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

bosskeano said:
City have been sitting on these "allegations" for how long and feck all has been done?

again though....this was more about how they have a consortium of clubs taht can buy different players and then move them which if i'm correct currently is NOT against any sort of transfer rule
Click to expand...

Yeah we're all waiting to see. They've set a precedent with the Everton ruling too. That one was done quickly because Everton co-operated. City are obstructing the investigation which is why it's taking longer.

And yes it's not against a transfer rule, but it should be.
 
Solius said:
Yeah we're all waiting to see. They've set a precedent with the Everton ruling too. That one was done quickly because Everton co-operated. City are obstructing the investigation which is why it's taking longer.

And yes it's not against a transfer rule, but it should be.
Click to expand...

I agree it should be as it's an easy way around FFP however it's currently not....similar to Chelsea giving players 8 year contract to usurp FFP

just saying if UEFA doesn't alter rules for those types of transfers, Sir Jim and his group should be using the same loop holes to navigate our transfers.

City just has blatantly used a country to bankroll their spending without really giving two fecks and not worrying about it. This type of transfer loop hole really isn't their big issue, it's their volume of spending and not having the revenue to counter balance it.
 
bosskeano said:
I agree it should be as it's an easy way around FFP however it's currently not....similar to Chelsea giving players 8 year contract to usurp FFP

just saying if UEFA doesn't alter rules for those types of transfers, Sir Jim and his group should be using the same loop holes to navigate our transfers.

City just has blatantly used a country to bankroll their spending without really giving two fecks and not worrying about it. This type of transfer loop hole really isn't their big issue, it's their volume of spending and not having the revenue to counter balance it.
Click to expand...

Might be how some think but personally I wouldn't want us to do that. I want to be proud of my club and to be able to hopefully say in a couple years when City and Chelsea have been clamped down on that we didn't resort to that.
 
Solius said:
Might be how some think but personally I wouldn't want us to do that. I want to be proud of my club and to be able to hopefully say in a couple years when City and Chelsea have been clamped down on that we didn't resort to that.
Click to expand...

hell i think we all want to be proud of the history of our club despite the bs that has allowed the likes of City, PSG etc to make themselves relevant bc UEFA doesn't have the balls to stop tehm yet they'll pick on fecking Everton and Forrest
 
cyberman said:
Apprently it’s just down to City having an abnormal amount of prime time kick offs compared to others
Click to expand...

Also the inclusion of viewing figures from matches like the Champions League final which would have generated large numbers of viewers regardless of who was playing.
 
Another episode from Etihad



  • The Premier League is facing a fresh battle over changes to rules governing commercial deals between related parties after it was warned by a club that the proposals were unlawful.
  • Sky News has learnt that the 20 top-flight clubs, which include Arsenal, Brentford, Chelsea and Manchester United, were notified on Thursday that one of them had informed the Premier League that it could resort to arbitration proceedings to prevent the changes being adopted.
  • The so-called associated-party transaction (APT) rules are intended to ensure a level playing field among English football's elite teams by preventing clubs from signing commercial deals at inflated prices, thereby enabling them to spend even greater sums on players.
  • There was speculation on Friday that Manchester City, which is already facing 115 charges of breaching Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, was the club which had objected to the reforms.
  • It is understood to have told the Premier League that the changes were unlawful in English competition law, paving the way for yet another legal battle involving the game at a time when it is under intense political pressure with an independent regulator looming.
  • Manchester City, which is owned by Abu Dhabi sovereign investors, has previously expressed its opposition to tighter APT rules.
  • Its stadium is named after Etihad, the Gulf state's flagship airline, and it is said to have been among those voting against restrictions on loan signings between clubs with common ownership during a ballot on the issue in November.
  • The current Premier League champions are part of City Football Group, a sprawling international network of clubs in cities including Melbourne, Mumbai, New York and Yokohama.
  • It is contesting the 115 FFP charges, with Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, telling MPs last month that a date had been set for a hearing on the allegations.
  • The charges were brought a year ago, since when Everton have also been charged and had a 10-point deduction imposed which leaves the Goodison Park perilously placed in the relegation zone.
  • Everton has also been charged with a second batch of breaches, along with Nottingham Forest.
  • The issue of related-party deals has become increasingly important to many clubs because they believe the competitive balance of the Premier League is being distorted by state ownership at rivals including Manchester City and Newcastle United.
  • Newcastle is majority-owned by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund and has its shirts sponsored by Sela, a Saudi sports rights enterprise.
  • Questions have also been raised about the value of Chelsea's one-year shirt sponsorship deal with Infinite Athlete given that the club failed to qualify for Europe this season.
  • The latest threat to seek arbitration proceedings underlines the increasingly fractured relationship between the Premier League and a number of its clubs, and between the clubs themselves.
  • The top flight is already under pressure to finalise an elusive financial redistribution deal with the English Football League after many months of talks.
 
So Manchester City are essentially now the governing body of the Premier League.
 
Who would have thought allowing states to own clubs might pose a risk to the fair and balanced governing of that league.
 
Why would they decide to start playing fair now when they have been allowed to make the playing field uneven for so long?
 
This is getting laughable now. Theyve absolutely destroyed the credibility of English football
 
SER19 said:
This is getting laughable now. Theyve absolutely destroyed the credibility of English football
Click to expand...
I think that was already gone when a certain Russian oligarch purchased Chelsea. City are just the logical continuation.
 
Everything they have achieved is completely meaningless. The fact they are now hellbent on thwarting efforts to make football a fairer playing field is the cherry on top. Anti competition, anti football. Impossible to put into words how grotesque they are.
 
Relegate them to the counties league, have the Etihad knocked down and used for spare parts to build new Trafford.

Give Pep a big slap right upon his shiny dome
 
redcucumber said:
Everything they have achieved is completely meaningless. The fact they are now hellbent on thwarting efforts to make football a fairer playing field is the cherry on top. Anti competition, anti football. Impossible to put into words how grotesque they are.
Click to expand...
And their fans just go with it and argue on their behalf. A club without any honour and self respect whatsoever. A hollow and criminal construct for hollow people.
 
redcucumber said:
Everything they have achieved is completely meaningless. The fact they are now hellbent on thwarting efforts to make football a fairer playing field is the cherry on top. Anti competition, anti football. Impossible to put into words how grotesque they are.
Click to expand...
But as long as long as the media doesn't do their job and plaster their wrongdoings left, right and centre it won't really be meaningless for them. Their efforts at sportswashing in the US are bearing fruit.
 
RoyH1 said:
But as long as long as the media doesn't do their job and plaster their wrongdoings left, right and centre it won't really be meaningless for them. Their efforts at sportswashing in the US are bearing fruit.
Click to expand...
Yes, the media have been crap, but you’d have to assume that A: they don’t want to lose out on their free meals at the Etihad, and B: they’re scared of the army of lawyers.
 
The Irish Connection said:
Yes, the media have been crap, but you’d have to assume that A: they don’t want to lose out on their free meals at the Etihad, and B: they’re scared of the army of lawyers.
Click to expand...
While we’re at it. Have there ever been meaningful stories about City‘s cheating coming from English papers? To me it feels like most of it comes from other countries.
 
HTG said:
While we’re at it. Have there ever been meaningful stories about City‘s cheating coming from English papers? To me it feels like most of it comes from other countries.
Click to expand...
Yeah, very strange. Again, I’d say city have been threatening legal action behind the scenes.
The Glazers have done it with our protests.
 
Isn’t there a law saying if clubs go to outside courts they get expelled?
 
It can't be hard for the PL clubs to have 16-4 majority to ratify this if 115 are the only club contesting it? And it'll also be interesting to see what happens when the hearing gets underway for 115 charges, particularly if their lawyers manage to get out with a paltry fine. The PL is a members club so surely the other clubs can vote to throw them out!
 
HTG said:
While we’re at it. Have there ever been meaningful stories about City‘s cheating coming from English papers? To me it feels like most of it comes from other countries.
Click to expand...
What's almost as depressing as the husk that is City is how the U.K. has just allowed it to happen with absolutely feck all meaningful pushback. The media, the governing bodies etc. It makes a complete mockery of the sport, the fans, fair competition. Representative of what the country has become. Ineffectual and corrupt.
 
Turns out what was incredulous was the notion they’d misbehave just to compete and then fall in line.. in fact, since then: they’ve refused to cooperate beyond 2019; obfuscated at every turn and have made it clear that they will use their legal team to protract for as long as it takes; started to farm from “parent” clubs… and now, they’ve the brass neck to dictate to the league what it is or is not permitted to do…

They’re not quieting down; they are actively getting worse. Even if the issue was to deal with what they have done to get where they are, perhaps an even more pressing one is putting them in their place and in line with the conduct of everyone else. They are flagrant in acting above the laws in place to govern the league they have wilfully signed up to play in and their conduct is now openly mocking that and everything it is supposed to stand for. The league has created a monster it cannot handle and is actively being kept in the pen that was intended for it. All out in open display for us all to see.
 
They've got backup too now with Newcastle and probably Chelsea. It's good that you have INEOS > Qatar too as you'd start doing this stuff also. We have also done it and tried it with Usmanov in regards to our stadium rights etc. Basically comes down to who the UK likes and doesn't like and doesn't want to piss off and don't care if they piss off. It's entrenched in politcs now.
 
I hope the PL do everyone a favour and boot this corrupt entity out of the league, and if they EFL have any sense then they’d refuse to accept them as well. Leave them in limbo.
 
Last edited:
Fortitude said:
Turns out what was incredulous was the notion they’d misbehave just to compete and then fall in line.. in fact, since then: they’ve refused to cooperate beyond 2019; obfuscated at every turn and have made it clear that they will use their legal team to protract for as long as it takes; started to farm from “parent” clubs… and now, they’ve the brass neck to dictate to the league what it is or is not permitted to do…

They’re not quieting down; they are actively getting worse. Even if the issue was to deal with what they have done to get where they are, perhaps an even more pressing one is putting them in their place and in line with the conduct of everyone else. They are flagrant in acting above the laws in place to govern the league they have wilfully signed up to play in and their conduct is now openly mocking that and everything it is supposed to stand for. The league has created a monster it cannot handle and is actively being kept in the pen that was intended for it. All out in open display for us all to see.
Click to expand...
Great summary. And there is barely any reason to believe the league is able to put an end to this abomination.
 
HTG said:
Great summary. And there is barely any reason to believe the league is able to put an end to this abomination.
Click to expand...
Evidently it’s growing before our eyes - even if you’re of the opinion they had a right to break the old club monopoly, what they’re doing now is going beyond that to establish their own order, which is quite something when you consider the unassuming acorns all this originated from.
 
Random Precision said:
It’s about Competition Law here in the UK, the PL are not exempt from those laws.
Click to expand...
Which is bollox.

They’ve been down this road before … “poor us, nasty PL are running a cartel and preventing fair competition. Boo hoo…”

Conveniently ignoring artificially inflating deals and making off books payments…. which is also anti competitive in itself.

Bunch of complete w@nkers.

(edit. 2021. PL tried to put more transparency in reviewing the details of contracts to prevent anti competitive agreements being put in place without any checks. Response from two clubs… “leave us alone, we’re voting no”. Just two clubs…..)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.