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

padr81 said:
The bolded is an absolutely disgusting comment tarring a large group of people from different backgrounds, ethnicities and social status with the same brush.

It'd be like me saying "All United fans are massive arrogant glory hunters who look down their nose at people despite never achieving anything but living vicariously through a football club.".
If I made such a comment I'd rightly be banned but I wouldn't say that cause I have the intelligence to not tag thousands and thousands of people based on an opinion I pulled straight out of my arse.
Click to expand...

"I think they care more about how they are portrayed, which is why they are so unbelievably sensitive"

It's a tongue-in-cheek post on a United forum from someone who lives in Manchester and has many City-supporting colleagues and friends, all of whom often accuse me of being an arrogant glory hunter who looks down his nose at people and who has never achieved anything but who lives vicariously through his football club.

I'm not sure you're in the right place if you're looking for people who say nice things about Manchester City and their supporters...
 
Lentwood said:
"I think they care more about how they are portrayed, which is why they are so unbelievably sensitive"

It's a tongue-in-cheek post on a United forum from someone who lives in Manchester and has many City-supporting colleagues and friends, all of whom often accuse me of being an arrogant glory hunter who looks down his nose at people and who has never achieved anything but who lives vicariously through his football club.

I'm not sure you're in the right place if you're looking for people who say nice things about Manchester City and their supporters...
Click to expand...
Quite a lot of venom for a tongue in cheek comment
 
awop said:
Quite a lot of venom for a tongue in cheek comment
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with you and Padr. This is silly. I don't understand why sports fans regularly spout vituperative blanket statements about fanbases of opposition teams. It's never seemed logical and certainly isn't appropriate.
 
Pexbo said:
Yet for net spend we were 3rd in the 90s behind Newcastle and Liverpool and 4th in the 00s behind Chelsea, City(!) and Liverpool.
Click to expand...
I think even lower than that. I’ve seen some sources put us behind Arsenal, Villa, Middlesbrough and Blackburn as well as those you mentioned.
 
We al know deep down this will be just a show trial, there will be no real outcome, a slap on the wrist, and a few points deducted.
The issue is the EPL need Man City, more than it needs clubs like Everton and Notts Forest
 
Matt Varnish said:
We al know deep down this will be just a show trial, there will be no real outcome, a slap on the wrist, and a few points deducted.
The issue is the EPL need Man City, more than it needs clubs like Everton and Notts Forest
Click to expand...
You know ANYTHING about show trials?
 
Ladron de redcafe said:
Yeah I agree with you and Padr. This is silly. I don't understand why sports fans regularly spout vituperative blanket statements about fanbases of opposition teams. It's never seemed logical and certainly isn't appropriate.
Click to expand...
We can still call the scousers drama queens and gobshites right?
Please tell me that hadn’t gone as well?
 
Matt Varnish said:
We al know deep down this will be just a show trial, there will be no real outcome, a slap on the wrist, and a few points deducted.
The issue is the EPL need Man City, more than it needs clubs like Everton and Notts Forest
Click to expand...
No, they don't need Man City. Why would they? They've gone from a nothing club to a powerhouse in less than 2 decades. The PL coped fine without City in the years that they were yoyoing around mid-table.

Their cheating has turned the PL into a one horse race. If anything it'd be better for the brand if they got rid of them.
 
2 man midfield said:
for the time being, they have to play dumb for legal reasons.
Click to expand...
This makes sense. It's been the elephant in the room for years now and everyone just curiously ignores it. Perhaps once the guilty verdict is reached, people will start talking about it a lot more.
 
DarkLord1984 said:
No, they don't need Man City. Why would they? They've gone from a nothing club to a powerhouse in less than 2 decades. The PL coped fine without City in the years that they were yoyoing around mid-table.

Their cheating has turned the PL into a one horse race. If anything it'd be better for the brand if they got rid of them.
Click to expand...
How to contradict yourself in less than a sentence.
 
Matt Varnish said:
How to contradict yourself in less than a sentence.
Click to expand...
They've only become a powerhouse through blatant cheating. The clubs that the PL truly needs are the historical big clubs e.g. United, Liverpool, Arsenal.

I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid if City were removed from the league at this point in time. All of the clubs who have supposedly written to the PL to complain about City's cheating would rejoice.
 
giggs-beckham said:
Is there any right of appeal for City once verdict is determined
Click to expand...

They get 1 appeal, if they are found guilty and appeal the chairman of the independent panel will dismiss the panel then select a new panel who will review the case a decide on the appeal with their decision being final.
 
Matt Varnish said:
We al know deep down this will be just a show trial, there will be no real outcome, a slap on the wrist, and a few points deducted.
The issue is the EPL need Man City, more than it needs clubs like Everton and Notts Forest
Click to expand...

The Premier League doesnt need City it would be perfectly fine without them and what the Premier League needs or doesnt need is irrelevant anyway as the outcome of the hearing and the punishment if any is decided by a panel that is completely independent from the Premier League.
 
Eboue said:
Not just semantics. The explosion of money happened at a time when Manchester United was ascendant. If it happened a few years earlier Liverpool would have benefited the most. It's just luck that the timing worked out for the club you support. But any one club having outsized wealth is not fair.
Click to expand...
This is a very silly argument. There’s a huge difference between taking advantage of an opportunity via your own prowess, and cheating via methods unavailable to all of your competitors. It would be akin to devaluing the success of Spanish clubs in Europe because they have an advantage when it comes to assimilating south American players into their teams. United competed on a level playing field to their competitors. They backed a manager that had actually struggled for a few years in his job, and they could have sacked him based on his results in his early years. They allowed him to sell off lots of their big players, and promote a raft of academy players to the first team. The fact that this method paid off should not be used as an argument to downplay their subsequent success.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
The Premier League doesnt need City it would be perfectly fine without them and what the Premier League needs or doesnt need is irrelevant anyway as the outcome of the hearing and the punishment if any is decided by a panel that is completely independent from the Premier League.
Click to expand...
Who decides who is on the panel?
 
Posh Red said:
This is a very silly argument. There’s a huge difference between taking advantage of an opportunity via your own prowess, and cheating via methods unavailable to all of your competitors. It would be akin to devaluing the success of Spanish clubs in Europe because they have an advantage when it comes to assimilating south American players into their teams. United competed on a level playing field to their competitors. They backed a manager that had actually struggled for a few years in his job, and they could have sacked him based on his results in his early years. They allowed him to sell off lots of their big players, and promote a raft of academy players to the first team. The fact that this method paid off should not be used as an argument to downplay their subsequent success.
Click to expand...


You're getting defensive instead of responding to my actual point. There's no downplaying the success. When it really comes down to it though, it doesn't matter to West Brom or Southampton what precise financial instruments were used when they have to sell their players. The reality is both clubs have massive financial advantages and it isn't remotely a fair playing field.
 
Eboue said:
You're getting defensive instead of responding to my actual point. There's no downplaying the success. When it really comes down to it though, it doesn't matter to West Brom or Southampton what precise financial instruments were used when they have to sell their players. The reality is both clubs have massive financial advantages and it isn't remotely a fair playing field.
Click to expand...
Sport is quite simple. Clubs agree the rules to abide by, then play the sport. Don't sign up to rules if you have no intention of following them.

There is no chance of West Brom or Southampton catching up with City of they are allowed to continue breaking the rules of the sport (allegedly).
 
Eboue said:
You're getting defensive instead of responding to my actual point. There's no downplaying the success. When it really comes down to it though, it doesn't matter to West Brom or Southampton what precise financial instruments were used when they have to sell their players. The reality is both clubs have massive financial advantages and it isn't remotely a fair playing field.
Click to expand...
I sort of see your point. That United fortunately had their best period alongside the monetisation of football globally and commercially. But I’m unsure what deeper point you’re making. Are you comparing United having success at the inception of the premier league with a club like city breaking the rules to gain a significant advantage?
 
Posh Red said:
I sort of see your point. That United fortunately had their best period alongside the monetisation of football globally and commercially. But I’m unsure what deeper point you’re making. Are you comparing United having success at the inception of the premier league with a club like city breaking the rules to gain a significant advantage?
Click to expand...

In a sense I am. Like obviously one is breaking the rules and one isn't. But my point is that the rules are just a list of things written down. An attempt to provide structure to something. Written down by people with differing agendas at different stages in the evolution of the league. Following them doesn't make the advantage fair, it just makes it within the rules.
 
Eboue said:
In a sense I am. Like obviously one is breaking the rules and one isn't. But my point is that the rules are just a list of things written down. An attempt to provide structure to something. Written down by people with differing agendas at different stages in the evolution of the league. Following them doesn't make the advantage fair, it just makes it within the rules.
Click to expand...
One of my main gripes with state ownership is that unlimited wealth will disrupt the football ecosystem way beyond anything a club like United were ever capable of. If state owned clubs were permitted to spend without limits, it would be incredibly damaging for football generally, way beyond what a club like United would be capable of.
 
Last edited:
Posh Red said:
One of my main gripes with state ownership is that unlimited wealth will disrupt the football ecosystem way beyond anything a club like United were ever capable of. If state owned clubs were permitted to spend without limits, it would be incredibly damaging for football generally, way beyond what a club like United would be capable of.
Click to expand...
This.

Give it another 10 years of state owned clubs being able to do as they please and the transfer market would break completely.

Average right backs would go for £250 million. Regular clubs would be forced to walk away. State owned clubs would say "I'll write you a cheque".
 
DarkLord1984 said:
This.

Give it another 10 years of state owned clubs being able to do as they please and the transfer market would break completely.

Average right backs would go for £250 million. Regular clubs would be forced to walk away. State owned clubs would say "I'll write you a cheque".
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from but I don't think that's going to happen. Obviously, all markets boom and drop and, football in the last 10 years has gone through a period of a huge amount of FFP rules. It may not be perfect but I think what we've seen in the transfer window this summer, the majority of clubs so far have spent less money than last year. Clubs this year have felt the FFP rules the most and likely all because of City and their upcoming court case.

A player will be bought and sold for however much a club is willing to play - up until now because of City's allegations. Now is the best chance for the lawmakers to protect football's long term finances by assuring every club abides by the rules. This is why I think City's allegations are extremely important because it sets a benchmark for what happens if proven, the rules were broken.

We've also seen, it depends who you have doing business for you. Could you imagine how much United would have paid for the players we signed this season if it last year under previous structure? We would be lucky to have made two of those signings with god knows how much money they would have spent. De Ligt probably would have cost 70m. But now, because Bayern also had to abide by FFP, they sold at a lower price than what would have been paid last year.

Just my opinion.
 
Eboue said:
In a sense I am. Like obviously one is breaking the rules and one isn't. But my point is that the rules are just a list of things written down. An attempt to provide structure to something. Written down by people with differing agendas at different stages in the evolution of the league. Following them doesn't make the advantage fair, it just makes it within the rules.
Click to expand...
Its a fair argument, it was a lesser level of distortion but a distortion of the competition all the same. I just think the idea that rules need to be followed is a pretty basic, low level rule that any structure you'd want to implement would be dependent on.
Arguing about the best way to implement FFP is just a seperate conversation to City refusing to cooperate with there being rules.
 
Matt Varnish said:
We al know deep down this will be just a show trial, there will be no real outcome, a slap on the wrist, and a few points deducted.
The issue is the EPL need Man City, more than it needs clubs like Everton and Notts Forest
Click to expand...

This league will be finished when that happens
 
Rooney in Paris said:
I have an open mind. An open mind that has led me to read up on this, notably the leaked documents. Manchester City are clearly guilty. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know.
Neither do you, despite your readings.
You are clearly convinced of their guilt and no verdict will change it no matter what it is.
 
Gentleman Jim said:
I honestly don't know.
Neither do you, despite your readings.
You are clearly convinced of their guilt and no verdict will change it no matter what it is.
Click to expand...
I think it's very clear that City have comprehensively cheated, and have since used every tactic available to delay and/or obstruct the PL's investigations. I don't think any unbiased person could look at the evidence and think otherwise.

What punishment eventually gets handed out (if any) is the big question. I'll be honest and say that if it were my club who'd be taken over by these people and used as a vehicle to do this I'd be devastated and would want to see the book thrown at them. Afterall what is the point of any of this if someone can dominate through dodgy financial maneuvers & expensive lawyers?

Eh. Overall I'm just sad that football has become so, so murky and complicated.
 
Eboue said:
In a sense I am. Like obviously one is breaking the rules and one isn't. But my point is that the rules are just a list of things written down. An attempt to provide structure to something. Written down by people with differing agendas at different stages in the evolution of the league. Following them doesn't make the advantage fair, it just makes it within the rules.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree. There's still a distinction because City contravene rules while we didnt, but as you pointed out, that has nothing to do with the central point - fairness.

It's also true in Spain as Real Madrid and Barcelona regularly had access to funding that smaller clubs didn't. Fairness has never been an issue for some people, as long as traditionallying "big clubs" did it.
 
Lentwood said:
"I think they care more about how they are portrayed, which is why they are so unbelievably sensitive"

It's a tongue-in-cheek post on a United forum from someone who lives in Manchester and has many City-supporting colleagues and friends, all of whom often accuse me of being an arrogant glory hunter who looks down his nose at people and who has never achieved anything but who lives vicariously through his football club.

I'm not sure you're in the right place if you're looking for people who say nice things about Manchester City and their supporters...
Click to expand...
That is certainly true and why you'll find my few posts in non football threads these days but occasionally I'll try to add a bit of balance to the pile-ons on threads like these.

It is like pissing in the wind though.
:D
 
OleGunnar20 said:
I think it's very clear that City have comprehensively cheated, and have since used every tactic available to delay and/or obstruct the PL's investigations. I don't think any unbiased person could look at the evidence and think otherwise.

What punishment eventually gets handed out (if any) is the big question. I'll be honest and say that if it were my club who'd be taken over by these people and used as a vehicle to do this I'd be devastated and would want to see the book thrown at them. Afterall what is the point of any of this if someone can dominate through dodgy financial maneuvers & expensive lawyers?

Eh. Overall I'm just sad that football has become so, so murky and complicated.
Click to expand...
Here we go again.
Not even guilty til proven innocent.
Guilty even if proven innocent in your Kangaroo Court.
 
Gentleman Jim said:
I honestly don't know.
Neither do you, despite your readings.
You are clearly convinced of their guilt and no verdict will change it no matter what it is.
Click to expand...
Your stance, which is to take this sort of position of fake ignorance and pretending to be "open minded", is a lot more disingenuous than you are pretending to be and only stems from strong bias and a hope somehow they'll avoid punishment.

It's like standing in front of a house on fire with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ear repeating "until I've seen this reported in the news I'm not sure whether this house is on fire".

As 2 posters have alluded to since your post, and as every single piece of information that is out in the public domain and is easily accessible for anyone interested shows, City very clearly put in place a scheme to ensure systemic corruption of the rules and ensure their rise would be faster than it would take to organically grow. This isn't an opinion, there are articles (too few sadly, due to the complicit silence of most mainstream media) that go through this in enough depth to understand what was done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.