Ah ok, you're one of those. Carry on then.Here we go again.
Not even guilty til proven innocent.
Guilty even if proven innocent in your Kangaroo Court.
Ah ok, you're one of those. Carry on then.Here we go again.
Not even guilty til proven innocent.
Guilty even if proven innocent in your Kangaroo Court.
You do realise the evidence in the UEFA case is public record and you were not acquitted, but merely your legal team argued the legality of how the evidence was obtained.Here we go again.
Not even guilty til proven innocent.
Guilty even if proven innocent in your Kangaroo Court.
I think admitting the emails were valid to CAS doesn’t help their case. And despite lots of blue tickers and “journalists” repeatedly saying CAS found them not guilty, they didn’t.Here we go again.
Not even guilty til proven innocent.
Guilty even if proven innocent in your Kangaroo Court.
Here we go again.
Not even guilty til proven innocent.
Guilty even if proven innocent in your Kangaroo Court.
I think my post was reasonable, and think you're struggling to look at this from a logical point of view - which is fair enough. The football team you support is a tough bias to overcome.Here we go again.
Not even guilty til proven innocent.
Guilty even if proven innocent in your Kangaroo Court.
I'd also say that this "Utd were in the right place at the right time" argument is somewhat true but blown out of proportion - we were the strongest team at the time but we weren't the only strong team either, other teams were winning things as well. What the club was great at was recognising the opportunity that presented itself in terms of marketing and global branding and running with it - with other teams acting a bit later. The fact they were less savvy business-people at that time isn't something that is "unfair" or remotely close to the City situation, and it's not even semantics - it's just plain disingenuous.That’s not unfair, we were just the club that took advantage of it through legal means. We didn’t do anything illegal and every other club could have done what we did had they taken the initiative.
Was there an element of luck with the timing? Sure, but I’m not sure how that qualifies as “unfair”.
They could just do like Barca did and have the wages deferred for a seasonFor me, I’d be happy with all titles stripped and 100 point deduction this year.
Guarantees relegation, means this season and next season at the very least are write offs
I’m also not sure how it works but they’d have to comply with championship ffp, which means wages would have to fall a lot surely, which means players would have to be sold.
On top of that, clubs could easily play hard ball with them.
As for loaning them all out, when does that max of 10 loans per club come into affect.
I think being in the championship would be a bigger hinderance than some people think
They're also guilty in the court of common senseFact of the matter is that City is guilty in the court of public opinion.
It's not at all.Whether “rules” were broken or not is almost irrelevant.
They could just do like Barca did and have the wages deferred for a season
My point is, if they’re found not guilty - which they might be (unlikely though) it won’t end the matter.They're also guilty in the court of common sense
It's not at all.
Has any outlet spoken of the post-2019 stuff and what is going to happen with that? I have never understood why City are being investigated up to what feels like an arbitrary end date when they continued obfuscating beyond that date. They are also still reaping the benefits of the cheating up to 2019.
Not really, for a variety of reasons. You either give the titles to the runner-ups, or you leave those seasons blank (which would be my preference).
They have ruined this league as a competition, yes I will admit we had an unfair advantage for years but that was our own revenue not artificially created sponsorship which is the big difference.
For the posters saying it would be too complicated to just aware the league titles to the second place teams, how did Serie A handle it when Juventus were relegated? Did Inter etc. not get those titles?
Here we go again.
Not even guilty til proven innocent.
Guilty even if proven innocent in your Kangaroo Court.
Now you're getting into semantics. At its core the game is 11 v 11. It has grown into a whole other thing where certain shirts sell more than others and teams compete on the value of the marketing department. That's fine. It's within the rules and you have to have structure and rules to anything.
But fundamentally one club being able to spend exponentially more than their competitors year after year is not fair. We all recognize it with City. Most non-United fans recognize it with United. It doesn't become more fair because United did it within the structures of the rules. More legitimate and deserving but not more fair.
Did we?
United were rarely the biggest spenders under SAF.
The claims that United always outspent everyone and had some kind on monopoly on the transfer market are nonsence, we were only top spenders in 5 of Sir Alex's 21 seasons with only 3 of those 5 being title winning seasons and the first time we were top spenders was 98/99 (due to signing Stam and Yorke for 12 and 12.8m respectively) so we won our first 4 Premier League titles while being outpent by other teams.
Honestly, football is really tiresome, the media spin so many false narratives, and football fans can't even be bothered to do their research, so they just continue to spout the same nonsense.
The hate for Man United in the media and with other clubs fans is huge, they would rather create a false narrative to make the club look bad, even if it is a load of rubbish. Happens all the time.
The claims that United always outspent everyone and had some kind on monopoly on the transfer market are nonsence, we were only top spenders in 5 of Sir Alex's 21 seasons with only 3 of those 5 being title winning seasons and the first time we were top spenders was 98/99 (due to signing Stam and Yorke for 12 and 12.8m respectively) so we won our first 4 Premier League titles while being outpent by other teams.
Ah right, fair enough. I'd like to share your optimism but I sadly don't.My point is, if they’re found not guilty - which they might be (unlikely though) it won’t end the matter.
It’ll lead to a breach in the game, ultimately fecking them over anyway.
Mike Sumerbee and Curly WattsWho decides who is on the panel?
Strange precedent?I can't see that happening. If it happens, great, but it will set a really strange precedent where it will feel a little random and arbitrary.
SAF broke the British transfer record seven times during his time at United.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?
I don’t think that’s relevant to what I said?SAF broke the British transfer record seven times during his time at United.
1989: Pallister – £2.9m
1993: Keane – £3.75m
1995: Cole – £7m
2001: Van Nistelrooy – £19m
2001: Veron – £28.1m
2002: Ferdinand – £29.1m
2008: Berbatov – £30.75m
It probably is.I don’t think that’s relevant to what I 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?
I'd totally forgotten about this, and nver formed the financial link between Sugar and Sky, when you think about it, Sugar would ultimately benefit with the massive increase in sales of his Sky boxes.The monetisation of Football began in 1983 when Spurs became the first club to float on the stock market years before we did and 10 years before our first Premier League title, when it came to the formation of the Premier League Sky TV throwing money at it and elevating it to a whole new level was down to Spurs again who's then Chairman Lord Alan Sugar alledgedly used his contacts and pull at Sky (aquired from the fact he owned Amstrad the company that made all of Sky's Decoder boxes) to encourage them to make a bid for the TV rights that would blow an offer that had been accepted from ITV out of the water.
Yeah, the ball bag faced cnut has always been a slimy, self serving Spurs fan.I'd totally forgotten about this, and nver formed the financial link between Sugar and Sky, when you think about it, Sugar would ultimately benefit with the massive increase in sales of his Sky boxes.
I'd always blamed the downfall of football as a working mans game on Sky, but never thought of Sugars role in that.
Rather a kangaroo than an ostrich, your head must be deep in the sand.Here we go again.
Not even guilty til proven innocent.
Guilty even if proven innocent in your Kangaroo Court.
Yet spent less than other clubs almost every year, because we invested heavily in our academy and had a great manager. This is false equivalence to City cheating.SAF broke the British transfer record seven times during his time at United.
1989: Pallister – £2.9m
1993: Keane – £3.75m
1995: Cole – £7m
2001: Van Nistelrooy – £19m
2001: Veron – £28.1m
2002: Ferdinand – £29.1m
2008: Berbatov – £30.75m
What point does that even make? We didnt break any rules?SAF broke the British transfer record seven times during his time at United.
1989: Pallister – £2.9m
1993: Keane – £3.75m
1995: Cole – £7m
2001: Van Nistelrooy – £19m
2001: Veron – £28.1m
2002: Ferdinand – £29.1m
2008: Berbatov – £30.75m
7 out of 26 years. That's 27% of the time. For the biggest club in England and maybe the world, that's not a lot. It's like once in every 4 transfer windows. Where United were successful was through their academy. I don't need to list the quality that's come through there. United also made a huge amount of money by selling academy players. A million here and a million there adds up over time when it costs very little in the first place to produce them. We have had a youth player from the academy in every single matchday squad for 85 years in a row. Stuff like that made our identity and that's what Manchester United is. Building up the youth is what makes us successful.SAF broke the British transfer record seven times during his time at United.
1989: Pallister – £2.9m
1993: Keane – £3.75m
1995: Cole – £7m
2001: Van Nistelrooy – £19m
2001: Veron – £28.1m
2002: Ferdinand – £29.1m
2008: Berbatov – £30.75m
What relevance does this have? We didn't break any rules and we earned that money to buy those players fair and square.SAF broke the British transfer record seven times during his time at United.
1989: Pallister – £2.9m
1993: Keane – £3.75m
1995: Cole – £7m
2001: Van Nistelrooy – £19m
2001: Veron – £28.1m
2002: Ferdinand – £29.1m
2008: Berbatov – £30.75m
What do you mean gifted? City are cheats. If they're punished this season we rightfully get the top spot as we are the second best side (hopefully).If found guilty and it's basically proven that they only got where they are by financially doping themselves up to the eyeballs, and they give City a massive points deduction for this season, here is a very shallow look at who will have been shafted of things and who will benefit:
11/12 - United
13/14 - Liverpool
17/18 - United (2nd time)
18/19 - Liverpool (2nd time)
20/21 - United (3rd time)
21/22 - Liverpool (3rd time)
22/23 - Arsenal
23/24 - Arsenal (2nd time)
24/25 - Likely Arsenal gifted a PL if points deduction happens for this season.
Why should solely Arsenal benefit? Yes they happen to be the second best at this current moment but Utd and Liverpool would be just as deserving. Just because the investigation/trial has been dragged this long Utd and Liverpool get nothing for their multiple year efforts against a doped up club?
You either do all or none imo. Otherwise there's no integrity.
This argument is so stupid. When you go to the grocery store, the amount you have to pay is not based on the single most expensive item. It's the entirety of the bill.SAF broke the British transfer record seven times during his time at United.
1989: Pallister – £2.9m
1993: Keane – £3.75m
1995: Cole – £7m
2001: Van Nistelrooy – £19m
2001: Veron – £28.1m
2002: Ferdinand – £29.1m
2008: Berbatov – £30.75m
Sorry probably should have used a different word. You would absolutely deserve the title if 2nd this season and you deserve the last two as well. What I was trying to get across is that Liverpool and Utd also deserve 3 each but if City only get one season of docked points only Arsenal would benefit.What do you mean gifted? City are cheats. If they're punished this season we rightfully get the top spot as we are the second best side (hopefully).
Or do you mean if we are 6 points behind them after 20 games and they are docked points according to you we shouldn't get anything? How does that even make sense.
Arsenal fans used to complain about City's cheating since 2010s and would get told to shut up and stop making excuses as United were still winning something. I still remember this.
His point is laid out very clearly and if you didn't start typing nervously as soon as you saw the word "Arsenal" you'd understand it - yes it would be fair for you to get the title this year, but City are being judged for actions since 2008, so if it's a points deduction for this season, how does that make sense for the past 16 years? What about all the other clubs that were cheated by City?What do you mean gifted? City are cheats. If they're punished this season we rightfully get the top spot as we are the second best side (hopefully).
This didn't happen, and especially not from Utd fans.Arsenal fans used to complain about City's cheating since 2010s and would get told to shut up and stop making excuses as United were still winning something. I still remember this.