most would support a transfer cap to help control fees.

As for a wage cap structure, there are two options that I can think of - hard cap ala NFL and NHL in the US, and a tax system ala MLB and NBA (albeit with differing rules) in the US. Also note, MLS has a cap with loopholes like the NBA but not the exact same. I'm against hard caps but a soft cap may be an interesting target. Perhaps offering loopholes for homegrown talent that remain beyond a certain amount of years or age in the senior squad. The NBA offers this via Larry Bird rights and the MLS also has homegrown clauses.

That said, a club like City with its inflated and related sponsorships could be better off with a wage cap, especially if they're doing any underhanded crap. They could attract numerous talents on an even playing field and with those garbage annual reports would be well within the rules.

 

[Sandikan]

Seems to me that city arnt as ambitious as they used to be with transfers. When was the last time they made a blockbuster signing? Gvardiol? Dias?

They're a disgrace but they're not dopey enough to start booting a tonne of 100m signings with all this going on!

 

[MaMa given red]

I am conflicted on all this. City deserve to be punished if proven to have broken the rules, which looks very likely.

On the flip side, I think the general rules need to be relaxed. It doesn't sit right with me that clubs such as Forest, Everton, Villa etc. are being greatly hampered to step up and really challenge to break into the top tier of teams. Of course a club should not just buy a title winning side over a season or two, but under the current rules, it seems the top teams with most support and income have an elitist position compared to 'smaller' clubs. There will always be an exception, which will come and go.

United are actually a great example of how to do it right, they wheeled off a magnificent number of players from the academy in the 90s in particular. This allowed them to top up with one or two world class signings when needed. They also bought a lot of non world class players for reasonably low fees that were essential to a squad looking to challenge on multiple fronts. But should United always have a huge financial advantage over rivals because of their support base. It's all genuine income and flexing that in recent times, but how are other clubs suppose to get to that level now, or in reality, just to a level to consistently challenge. Whether we like it or not, Chelsea and City have added great competition to the PL and other competitions. Other clubs are now severely hampered to try and do the same. The door has been shut, draw bridge pulled up behind the top 5 or 6 teams in the PL.

As I said, rules are rules and if broken, there needs to be punishments. But again, and just in my opinion, I think there should be a bit more leeway on the FFP front, let fans of clubs dream that they may have an owner, some resources that means they can attract some top players, not have to sell their stars, that their club can become a force, challenge for titles, play champions league etc.

Villa qualified for the Champions League last season, Forest are currently in third, how are these clubs being hampered by FFP?

Teams like Brighton, Bournemouth and Brentford have established themselves in the Premier League by having a sensible sustainable business model, would it sit right with you if these teams were blown out of the water by teams that just have richer owners than they do?

The whole idea that smaller clubs are being hampered is a bit of a nonsense. Have a look at football leagues in any country and you'll see a pattern. Do you think that FFP is stopping Osasuna finishing above Barcelona or Real Madrid? Or is FFP stopping Kilmarnock dominating the Scottish Premiership?

If any team wants to consistently break in to the top tier of teams, firstly they have to have a reasonably big fanbase. Secondly they need to have the right players and manager in place.

You say that the drawbridge has been pulled up behind the top five or six teams in the Premier league, yet Spurs and United are in 12th and 13th!

 

[NotThatSoph]

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 actual last resort is suing in a real court, then the case will probably go to CAS if they're successful. If they get that far and lose again, CAS decisions can be appealed to the Swiss supreme court, and even the ECHR in some cases.

 

[romufc]

Seems to me that city arnt as ambitious as they used to be with transfers. When was the last time they made a blockbuster signing? Gvardiol? Dias?

Erm... they have always made big signings when required. Grealish, Gvardiol, Haaland have all been big players to sign.

 

[PlasticRed]

Erm... they have always made big signings when required. Grealish, Gvardiol, Haaland have all been big players to sign.

Grealish was big money. Wasnt a big singing IMO

 

[romufc]

Grealish was big money. Wasnt a big singing IMO

Only one of the hottest properties in English football... ofcourse he was a big signing.

 

[djembatheking]

That was 9 years ago now

The first one off since Blackburn

That’s competitive?

Blackburn, Leicester and Liverpool, thats 3 one offs so far.

 

[Fenômeno]

Pep is a great manager but has been involved in some dodgy shite in his career, PED's as a player and at Barcelona including dodgy refs and now all these FFP shenanigans.

 

[LochGormanAbú]

Villa qualified for the Champions League last season, Forest are currently in third, how are these clubs being hampered by FFP?

Teams like Brighton, Bournemouth and Brentford have established themselves in the Premier League by having a sensible sustainable business model, would it sit right with you if these teams were blown out of the water by teams that just have richer owners than they do?

The whole idea that smaller clubs are being hampered is a bit of a nonsense. Have a look at football leagues in any country and you'll see a pattern. Do you think that FFP is stopping Osasuna finishing above Barcelona or Real Madrid? Or is FFP stopping Kilmarnock dominating the Scottish Premiership?

If any team wants to consistently break in to the top tier of teams, firstly they have to have a reasonably big fanbase. Secondly they need to have the right players and manager in place.

You say that the drawbridge has been pulled up behind the top five or six teams in the Premier league, yet Spurs and United are in 12th and 13th!

Fair points but I did say there are always exceptions in the short term.

 

[tenpoless]

Strip titles. Transfer ban for 3 years. Relegated. Only allowed to sell not buy. Forced to use academy players.

 

[Xeno]

I am conflicted on all this. City deserve to be punished if proven to have broken the rules, which looks very likely.

On the flip side, I think the general rules need to be relaxed. It doesn't sit right with me that clubs such as Forest, Everton, Villa etc. are being greatly hampered to step up and really challenge to break into the top tier of teams. Of course a club should not just buy a title winning side over a season or two, but under the current rules, it seems the top teams with most support and income have an elitist position compared to 'smaller' clubs. There will always be an exception, which will come and go.

As I said, rules are rules and if broken, there needs to be punishments. But again, and just in my opinion, I think there should be a bit more leeway on the FFP front, let fans of clubs dream that they may have an owner, some resources that means they can attract some top players, not have to sell their stars, that their club can become a force, challenge for titles, play champions league etc.

City agreed and signed up to the FFP rules as they were. Then they deliberately broke the rules. Cut and dry. Everything else is just noise.

Maybe the rules need changing.
Maybe there should be 'leeway'.
Maybe the rules were set up to favour the 'cartel'.
Maybe the rules are racist.

The time to disagree was before you signed up to them. They didn't. They agreed to them. They lied. They can get in the bin.

 

[Top_Bins]

The results of fairly sharing the TV money are starting to make the league a lot more competitive. Now more than ever can the top side be beaten by even the bottom on any given matchday.
The smaller clubs don't need to sell anymore and we can see that clubs like Brighton, through great scouting and a system that relies on no big names, can propel a club to a higher echelon.

To say that no smaller club has a chance is to ignore the steady, but slow, progress of a more balanced league.

 

[tenpoless]

They did it too late. The skeptic in me said they wanted to implement the rules a long time ago and they knew City was going to cheat. But the potential money it will bring to PL and the country economy (including having a powerhouse football club in Europe) means that they'd rather close their eyes. Now that they've had most of the advantages, they try to implement the rules to make it seem like it's a fair competition. So they made sure they gain from it first. Therefore if a big money in involved, you can be sure the punishment won't be so severe. It's all about money.. always has been. Bribery might even be possible. That's why I hope all the clubs would actually join force but that's not the case.

 

[LochGormanAbú]

City agreed and signed up to the FFP rules as they were. Then they deliberately broke the rules. Cut and dry. Everything else is just noise.

Maybe the rules need changing.
Maybe there should be 'leeway'.
Maybe the rules were set up to favour the 'cartel'.
Maybe the rules are racist.

The time to disagree was before you signed up to them. They didn't. They agreed to them. They lied. They can get in the bin.

I do agree with all that bar the 'rules are racist' bit

 

[Xeno]

I do agree with all that bar the 'rules are racist' bit

I don’t think they are, it’s something others have argued. Point being if you really believe that to be true, you make representations before agreeing to them, not when you get caught.

 

[LochGormanAbú]

I don’t think they are, it’s something others have argued. Point being if you really believe that to be true, you make representations before agreeing to them, not when you get caught.

I agree with that too and that teams should be punished for breaking the rules as they are, City into the bin as you say

 

[Withnail]

The actual last resort is suing in a real court, then the case will probably go to CAS if they're successful. If they get that far and lose again, CAS decisions can be appealed to the Swiss supreme court, and even the ECHR in some cases.

There's a facility for arbitration but not to go to a real court. All of the articles I've read have explicitly stated it can't go to CAS or a real court. I'm assuming they're correct in this.