Cheers.
There's a lot to go off at the deep end with regarding this topic. I don't think I'm saying anything fanciful or revelatory, personally.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
There's a lot to go off at the deep end with regarding this topic. I don't think I'm saying anything fanciful or revelatory, personally.
https://x.com/adamcrafton_/status/1726873312708710662?s=46&t=2NlO5bYN2tD5ByCKZwQHGw
And this is why they’ll get off scot free.
And this is why they’ll get off scot free.
Classy bunch
I'm not sure exactly how someone would go about it but it'd be interesting to see how things panned out of the UK Government, Premier League and Newcastle United were taken to court over this and it ended up in the Supreme Court, which has shown it is not afraid to rule against the Government.
Wouldn't be surprised if FIFA had taken some notes as well just incase they needed to refer back to it in the event they got into another spat with the FA, though there ban on government interference is around National teams, rather than a general rule, but I'm sure they'll figure out something if necessary. Corruption always finds away, even against more corruption.
It's the corruption of life.
As I said before, Bluemoon forum members should be on some sort of register. They're a danger to the public.
I’m torn between thinking nothing significant will happen to them and then that the PL have to throw the book at them as it’s brand could potentially suffer irreparable damage if the whole world get the perception that City can get away with breaking the rules numerous times, resulting in them winning title after title, without any meaningful punishment.
The media play a big role in making sure it stays on the radar of the general public and forming the narrative.
The media play a big role in making sure it stays on the radar of the general public and forming the narrative.
One of those who liked it 'Scaring Europe to Death' signed up here quite recently. Swiftly banned of course.
They'll be relegated for certain. Just a matter of how long it takes to work through.
I expect they'll be stripped of titles as well.
I wouldn't expect much more than that though as the government don't want to upset the owners too much.
Most likely they'll be like Juve after Calciopoli, probably promoted again after 1 season and that'll be it.
I expect they'll be stripped of titles as well.
I wouldn't expect much more than that though as the government don't want to upset the owners too much.
Most likely they'll be like Juve after Calciopoli, probably promoted again after 1 season and that'll be it.
Hence the pursuit of a national newspaper and the media offensive that has so many reluctant to make the waves about this that they should be.
What's the thought process behind this one?
The crazy thing is you can just as easily imagine, or think up of reasons for, both of these outcomes. I am torn as well, although Everton has given me reason to lean more towards the side of something substantial happening, but not a huge amount of lean
If they’re relegated and stripped of titles that would be massive. They’ll be offered a massive pay off in disguise of a fine and a possible points deduction in my opinion though, don’t think the PL have the balls to relegate them.
"abu dhabi investment in manchester"
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...english-city-sold-abu-dhabis-elite-manchester
There are a lot of stories on how they've come in and ingratiated themselves with the city and smoothed their path to doing whatever they want with no objection at local level. No different to what they've done with the government, just localised.
Researchers ‘unable to identify any income received by the council’ under joint venture with Abu Dhabi United Group
Public land sold to Manchester City’s owners on the cheap in ‘sweetheart deal,’ report claims
Researchers ‘unable to identify any income received by the council’ under joint venture with Abu Dhabi United Group
Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the world
Manchester City Council has has been accused of selling huge tracts of public land at discount prices to the Abu Dhabi investment fund that owns the Premier League champions.
The city’s reputation has been put at risk by the authority entering into a “bad deal for the council and its citzens” despite human rights concerns about the United Arab Emirates, according to a new report that raises questions about how the ownership of football clubs is used for political aims that are not beneficial to wider society.
The 65-page report by academics at the University of Sheffield concludes council’s sale of sites to with Manchester City’s owner, Sheikh Mansour, is “instructive” on both sportswashing and “city-washing”. The researchers said the situation should lead to scrutiny of other cities such as Newcastle, where Saudi Arabian investors have invested in Newcastle United Football Club.
One of the most common criticisms of these ownerships is such clubs are used for other purposes, not least the integration of problematic states into the infrastructure of society.
The research primarily covers the Manchester Life partnership, a joint venture that has built 1,468 private apartments in the gentrified Ancoats district. In contrast to the common counter-argument that Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) investment has regenerated east Manchester, the report was “unable to identify any income received by the council from its joint venture stakes… despite being exposed to some of the risks of the project”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ouncil-abu-dhabi-sheikh-mansour-b2128273.html
It's a veritable rabbit hole, if you're really interested. Suffice it to say, it's all absolutely rotten.
That article mentions sportswashing, which doesn't exist. 1/10, wouldn't read again.
And "city-washing" as well. We're two steps away from these guys cleaning up the residue after taking a dump with leftover currency notes laying around, people calling it "arse-washing" and the whole world being left confused as to whether they're meant to be boosting the perception of the quality of their backsides relative to instagram models or simply engaging in routine hygiene
.So much proof hanging about. Wonder if anyone has the cojones to do something about it or just accept brown envelopes and sweep it under the carpet. My guess is option 2.
I have looking through some of Nick Harris's tweets on City andag some of the replies from City fans are ridiculous, they all claim they are innocent but its clear that most of them dont understand what they have been chareged for, what the process for the independant panel is, or even how FFP works.
Not City-related but a nice and convenient way for Newcastle to save some money and 'loan' Neves instead of buying him last Summer...
It's such a weird mindset when you think about it - if United had been accused of similar with the insanely high amount of charges, I would just assume we are guilty and hope we are not. It's helpful we hate our owners I guess, given we don't trust anything they say versus City fans who seem to take everything their club says at face value.
I suspect it's more a case of "we don't want to shut off the wads of cash they're giving us for players we no longer want"
Indeed. I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure this 500k funded, three year, 68 page report is still ineffective in supporting this highly ambiguous idea of 'sportswashing'.
Give it a read and report back on how this robust report definitively and clearly defines sportswashing so that matter can be put to rest.
At least there are a few on Bluemoon now who are starting to accept that they might be guilty or some of the charges, they also seem to be jumping to Spurs defence though and a few have discussed weather some of the evidence in both cases is time barred.
Absolutely abhorrent comments by those City fans.
Also, here's the link to his article regarding his wife's passing.
LINK
Naturally its a tough read.
You're yet to respond to the last post I made (or the ones that follow made by others) about sportswashing. Pardon me if I don't run off to provide a comprehensive report presentation to someone who is yet to demonstrate an ability or the intent to engage in good faith.
I don’t understand, are you just refusing to believe sportswashing exists (and if so are you just trying to be contrarian?) or that City aren’t doing it?
The "good faith" and "whattaboutery" accusations just because people don't align with you 100% are kind of cheap. You are accusing people of not engaging in good faith on an issue that you say is "fairly obvious" and then say this in the first line of your post: "Nor is it a binary checkbox, but rather one part of a multi-dimensional spectrum that all countries exist on (this 'spectrum' itself is up for larger discussion)." So is it fairly obvious? Or kind of involved and complicated?
You then home in on the actions of nation states as would-be sports washers and then cite the Premier League, a private association of member clubs, as an erstwhile example of the UK engaging sportswashing. All seems fairly obvious...
You probably shouldn't lead with accusations and self righteousness if you actually want serious engagement. If you want to pontificate, carry on.
At this point I’d take that. Stripping titles is the bare minimum that should happen, which is exactly why their punishment will be a €10m fine.
I just think it's conceptually hazy. As it is used, it can still be useful for human rights organizations and media to apply pressure on countries like UAE, Qatar etc. to change their practices.
So what?
So considering the bold, you actually do believe it exists?
As for the rest, do you genuinely believe that to be the case? Or do you believe that the other way around, the reason why the notion of sportswashing was brought up in the first place, is more likely?
You mischaracterizing what good faith is about is on-par and very much the problem. Nowhere do I mention or expect 100% alignment. But I do have issues with posters making some contrarian throw-away posts tangential to the discussion and without basic due diligence in engaging with the response or following up. Your intent is not to learn or debate - but to make dubious comments and disengage without backing them up.
Point in case. What is fairly obvious is the opinion that Manchester City have gained unfair and illegal advantage on the pitch thanks to the Abu Dhabi Group flexing their financial muscle and manipulating socio-economic conditions - there is enough evidence to that. The multi-dimensional spectrum is about the image that a country projects of itself - which is a larger discussion on its own. They are two separate points, and I find it hard to believe that you can confuse the both if you truly read the post.
Another point in case. Perhaps you genuinely do not know which country taxes the billions made in the PL, or the effect of football on the UK's economy, or the soft power that UK wields across the world by being the home of such a globally loved event, or how this soft power leads to socio-economic and strategic gains. Or - the more likely opinion - you know it, intentionally feign ignorance, and cherry-pick a point tangential to the point of that post where you think you can score a point to deflect away from the rest of the content.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Don't start posts with 'Give it a read and report back' if you want serious engagement.
It's one of the most simple concepts I can think of, whether you think it really works or how you can measure it surely is your argument?
Because more conceptual clarity would help to clarify what elements of the practice are actually objectionable and should be rooted out of the game?
You led with "good faith" the first time I have ever engaged with you. It's cheap. I've made posts critical of City and questioning their commercial revenue, soullessness etc. 100% was hyperbole. Surely you can't seriously think that I believe anyone on here actually agrees on anything 100%?
The interjection wasn't tangential at all. You proffered a definition of the term that didn't even match with the way you use it or with the way that it is used by many. Asking questions with counterexamples is a heuristic method to flesh out what is actually meant by the term in order to foreground the discussion on common understanding. You would call that whattaboutery. If the term should only be narrowly circumscribed to apply to nascent states, say that instead of offering up a "definition" that doesn't even properly match that. That will raise a whole different set of issues. I think the conceptual haziness leads to people talking past each other because the concept is capacious enough as to have many features the desirability of which people may not all agree upon. Perhaps you see no problem with it and every thing is crystal clear in your eyes.
Re: UK and the PL that's all well and good, but it's also just proving my point about the complexity of the topic. I dare not invoke other examples that mirror exactly the scenario you lay out with an interplay of private and state actors in other countries lest I be accused of more "whattaboutery".
This can actually be quite interesting and raises many interesting questions about historical retributive justice between nation states, statecraft and diplomacy, late stage capitalism and wealth concentration, oligopolistic competition, the tradeoffs between different methods of trying to reduce the pernicious influence of money in the game etc. etc. etc.
If you're more concerned with preaching, just take the pulpit.
In case you feel I have disrespected your effort here. It seems that the idea that every piece of information to do with City (no matter how minute) being tainted and unreliable no matter the source or intermediary is tantamount to an article of faith for you. No evidence or data brought to bear would matter that much to you apart from that which you witness and ascertain with your own faculties, because they are corrupt through and through and engaging in a overwhelming PR offensive. Is that a pretty close characterization?
If so, I understand why you feel that way, but I probably give more credence to some of the information than you might. In this scenario, I see no point going back and forth. I do otherwise appreciate your posts.
I wonder how long this thread will be before the disappointing conclusion? It feels like it'll be similar one of those never-ending transfer threads where in the end there's not really anywhere near as much to it as everyone thought and the player just stays where he was.
City aren't getting punished in any meaningful way. They're far too powerful and far too popular with the media. It would cost the PL and the government far too much, and the PL won't want the hassle in the end.
City aren't getting punished in any meaningful way. They're far too powerful and far too popular with the media. It would cost the PL and the government far too much, and the PL won't want the hassle in the end.
Are the cheap deals they have got on numerous bits of land around East Manchester connected to the fact 2 former Manchester City Council leaders are on their books as honorary club presidents?
I've no problem with that as everyone is going to have a particular lane and opinion when it comes to City. They are the most scandalous operation to have hit these shores and we're well into uncharted waters with a lot more twists and turns yet to come, I'm sure.
I didn't feel disrespected, but felt I'd make my position regarding them perfectly clear. They've buried so deep into the infrastructure of this country that it would be ludicrous to buy into anything they have to say, for my money.
In fairness Juve could barely ever fill the Delli Alpi with 67,000. Even at their peak in the 90s with their European cup finals and during the 00s with all their league wins the average attendance was always about 20k less than the capacity. They cited distance, design etc etc.. but ultimately it was the low attendance figures that made them demolished it and rebuilt a newer smaller stadium.
| Season | Juventus average | Torino average |
|---|---|---|
| 1990–91 | 43,114 | 33,990 |
| 1991–92 | 51,832 | 35,364 |
| 1992–93 | 45,868 | 26,814 |
| 1993–94 | 44,520 | 26,130 |
| 1994–95 | 47,866 | 22,205 |
| 1995–96 | 41,946 | 20,284 |
| 1996–97 | 39,271 | 13,451 |
| 1997–98 | 47,347 | 19,505 |
| 1998–99 | 47,164 | 19,627 |
| 1999–2000 | 42,229 | 21,857 |
| 2000–01 | 41,273 | 17,077 |
| 2001–02 | 40,687 | 19,002 |
| 2002–03 | 39,771 | 14,870 |
| 2003–04 | 34,365 | 9,831 |
| 2004–05 | 26,429 | 10,003 |
| 2005–06 | 25,987 | 24,995 |