City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024

ROFLUTION said:
This is such a huge reminder of what City was and wasn't before cheating and financial doping.

The only history worth remembering is is from the mid 60's - over 50 years ago where the trio won the league in 67/68 (and their other title is all the way back to 36/37.)

Somehow they honour these guys, but there's no statues of players of the current era who are arguably better like Kompany, Aguero, KdB, Silva, etc, :lol: They're acting like they have this rich history.

The more they emphasize these guys, when winning back to back titles while cheating, the more ridiculous they look. If I ask a random City-fan out in town (outside of England) who these guys are, they'd all look lost.
Click to expand...

Oh but they do have statues of some of those, they have statues of Aguero, Silva and Kompany, so along with these, I make it 6.
Is there any club with more statues in the UK/Europe?
 
BristolRuss said:


When you order your Trinity statue from Wish.com
Click to expand...

Annihilate Now! said:
Click to expand...


All the success and they still can't sell out a FA Cup semi-final ticket allocation in a treble winning season. Can't help but copy us with the trinity statue. Can't get an atmosphere going in their Empti stadium.

Forever in our shadows, bless them. It's funny as they won't even have these intangibles to hang onto when their actual trophies get voided.
 
Lyng said:
Thats true enough, but still this has been going on for so long and now you add another year?
Click to expand...

Yeah I want it to happen as much as anyone but I’d rather they be thorough and go through the steps to punish City for their lack of co-operation on top of everything. Rather that than them rushing it and not pursuing certain charges just because City are making it difficult.
 
Apparently the decision might not come until the end of the 24/25 season which just so happens to coincide with the end of Pep's contract
 
Lyng said:
Its absurd really, especially considering how quickly Everton where dealt with.
Click to expand...
I don't think Everton's decision has got anything to do with this. It was one charge vs 115, they cooperated, it was a different set of circumstances.

It's like comparing the efficiency in dealing with a speeding infraction vs a trial murder - they just can't be dealt with in the same manner.

It's still rather insane that it is this long, though City's delaying tactics seem to be very efficient. The equivalent of a tactical foul on the halfway line.

I find it amusing that their public stance is that they want it dealt with asap though.
 
Taribo's Gap said:
Could be a situation where we are two decades from the time of the initial breaches before it is all finally resolved.
Click to expand...
City could be under new owners but then. I don’t know to what degree that would be justice.
 
Abu Dhabi will buy out the remaining Glazers out before this farce is concluded:

city win with a massive paper bag
 
Adisa said:
City could be under new owners but then. I don’t know to what degree that would be justice.
Click to expand...

Even if that happened, in the case of a judgment against City with severe penalties attached you would at least get a deterrent effect which would presumably factor into the calculus of other clubs and owners. I would argue that that has already happened to an extent. It might not feel like much in the way of justice vis-a-vis the original perpetrators, but there would still a point.
 
RedRocket08 said:
While at present, the PL really ends up with egg on their faces whether City/Chelsea get found guilty or not, what would be a solution to ensure that clubs follow FFP guidelines in future?

I liked Gary Neville’s idea of real time accounting - delays in handing out judgements in cases like this are detrimental because the accused team will continue to be in the sport until proven guilty, proactive auditing on the PL’s part puts a stop to that somewhat.

While theirs is not perfect either, maybe an F1 style cost cap which leaves no space for creative accounting? A limit to what clubs can spend on total transfers and wages that levels the playing field somewhat, so that clubs are profitable in the long run and can invest that money into their facilities/youth development/other ventures. This just makes sure that the money earned by clubs actually stays in England + increases the value of the club.

Similar to how the better teams in F1 are allowed less wind tunnel / testing time maybe a similar rule where the top teams in PL this season are only allowed to promote youth players instead of buying players from outside for the next season? Great for England NT of course, and makes the PL a preferred destination for young players. Of course you’d need regulation on how much transfer fees/salaries you’d pay for young players for this to work well.
Click to expand...

Feel like the limit should be set lower than the lowest clubs revenue too for maximum fairness, but you’d need a Europe/worldwide agreement for that otherwise other leagues would just pick off all of our players.

If you set it at ours for instance a ton of clubs wouldn’t be able to spend that much.
 
matherto said:
Feel like the limit should be set lower than the lowest clubs revenue too for maximum fairness, but you’d need a Europe/worldwide agreement for that otherwise other leagues would just pick off all of our players.

If you set it at ours for instance a ton of clubs wouldn’t be able to spend that much.
Click to expand...

It's a very, very difficult problem to solve.
 
Berbaclass said:
Click to expand...


Will make the complete annihilation of Manchester City even sweeter. Hope they pile all their trophies, their thousands of statues and Oasis memorabilia in the middle of the Etihad and burn the lot while images of Sir Alex appear on every screen, the one where he's just laughing as a yellow ticker reads "feck around and find out"
 
Berbaclass said:
Judgement day will come. Only this time John Connor can't save them
Click to expand...
I don't think anything will happen they'll just fine them and hiding the dust under the carpet
City is biggest player in PL removing them it's like kicking themselves in their nuts
I mean nonelse is as stupid as Serie A.
Neither Spain or France or UK
 
Arios said:
I don't think anything will happen they'll just fine them and hiding the dust under the carpet
City is biggest player in PL removing them it's like kicking themselves in their nuts
I mean nonelse is as stupid as Serie A.
Neither Spain or France or UK
Click to expand...
How can they now there is a clear precedent ?
 
Berbaclass said:
How can they now there is a clear precedent ?
Click to expand...
there is always a way.
They will prolly give a massive fine to be shared by clubs
and City will pay since for them money means nothing
 
Swedish Rumble update on delays that City have used to try and stall/stop case progressing. Years of expensive appeals that have all been kicked out .. clearly trying to drown the case in appeals, cost and time. Which they have an endless supply of.

I know we like to say innocent until proven guilty (though interestingly this tweet says that isn’t the case here… City have to prove innocent) but why not at least try and engage/prove claims incorrect if so sure they’re innocent? As they keep claiming.




 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
Swedish Rumble update on delays that City have used to try and stall/stop case progressing. Years of expensive appeals that have all been kicked out .. clearly trying to drown the case in appeals, cost and time. Which they have an endless supply of.

I know we like to say innocent until proven guilty (though interestingly this tweet says that isn’t the case here… City have to prove innocent) but why not at least try and engage/prove claims incorrect if so sure they’re innocent? As they keep claiming.




Click to expand...


I would be cautious with analyses such as these. Taken charitably, a lot of nuance may be lost in translation when trying to relay points for broad public consumption via twitter. Balance of probabilities is not the lowest possible standard; there are others that are lower like "mere suspicion" and "reasonable grounds to believe". Though some unique particularities may apply in this case, here is a generalized relevant excerpt from the Global Arbitration Review regarding the burden shifting to which he may be alluding:

Prima facie evidence is proof that is sufficient, if not contradicted, to establish a party’s contention. To be considered prima facie proof of a contention, the evidence must not be open to several equally plausible and opposing interpretations. In international arbitration, it is generally considered that evidence that establishes a contention to a level of prima facie certainty is sufficient to shift the burden of proof from one party to the other. This burden shifting concerns the risk of non-production of evidence; it does not displace the procedural duty on both parties throughout the arbitration to substantiate their allegations. If a party, be it claimant or respondent, fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its position, it risks not satisfying the tribunal of its case. Alternatively, the burden of proof may be shifted because of either a presumption found in the applicable law, contractual rules or standards, or the presentation of affirmative defences.

The risk of non-production may also refer to the onus of proof, which falls on the party that faces a preponderance of evidence against it, or on the party otherwise needing to convince an adjudicator at any point in the arbitration. In a practical sense, it is immaterial whether the party with that onus has the burden of proof or not. At the point when a party is called on to produce evidence, the opposite party has better evidence, and the party with the onus of proof will lose if it does not produce adequate evidence on rebuttal to the contrary. Whether the standard of proof has been satisfied thus depends on the evidence presented by both parties.

If City were to bring forth countervailing or exculpatory evidence, its more than likely going to be within the confines of the proceedings rather than in a public pissing match. The PL is still also going to need to substantiate its case and it will take a lot more than suggestive emails.
 
Taribo's Gap said:
I would be cautious with analyses such as these. Taken charitably, a lot of nuance may be lost in translation when trying to relay points for broad public consumption via twitter. Balance of probabilities is not the lowest possible standard; there are others that are lower like "mere suspicion" and "reasonable grounds to believe". Though some unique particularities may apply in this case, here is a generalized relevant excerpt from the Global Arbitration Review regarding the burden shifting to which he may be alluding:

Prima facie evidence is proof that is sufficient, if not contradicted, to establish a party’s contention. To be considered prima facie proof of a contention, the evidence must not be open to several equally plausible and opposing interpretations. In international arbitration, it is generally considered that evidence that establishes a contention to a level of prima facie certainty is sufficient to shift the burden of proof from one party to the other. This burden shifting concerns the risk of non-production of evidence; it does not displace the procedural duty on both parties throughout the arbitration to substantiate their allegations. If a party, be it claimant or respondent, fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its position, it risks not satisfying the tribunal of its case. Alternatively, the burden of proof may be shifted because of either a presumption found in the applicable law, contractual rules or standards, or the presentation of affirmative defences.

The risk of non-production may also refer to the onus of proof, which falls on the party that faces a preponderance of evidence against it, or on the party otherwise needing to convince an adjudicator at any point in the arbitration. In a practical sense, it is immaterial whether the party with that onus has the burden of proof or not. At the point when a party is called on to produce evidence, the opposite party has better evidence, and the party with the onus of proof will lose if it does not produce adequate evidence on rebuttal to the contrary. Whether the standard of proof has been satisfied thus depends on the evidence presented by both parties.

If City were to bring forth countervailing or exculpatory evidence, its more than likely going to be within the confines of the proceedings rather than in a public pissing match. The PL is still also going to need to substantiate its case and it will take a lot more than suggestive emails.
Click to expand...

Is this a parody of city's lawyers?
 
Flying high said:
Okay good. I struggle to tell who's serious sometimes :)
Click to expand...

The first post was serious, the second was not. That tweet gives the impression that the bar for the PL to win is much lower than it actually is. I'm not sure how that helps anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.