Fascinating reading. Makes you sick to your stomach too. Game is destroyed if they get away with it.
What's the gist of it? (+1 hour read) What sentence are they facing if found guilty, and what's the most likely outcome?
Fascinating reading. Makes you sick to your stomach too. Game is destroyed if they get away with it.
Basically, evidence in black and white of their highest ranking employees plus Abu Dhabi government officials directing hundreds of millions to be disguised as ‘sponsorship’ income.What's the gist of it? (+1 hour read) What sentence are they facing if found guilty, and what's the most likely outcome?
Hear hearI've read the mentioned 1h+ thread and it's interesting. Blatant cheating.
This explanation needs to be picked up by mainstream media now it's easier to understand and put out there for others to read.
Having read some of those e-mails I've no idea how anyone can determine they're not guilty.
They're literally discussing the fact of how much money they need from the owners for the year, that they need to come via sponsors because the auditors were asking about the money last year, discussions about invoices from the directors, owners to the sponsors and telling the sponsors to send the money to MCFC and that for example 8m is their sponsorship and the rest of the money is sent from the owners to the sponsor. The fact they're all clearly in on this from day one.
Directors making it clear that this cannot be mentioned outside of the club, and saying to the owners reps they have to declare it as sponsorship rather than equity due to FFP.
And e-mails clearly confirming that funds have been sent and have been received etc.
It's literally written confessions and evidence of purposely cheating over many years. How the hell is this not just an open and shut case (Well.. because UEFA were confident and messed up and it CAS intervened).
The e-mails even confirm they're clearly state owned even though MCFC are adament they are not. Surely that's grounds to ban them. The fact they're flat out not complying, another reason to ban them.
If this was to properly be explained via a Dispatches documentary or something I've no idea how anyone should argue that they're effectively banned from the competition permanently (until proper due-diligence is done - ie. owners sell, or independent people can verify all monies received) and stripped of all titles.
God knowns what else has happened with regards to back hand payments and whether that just stretches to the playing staff or to anything else.
It literally just makes a mockery of the Premiership and English football and the whole last decade has essentially just been a waste of time.
How the hell are people not literally talking about this 24/7 and properly bringing it up and wanting something to actually be done about it?
I'll make this simple for you: They weren't spending "their own money". They were spending the money a royal family have extracted from a nation state.Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.
Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.
Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.
Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.
Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?
If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
b) if the league is bothered then they know they have the best lawyers to drag this for years which is whats happening
I've read the mentioned 1h+ thread and it's interesting. Blatant cheating.
This explanation needs to be picked up by mainstream media now it's easier to understand and put out there for others to read.
Having read some of those e-mails I've no idea how anyone can determine they're not guilty.
They're literally discussing the fact of how much money they need from the owners for the year, that they need to come via sponsors because the auditors were asking about the money last year, discussions about invoices from the directors, owners to the sponsors and telling the sponsors to send the money to MCFC and that for example 8m is their sponsorship and the rest of the money is sent from the owners to the sponsor. The fact they're all clearly in on this from day one.
Directors making it clear that this cannot be mentioned outside of the club, and saying to the owners reps they have to declare it as sponsorship rather than equity due to FFP.
And e-mails clearly confirming that funds have been sent and have been received etc.
It's literally written confessions and evidence of purposely cheating over many years. How the hell is this not just an open and shut case (Well.. because UEFA were confident and messed up and it CAS intervened).
The e-mails even confirm they're clearly state owned even though MCFC are adament they are not. Surely that's grounds to ban them. The fact they're flat out not complying, another reason to ban them.
If this was to properly be explained via a Dispatches documentary or something I've no idea how anyone should argue that they're effectively banned from the competition permanently (until proper due-diligence is done - ie. owners sell, or independent people can verify all monies received) and stripped of all titles.
God knowns what else has happened with regards to back hand payments and whether that just stretches to the playing staff or to anything else.
It literally just makes a mockery of the Premiership and English football and the whole last decade has essentially just been a waste of time.
How the hell are people not literally talking about this 24/7 and properly bringing it up and wanting something to actually be done about it?
Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.
Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.
Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.
Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.
Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?
If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
I'll make this simple for you: They weren't spending "their own money". They were spending the money a royal family have extracted from a nation state.
It's already been some years and there's no judgement in sight while other teams are being docked pointsDespite apparently having the best lawyers they have alledgedly taken the Premier League to court twice already over this and lost both times.
Also they cant drag it out for years if found guilty as the rules state they get only 1 appeal and the appeals panel's verdict is final.
Basically, evidence in black and white of their highest ranking employees plus Abu Dhabi government officials directing hundreds of millions to be disguised as ‘sponsorship’ income.
They even go back and forth about certain terminology needing to be changed on invoices etc for ‘auditing purposes’ if certain information is going ‘outside of the club’.
It’s disgusting.
Also, explains how loads of good evidence was left out of the CAS case for some reason and that UEFA were basically told to show bank receipts from Abu Dhabi accounts which was impossible because City didn’t have to provide.
As for sentence, he says, like many have said relegation or worse.
He says there’s a high possibility of them being convicted but obviously can’t know for sure.
How the hell are people not literally talking about this 24/7 and properly bringing it up and wanting something to actually be done about it?
It's already been some years and there's no judgement in sight while other teams are being docked points
Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.
Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.
Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.
Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.
Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?
If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
It's already been some years and there's no judgement in sight while other teams are being docked points
Agreed. I think the court of public opinion somewhat mirrors the court of arbitration in that respect - the case is so big that it’s taking a while to work its way through.I think this is just too large for people to wrap their heads around. If proven, the only realistic punishment is expulsion from the league, which could easily prompt them stepping away from the club. That would be more than just a sporting story, it would be a global political incident, given the owners of the club.
Not only would this be a remarkable political snub to Abu Dhabi, there would also be load of other ramifications coming out of it. If the Abu Dhabi group pulled out of City entirely, what would happen to the vast portfolio of property they own across Manchester? What would happen to the other clubs they own around the world? What about its deals with Manchester City Council? Could this even impact on other forms of trade between UAE and Britain?
I think a lot of journos are just waiting to see what happens before trying unpack it all. Once a judgement lands, it'll be the biggest non-sporting story in football probably ever. And we'll see a shedload of commentary on it all then. Until then - the charges are in place, the process will happen. Its just the calm before the storm.
Not being funny but we sound and look like bitter little children who have had their toy taken from them.
Is that all we can level at Citeh? You know, the club we used to laugh at for decades!
We sound like berties, you know their miserable and bitter fans we used to love winding up in the 90s and 00s, they'd come back at us with you bought the league and you bought this. Well, that's what I encountered whenever I had the misfortune of meeting one of the softarses.
We just need to take our medicine and stop looking like petulant children.
Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.
Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.
Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.
Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.
Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?
If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
The issue here is that you are assuming that owners giving money to other businesses, which in term uses it to sponsor the club, is cheating. However, doing this breaks no laws and no rules so you can't charge them for it. It is perfectly legal and also not morally wrong.
Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.
Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.
Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.
Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.
Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?
If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
Not being funny but we sound and look like bitter little children who have had their toy taken from them.
Is that all we can level at Citeh? You know, the club we used to laugh at for decades!
We sound like berties, you know their miserable and bitter fans we used to love winding up in the 90s and 00s, they'd come back at us with you bought the league and you bought this. Well, that's what I encountered whenever I had the misfortune of meeting one of the softarses.
We just need to take our medicine and stop looking like petulant children.
Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.
Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.
Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.
Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.
Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?
If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
The newbie system has failed.How the heck have you managed to make 16 posts without being binned off.
They have 115 charges against them for a reason.
Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.
Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.
Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.
Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.
Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?
If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
My personal favorites...Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.
Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.
Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.
Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.
Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?
If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
My personal favorites...
"What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club?"
You've hit the nail on the head, there's no real difference between the two - that's why both are against rules.
"Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books..."
Once again, 100% accurate. Quite how this squares with, "They aren't corrupt... They certainly didn't cheat" is never explained.
Truly irrefutable logic.
I don't think anybody does apart from Man City and the Premier League, the rest of us are just guessing.They are the biggest cheats in the history of English football.
If Man City were a person they'd be some sort of Lance Armstrong/Donald Trump Hybrid.
There's a monumental difference between 'buying the league' and cheating to the extent that they have.
I'm guessing you don't know much about the actual charges against them?
And had we had that, City would have skirted it too… as evidenced by how 14 of the charges are from inaccuracies in reporting player and manager salaries.If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports.
Those are absolutely breaches of UEFA FFP and Premier League PSR.The issue here is that you are assuming that owners giving money to other businesses, which in term uses it to sponsor the club, is cheating. However, doing this breaks no laws and no rules so you can't charge them for it. It is perfectly legal and also not morally wrong.
I don't think anybody does apart from Man City and the Premier League, the rest of us are just guessing.
Do we believe things are actually happening in the background here? Everytime we get news it goes silent for months again.
My personal favorites...
"What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club?"