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

Maluco said:
If they aren’t adequately punished, the PL is dead, they just don’t know it yet.

How they have been allowed to get to a stage where they have a bench of Ederson, Akanji, Nunes, Bernardo, Foden, Kovacic, Doku for a must win away game is farsical.

Good squad building is easy when you break all the rules. If it’s allowed, it’s over.
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure they are comparable to Utd and Chelsea in terms of spending though. They’ve just a) done it very well, and b) have virtually no injuries at the moment. I bet you could pick a Utd team with no injuries and have a bench that vastly outweighs the cost of the bottom 15 teams.

Remember that from the perspective of most PL teams the amount that Utd can spend is an absolute pipe dream. And yet those fans don’t consider the Premiership dead.
 
NicolaSacco said:
I’m pretty sure they are comparable to Utd and Chelsea in terms of spending though. They’ve just a) done it very well, and b) have virtually no injuries at the moment. I bet you could pick a Utd team with no injuries and have a bench that vastly outweighs the cost of the bottom 15 teams.

Remember that from the perspective of most PL teams the amount that Utd can spend is an absolute pipe dream. And yet those fans don’t consider the Premiership dead.
Click to expand...

It's not simply about money spent, it's the systematic breaking of many different rules. And the continued attempts to hide this rule breaking. The strong arming of media, politicians and football authorities to delay their inevitable punishments.

We all know that they've been breaking rules since the start. Their sponsorship deals, cheap signings and relatively low wages. The fact that so few fringe players want to leave. Or star players never being poached, as has happened to every other english team, even the succesful ones. The 115 charges likely only cover a fraction of the actual offences they've commited.
 
Flying high said:
It's not simply about money spent, it's the systematic breaking of many different rules. And the continued attempts to hide this rule breaking. The strong arming of media, politicians and football authorities to delay their inevitable punishments.

We all know that they've been breaking rules since the start. Their sponsorship deals, cheap signings and relatively low wages. The fact that so few fringe players want to leave. Or star players never being poached, as has happened to every other english team, even the succesful ones. The 115 charges likely only cover a fraction of the actual offences they've commited.
Click to expand...

I’m certain that they are breaking financial rules (regardless of whether they are found guilty of it, they must have been doing it). But remember why these (relatively recent) rules have come in. They were designed to make it impossible for any club with new money to be able to compete with a club with old money. So yes they broke rules but those rules were designed to keep clubs like Utd (plus Bayern, Real etc) at the top of the tree in perpetuity. And I guess that’s the crux of it. If you were arguing that City shouldn’t be allowed to spend what they do, AND the playing field should be somehow levelled for all clubs then I’d be sympathetic to that. But it seems that you just want rid of the oil money clubs so Utd can never, ever be challenged by a club with similar resourves to them. You’re arguing for one inherently unfair system to be replaced by another one. The only difference is who gains.
I’d assume that’s why the fans of a lot of the non top 4 clubs don’t see it like you do. Why replace City and give yourself an identical problem with Utd?
 
NicolaSacco said:
I’m certain that they are breaking financial rules (regardless of whether they are found guilty of it, they must have been doing it). But remember why these (relatively recent) rules have come in. They were designed to make it impossible for any club with new money to be able to compete with a club with old money. So yes they broke rules but those rules were designed to keep clubs like Utd (plus Bayern, Real etc) at the top of the tree in perpetuity. And I guess that’s the crux of it. If you were arguing that City shouldn’t be allowed to spend what they do, AND the playing field should be somehow levelled for all clubs then I’d be sympathetic to that. But it seems that you just want rid of the oil money clubs so Utd can never, ever be challenged by a club with similar resourves to them. You’re arguing for one inherently unfair system to be replaced by another one. The only difference is who gains.
I’d assume that’s why the fans of a lot of the non top 4 clubs don’t see it like you do. Why replace City and give yourself an identical problem with Utd?
Click to expand...

How can you not see the difference between a state run institution and a top premier league club? It’s a chasm.

I am all for salary caps and more equality in the game. All of the teams are needing to be careful with FFP, expect one.

If a state and unlimited wealth owns a club, spending has to be controlled within limits. It’s far beyond the realms of having a few more sponsors.

The current rules are far from perfect, but they are the only thread holding any sense of sporting integrity and competition in place. This is a pivotal moment in football history.
 
Maluco said:
How can you not see the difference between a state run institution and a top premier league club? It’s a chasm.

I am all for salary caps and more equality in the game. All of the teams are needing to be careful with FFP, expect one.

If a state and unlimited wealth owns a club, spending has to be controlled within limits. It’s far beyond the realms of having a few more sponsors.

The current rules are far from perfect, but they are the only thread holding any sense of sporting integrity and competition in place. This is a pivotal moment in football history.
Click to expand...

Oh I can definitely see the difference. If I wasn’t so lazy I’d have added that there needs to be a way to differentiate between earned wealth, which all the big old clubs have, and parachuted-in wealth. At the moment I think we are reliant on super-rich owners simply losing a bit of enthusiasm, like Abramovic did towards the end. There’s an understandable fear that when it comes to a sovereign wealth fund they may simply not get tired of putting money in. I’m not so sure, I think the aim of Abramovic and Qatar is to (eventually) have a business that generates money like Liverpool and Utd do.

I do see what you’re saying though, *something* should be done to provide some regulation. I’m just not sure that getting rid of City and Chelsea is anything more than just reverting to the old unfair system.

It probably is a fairly pivotal moment, although it doesn’t overly help your case at this exact moment with Liverpool and Arsenal constantly swapping positions with City.

I’d be in favour of some kind of harsh tax system like China did a few years ago, with the money going into football at a lower level, but I’ve no idea whether that’s even workable, or whether a nation state would even give a sh1t.
 
NicolaSacco said:
Oh I can definitely see the difference. If I wasn’t so lazy I’d have added that there needs to be a way to differentiate between earned wealth, which all the big old clubs have, and parachuted-in wealth. At the moment I think we are reliant on super-rich owners simply losing a bit of enthusiasm, like Abramovic did towards the end. There’s an understandable fear that when it comes to a sovereign wealth fund they may simply not get tired of putting money in. I’m not so sure, I think the aim of Abramovic and Qatar is to (eventually) have a business that generates money like Liverpool and Utd do.

I do see what you’re saying though, *something* should be done to provide some regulation. I’m just not sure that getting rid of City and Chelsea is anything more than just reverting to the old unfair system.

It probably is a fairly pivotal moment, although it doesn’t overly help your case at this exact moment with Liverpool and Arsenal constantly swapping positions with City.

I’d be in favour of some kind of harsh tax system like China did a few years ago, with the money going into football at a lower level, but I’ve no idea whether that’s even workable, or whether a nation state would even give a sh1t.
Click to expand...

You're getting it now. The rules actually, currently, include a function for owners to add some money to the earned wealth, but there is a limit. Which city break(probably).

Look, I have sympathy with the idea of a level playing field. To an extent. But without some kind of earned advantage for years of success, you'd have clubs going bust every year because they can no longer afford their larger stadium and increased wages. Plus we'd never compete with clubs from other nations.

City could have grown slowly within the rules to reach the very top. They chose to cheat their way to the top which is what has broken the system. As much money as the PL has, it was unprepared to deal with a country so willing to spend vast sums to break the rules AND to make it as difficult as possible to prosecute them.
 
Flying high said:
You're getting it now. The rules actually, currently, include a function for owners to add some money to the earned wealth, but there is a limit. Which city break(probably).

Look, I have sympathy with the idea of a level playing field. To an extent. But without some kind of earned advantage for years of success, you'd have clubs going bust every year because they can no longer afford their larger stadium and increased wages. Plus we'd never compete with clubs from other nations.

City could have grown slowly within the rules to reach the very top. They chose to cheat their way to the top which is what has broken the system. As much money as the PL has, it was unprepared to deal with a country so willing to spend vast sums to break the rules AND to make it as difficult as possible to prosecute them.
Click to expand...

I think your last para is where I disagree. I don’t think there was another avenue open to City where they could somehow organically grow to the required level, and I really can’t think of any examples that prove its plausibility. And that’s where I think quite a few fans on here are being a bit disingenuous. Getting rid of the likes of City will not make the league any more competitive, it will simply revert to old money clubs dominating. Which, frankly, is why I see the clamour for City to be relegated coming largely from fans of a very select group of clubs who stand to gain the most. I’m being cynical maybe, but it’s no coincidence where the loudest calls are coming from.
 
NicolaSacco said:
I think your last para is where I disagree. I don’t think there was another avenue open to City where they could somehow organically grow to the required level, and I really can’t think of any examples that prove its plausibility. And that’s where I think quite a few fans on here are being a bit disingenuous. Getting rid of the likes of City will not make the league any more competitive, it will simply revert to old money clubs dominating. Which, frankly, is why I see the clamour for City to be relegated coming largely from fans of a very select group of clubs who stand to gain the most. I’m being cynical maybe, but it’s no coincidence where the loudest calls are coming from.
Click to expand...

Liverpool fans?

I assume you mean United fans. Maybe that's because we boiled so much piss over the years that this is a commonly held view:

NicolaSacco said:
Why replace City and give yourself an identical problem with Utd?
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that, as far as I know, we never cheated.
 
NicolaSacco said:
Oh I can definitely see the difference. If I wasn’t so lazy I’d have added that there needs to be a way to differentiate between earned wealth, which all the big old clubs have, and parachuted-in wealth. At the moment I think we are reliant on super-rich owners simply losing a bit of enthusiasm, like Abramovic did towards the end. There’s an understandable fear that when it comes to a sovereign wealth fund they may simply not get tired of putting money in. I’m not so sure, I think the aim of Abramovic and Qatar is to (eventually) have a business that generates money like Liverpool and Utd do.

I do see what you’re saying though, *something* should be done to provide some regulation. I’m just not sure that getting rid of City and Chelsea is anything more than just reverting to the old unfair system.

It probably is a fairly pivotal moment, although it doesn’t overly help your case at this exact moment with Liverpool and Arsenal constantly swapping positions with City.

I’d be in favour of some kind of harsh tax system like China did a few years ago, with the money going into football at a lower level, but I’ve no idea whether that’s even workable, or whether a nation state would even give a sh1t.
Click to expand...

This is a fair viewpoint. Something needs to be done. I am not even against foreign entities putting money into clubs or into football. Liverpool are only up there because they have the best manager in the world and Arsenal have spent a fortune trying to close the gap and bringing themselves to the brink of FFP reckoning. It’s not healthy and it’s not sustainable trying to compete.

I don’t think tax or fines work, because we are dealing with billions in some cases, it won’t resolve the disparity.

An independent regulator is the only way forward because the PL have failed to do relevant checks across the board as to where exactly money is coming from, and that can be said for most clubs and a lot of sponsorships across the league, not just Man City.

A good start would be taking power away from the PL when it comes to those types of checks and balances.
 
NicolaSacco said:
And that’s where I think quite a few fans on here are being a bit disingenuous. Getting rid of the likes of City will not make the league any more competitive, it will simply revert to old money clubs dominating. Which, frankly, is why I see the clamour for City to be relegated coming largely from fans of a very select group of clubs who stand to gain the most. I’m being cynical maybe, but it’s no coincidence where the loudest calls are coming from.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the fans of teams who are more likely to be negatively affected by City's cheating are more likely to complain about it?
It should be pretty obvious why a fan of Sheffield United might care less than a United or Liverpool fan and it has nothing to do with old money.
 
Maluco said:
If they aren’t adequately punished, the PL is dead, they just don’t know it yet.

How they have been allowed to get to a stage where they have a bench of Ederson, Akanji, Nunes, Bernardo, Foden, Kovacic, Doku for a must win away game is farsical.

Good squad building is easy when you break all the rules. If it’s allowed, it’s over.
Click to expand...
They have that bench because they have invested very good. We have invested very badly. Your example is all over the place and have nothing at all to do with breaking rules.
 
Flying high said:
It's not simply about money spent, it's the systematic breaking of many different rules. And the continued attempts to hide this rule breaking. The strong arming of media, politicians and football authorities to delay their inevitable punishments.

We all know that they've been breaking rules since the start. Their sponsorship deals, cheap signings and relatively low wages. The fact that so few fringe players want to leave. Or star players never being poached, as has happened to every other english team, even the succesful ones. The 115 charges likely only cover a fraction of the actual offences they've commited.
Click to expand...
What do you mean with we all know City have brooking the rules from the start ? For me this is another example of somebody saying something that they know not a thing about. Your arguments are totally braindead. We all hope City is quilty, but after studied the case deeply I have my doubts. And I know for sure that SJR are convinced that they are not quilty, after his conversations with Omar.
 
Grundig said:
They have that bench because they have invested very good. We have invested very badly. Your example is all over the place and have nothing at all to do with breaking rules.
Click to expand...

Ok buddy! ;)
 
Grundig said:
What do you mean with we all know City have brooking the rules from the start ? For me this is another example of somebody saying something that they know not a thing about. Your arguments are totally braindead. We all hope City is quilty, but after studied the case deeply I have my doubts. And I know for sure that SJR are convinced that they are not quilty, after his conversations with Omar.
Click to expand...

Absolutely braindead post.

Joins the caf, makes 6 posts, 5 of them about City & painting City as innocent, half of the pointing the finger instead at United. The other post taking the piss out of the level of player United can sign.
Could you be any more see-through? stop pretending to a United fan, you’re a City fan here on nothing more than wind up, and you’re absolutely terrible at it.


Grundig said:
Ratcliffe has talked to Masters, and told him this is the only way United can spend during next transfer window. United are in deep shit when it comes to PSR.
Click to expand...
Grundig said:
These rules changes are not designed to help City escape punishment. These rules changes are designed to help United invest in the next transfer window.
Click to expand...
Grundig said:
I think we have to understand one thing. It is not City who are running PL and Masters, it is United. Ratcliffe knows very well, after long discussions with Berrada that there is no chance at all that City are quilty. Therefore these changes to make it possible for United to invest in the summer transfer window. Without these changes United are up deep shit creeks when it comes to PSR.
Click to expand...
Grundig said:
They have that bench because they have invested very good. We have invested very badly. Your example is all over the place and have nothing at all to do with breaking rules.
Click to expand...
Grundig said:
What do you mean with we all know City have brooking the rules from the start ? For me this is another example of somebody saying something that they know not a thing about. Your arguments are totally braindead. We all hope City is quilty, but after studied the case deeply I have my doubts. And I know for sure that SJR are convinced that they are not quilty, after his conversations with Omar.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Maluco said:
If they aren’t adequately punished, the PL is dead, they just don’t know it yet.

How they have been allowed to get to a stage where they have a bench of Ederson, Akanji, Nunes, Bernardo, Foden, Kovacic, Doku for a must win away game is farsical.

Good squad building is easy when you break all the rules. If it’s allowed, it’s over.
Click to expand...

City play with a cheat code.
 
Grundig said:
What do you mean with we all know City have brooking the rules from the start ? For me this is another example of somebody saying something that they know not a thing about. Your arguments are totally braindead. We all hope City is quilty, but after studied the case deeply I have my doubts. And I know for sure that SJR are convinced that they are not quilty, after his conversations with Omar.
Click to expand...
Quilty is when you are too fond of staying in bed. Guilty is when you are culpable for being a cheat, like the fake, remade, sportswashing club of Manchester City and its oil-bloated owners.
 
Grundig said:
What do you mean with we all know City have brooking the rules from the start ? For me this is another example of somebody saying something that they know not a thing about. Your arguments are totally braindead. We all hope City is quilty, but after studied the case deeply I have my doubts. And I know for sure that SJR are convinced that they are not quilty, after his conversations with Omar.
Click to expand...
City are a fake oil club that no one respects. The antithesis of fair competition.
 
NicolaSacco said:
I think your last para is where I disagree. I don’t think there was another avenue open to City where they could somehow organically grow to the required level, and I really can’t think of any examples that prove its plausibility. And that’s where I think quite a few fans on here are being a bit disingenuous. Getting rid of the likes of City will not make the league any more competitive, it will simply revert to old money clubs dominating. Which, frankly, is why I see the clamour for City to be relegated coming largely from fans of a very select group of clubs who stand to gain the most. I’m being cynical maybe, but it’s no coincidence where the loudest calls are coming from.
Click to expand...
You think you ‘get it’ but you’re so shrouded in bitterness that you actually don’t get it at all.

What you’re talking about isn’t greater opportunities for all, it’s less opportunities for United (in your head) which makes you happy.

Take the league cup for example, this being the trophy that used to regularly give smaller clubs the chance of silverware. Over the last 11 seasons city have won that trophy 6 times. Which has left space for United x2 Chelsea x1 Liverpool x2 and nobody else.

The previous 11 seasons saw wins for Swansea, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham.

Since their takeover only Arsenal x4 and Chelsea x4 have won the FA cup more times than City x3 and they have won 4 of the last 5 leagues and 6 of the last 11 league titles. To my reconning that would give them 15 of the last 33 domestic trophies….for a club who hadn’t won anything for 35 years prior….whilst all kinds of clubs actually were winning trophies, the likes of Oxford, Wimbledon, Sheffield weds, Luton, Forrest, Blackburn, Leicester, Villa, Swansea, Middlesbrough and Birmingham etc.

City have merely stopped other clubs winning trophies that they didn’t win prior purely down to how badly run they were for decades, similar to our last decade. We’ve won what we’ve deserved…not much. Which is how football should be.

It’s also worth noting that United have NOT won the league for 33 of the last 46 years. We have never dominated the league, except in ultimately two periods of deserved sustained success under two great managers. Which again is how football should be.

United are exactly where we deserve to be. Don’t be blinded by your hatred. City being relegated and being made to obey rules is better for smaller clubs than it is United. We will always be successful when we sort our own club out. Get the back room staff right and get the manager right, give them time.

You’re unconcerned by one club cheating rules that all other clubs are adhering to, because it stops united. Reverse that….United are the ones breaking the rules…still unconcerned? Didn’t think so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fortitude
Flying high said:
It's not simply about money spent, it's the systematic breaking of many different rules. And the continued attempts to hide this rule breaking. The strong arming of media, politicians and football authorities to delay their inevitable punishments.

We all know that they've been breaking rules since the start. Their sponsorship deals, cheap signings and relatively low wages. The fact that so few fringe players want to leave. Or star players never being poached, as has happened to every other english team, even the succesful ones. The 115 charges likely only cover a fraction of the actual offences they've commited.
Click to expand...
How is cheap signings breaking any rules?
 
Grundig said:
What do you mean with we all know City have brooking the rules from the start ? For me this is another example of somebody saying something that they know not a thing about. Your arguments are totally braindead. We all hope City is quilty, but after studied the case deeply I have my doubts. And I know for sure that SJR are convinced that they are not quilty, after his conversations with Omar.
Click to expand...

How to say you are an undercover City fan without saying you are a City fan
 
Jeppers7 said:
You think you ‘get it’ but you’re so shrouded in bitterness that you actually don’t get it at all.

What you’re talking about isn’t greater opportunities for all, it’s less opportunities for United (in your head) which makes you happy.

Take the league cup for example, this being the trophy that used to regularly give smaller clubs the chance of silverware. Over the last 11 seasons city have won that trophy 6 times. Which has left space for United x2 Chelsea x1 Liverpool x2 and nobody else.

The previous 11 seasons saw wins for Swansea, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham.

Since their takeover only Arsenal x4 and Chelsea x4 have won the FA cup more times than City x3 and they have won 4 of the last 5 leagues and 6 of the last 11 league titles. To my reconning that would give them 15 of the last 33 domestic trophies….for a club who hadn’t won anything for 35 years prior….whilst all kinds of clubs actually were winning trophies, the likes of Oxford, Wimbledon, Sheffield weds, Luton, Forrest, Blackburn, Leicester, Villa, Swansea, Middlesbrough and Birmingham etc.

City have merely stopped other clubs winning trophies that they didn’t win prior purely down to how badly run they were for decades, similar to our last decade. We’ve won what we’ve deserved…not much. Which is how football should be.

It’s also worth noting that United have NOT won the league for 33 of the last 46 years. We have never dominated the league, except in ultimately two periods of deserved sustained success under two great managers. Which again is how football should be.

United are exactly where we deserve to be. Don’t be blinded by your hatred. City being relegated and being made to obey rules is better for smaller clubs than it is United. We will always be successful when we sort our own club out. Get the back room staff right and get the manager right, give them time.

You’re unconcerned by one club cheating rules that all other clubs are adhering to, because it stops united. Reverse that….United are the ones breaking the rules…still unconcerned? Didn’t think so.
Click to expand...

I’d forgotten how angry you were! Just put me on ignore, fella, at the very least it will be good for your blood pressure!
 
hellhunter said:
And more or less proven in the case of Mancini, no?
Click to expand...

Yes.

CoopersDream said:
Which signings have been cheap though? The reported fees are generally above the market value for the given players.
Click to expand...

How many of their signings have you thought we'd have happily paid more than that?

Somehow there are clubs out there that don't want to maximise their transfer fees when dealing with city.
 
Flying high said:
Yes.



How many of their signings have you thought we'd have happily paid more than that?

Somehow there are clubs out there that don't want to maximise their transfer fees when dealing with city.
Click to expand...
You thought that Villa didn't maximize when they got more than £100m for Grealish? When Leipzig got close to £80m for Gvardiol? Or when Wolves got £53m for Nunes?

Instead of answering a question with a question, why don't you list all these suspiciously low fees?
 
It's not (just) the fees, it's the wages as well. Just like everyone shoves down your throat what a bargain Haaland was.
 
hellhunter said:
It's not (just) the fees, it's the wages as well. Just like everyone shoves down your throat what a bargain Haaland was.
Click to expand...
Hasn't it been reported that Haaland made something in the region of £850k a week last season after all the bonuses he triggered because of the treble? Do you think he actually made twice that much but half of it was done under the table? Which of their reported wages seems weirdly low?

Another aspect of it, which I guess is overseen a lot on here, is that players actually want to play for City these days as they give them the best opportunity to win stuff. When a good player signs for us, however, they know they're probably not gonna win a lot so they might as well get as much money as they can from it. 15 years ago the situations were reversed, they payed their mediocre players as much as we payed our players that at the time were amongst the best in the world.
 
CoopersDream said:
You thought that Villa didn't maximize when they got more than £100m for Grealish? When Leipzig got close to £80m for Gvardiol? Or when Wolves got £53m for Nunes?

Instead of answering a question with a question, why don't you list all these suspiciously low fees?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a coincidence that 2 of those you list are from PL clubs. Grealish was clearly not the example of them under paying so why bring him up?
 
Flying high said:
I don't think it's a coincidence that 2 of those you list are from PL clubs. Grealish was clearly not the example of them under paying so why bring him up?
Click to expand...
Again, instead of answering a question with another question why don't you list all these players that they didn't pay enough for?
 
CoopersDream said:
Again, instead of answering a question with another question why don't you list all these players that they didn't pay enough for?
Click to expand...

Dias, Rodri, Alvarez off the top of my head.

But you bring up Grealish. I have to wonder why.
 
Flying high said:
Yes.



How many of their signings have you thought we'd have happily paid more than that?

Somehow there are clubs out there that don't want to maximise their transfer fees when dealing with city.
Click to expand...
But they didn't buy big named players, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
 
Flying high said:
Dias, Rodri, Alvarez off the top of my head.

But you bring up Grealish. I have to wonder why.
Click to expand...
Rodri? The one they triggered a buy out clause for over £60m when Atleti payed less than a third of that just a year before? Seems really suspicious, yes.

Dias? The defender they payed well over £60m for from Benfica? Why would he have been any more expensive? Do you think United payed suspicously little for Bruno as well?

Alvarez? That's good scouting. Kind of like when we bought Chicharito back in the day. Alvarez had played like one full season of senior football when they bought him. There's no reason for him to have been much more expensive.

Do you have any more examples?
 
Flying high said:
Dias, Rodri, Alvarez off the top of my head.

But you bring up Grealish. I have to wonder why.
Click to expand...
Rodri at 63m, no idea how at the time that's under priced. Alvarez was bought from a very poor south American team who he was loaned back to,

"with an initial fee reported of €68 million (£61.64 million) that could rise to €71.6 million with performance bonuses"

How was that underpriced?
 
Flying high said:
Dias, Rodri, Alvarez off the top of my head.

But you bring up Grealish. I have to wonder why.
Click to expand...

Dais was £60 mil (for a young centre back from a Portuguese club), Rodri was them paying a release clause. Neither of them can be described as "paying suspiciously cheap prices", can they?

Don't get me wrong, I am sure Man City are up to their necks in dirt but "paying suspiciously low transfer fees" doesn't really seem a reasonable claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.