SuperiorXI
Full Member
Delete club and jail the fans
With the money spent and structures built I am sure they can handle one season outside the top flight. I'm sure we all hate City to irrational levels, but you can't deny how well they have been run and set up for the future. This project doesn't get abandoned over one setback.... unfortunately.I think something as headline grabbing as "Champions get relegated" would be quite a bit more detrimental than that.
Pep, Soriano and most of their players would be gone and I think their owners instantly lose interest. They lose nearly all value as a sports washing entity.
With the money spent and structures built I am sure they can handle one season outside the top flight. I'm sure we all hate City to irrational levels, but you can't deny how well they have been run and set up for the future. This project doesn't get abandoned over one setback.... unfortunately.
With the money spent and structures built I am sure they can handle one season outside the top flight. I'm sure we all hate City to irrational levels, but you can't deny how well they have been run and set up for the future. This project doesn't get abandoned over one setback.... unfortunately.
I highly doubt City will be found innocent of ALL charges, but what if?
Found innocent of everything, PL say “oops, sorry about that”
City will obviously go after some kind of compensation, any thoughts on what would be fair or proportionate?
All hypothetical I know.
Probably.IMHO the most likely outcome of all this that City will be let go on petty technicalities.
Because people are aware how the world works, and that if you have enough money or influence you can get away with basically anything.Every few posts someone pops into say they'll get off with a fine or slap on the wrist. Is it part of some sort of coping mechanism on the off chance it does happen?
There’s a few well followed posters (morons) on Twitter who seem to think that the CAS judgement guarantees the PL ruling will be/has to be the same.The compensation to City stuff is Blue Moon "we will show them!" Nonsense.
It's based on this absurd view that a lot of City fans seem to have that the Premier League have caused them reputational damage by levying the charges. Seems to be 2 fold.
Firstly levying the charges at all which is silliness unless there was found to be some nefarious reason for them doing so and they were totally baseless.
Secondly they seem to believe the Premier League have made a huge song and dance about it. Which they literally haven't in any way.
There won't be a penny paid in comp to them, if they were found not guilty of all charges then maybe legal costs.
What will actually be interesting will be the compensation they end up paying to other clubs once they are inevitably found guilty of at least some of the charges.
Most already are probably?Delete club and jail the fans
I think they will be a big club going forward absolutely. But I wouldn't underestimate the fact that they will potentially lose nearly all their key people and their owners may not have the same appetite to stress about hiring best on class.
I personally think that if they are relegated that will see them quickly promoted then becoming a side with a similar profile to Spurs.
I think you can totally argue how they’ve been run and setup for the future if they’re found guilty of heavily cheating to achieve it? It’s pretty easy to do things well if you don’t follow the rules.
I'd say something about jails being already over-populated but I'm sure they can handle a dozen more people.Delete club and jail the fans
City’s lawyers are as good as you can get and they can argue the sky is green… but I can’t see how they get away with it. I’ve seen some of the emails, they’re as clear as day and in previous hearings, City people have confirmed the validity, just argued the exact meaning or whether time bound… the meaning is not decided by a loaded panel this time and the timebound bit doesn’t come into it, neither does the “we were hacked” defence I don’t think?Because people are aware how the world works, and that if you have enough money or influence you can get away with basically anything.
City's owners have both.
I'd say something about jails being already over-populated but I'm sure they can handle a dozen more people.
What I want is just transparency. It looks like hearing will be in private. I don't know how England works when it comes to this but shouldn't this case be in everyones interest and because of that should be open for public?
Why is this hearing in private?
And of course to hide the shame of inadequate actions from the public. I wouldn’t want to show my face either, if I were to blame for the destruction of football as we know it.I imagine it's due to commercial information and this isn't a criminal case so there would be no requirement to hold this in public.
First of all, it's not the FA, it's the PL and it's an independent panel. It's actually good there's no pressure on them, so that they can, you know, make a decision based on facts and evidence.Are there any protests planned by fans, to put pressure on the FA?
The cases are entirely different so no. And it's not the FA.115 charges are a considerable number to be found no fault on any of them and escape with minimal sanctions. The FA have already made their bed by punishing other teams for lesser charges so they need to follow that example here.
Ok, unnecessarily aggressive person.First of all, it's not the FA, it's the PL and it's an independent panel. It's actually good there's no pressure on them, so that they can, you know, make a decision based on facts and evidence.
Second, you've already (or another BL poster) made your point about this and you know the answer.
No worries, thin-skinned person!Ok, unnecessarily aggressive person.
But are there any plans to protest or not?No worries, thin-skinned person!
The cases are entirely different so no. And it's not the FA.
I'm good! It's just a bit tiresome, 274 pages in, that people still draw parallels between the Everton and Forest cases (or more recently the Leicester one) when the media have actually been quite good at clarifying they're vastly different cases, and many posters in here have been consistent in reminding that. Apologies if you took it as being "not calm", that wasn't the intention - but it's like comparing a civil case and a criminal case. The facts, the charges, the scope, everything is different, and what happened in an entirely different set of circumstances isn't relevant to the City case.Calm down dear.
City will obviously go after some kind of compensation, any thoughts on what would be fair or proportionate?
I'm good! It's just a bit tiresome, 274 pages in, that people still draw parallels between the Everton and Forest cases (or more recently the Leicester one) when the media have actually been quite good at clarifying they're vastly different cases, and many posters in here have been consistent in reminding that. Apologies if you took it as being "not calm", that wasn't the intention - but it's like comparing a civil case and a criminal case. The facts, the charges, the scope, everything is different, and what happened in an entirely different set of circumstances isn't relevant to the City case.
I do agree with the first part of your previous post though - it's extremely unlikely (in my mind, impossible, considering the information that is out there in the public domain following the leaks) that they would be found innocent of 115 charges (I believe it's even more now).
If there only was a way to escape all these things you read voluntarily. But I can’t think of any.I'm good! It's just a bit tiresome, 274 pages in, that people still draw parallels between the Everton and Forest cases (or more recently the Leicester one) when the media have actually been quite good at clarifying they're vastly different cases, and many posters in here have been consistent in reminding that. Apologies if you took it as being "not calm", that wasn't the intention - but it's like comparing a civil case and a criminal case. The facts, the charges, the scope, everything is different, and what happened in an entirely different set of circumstances isn't relevant to the City case.
I do agree with the first part of your previous post though - it's extremely unlikely (in my mind, impossible, considering the information that is out there in the public domain following the leaks) that they would be found innocent of 115 charges (I believe it's even more now).
As I said I have no idea how justice system works in England. What I know is that this should be transparent. Regardless of how this case is viewed we know how important football is in England. That alone should matter. I would like to see more transparency in football overall. Starting with this, what is said in VAR room, transfer details and so on. The more transparency there is the better for football.I imagine it's due to commercial information and this isn't a criminal case so there would be no requirement to hold this in public.
You can look for articles written by Martyn Ziegler, who has quite consistently well reported on this, I'm sure you can find some articles. Wouldn't recommend The Athletic who have in general good coverage but who have been extremely poor (probably by design) in covering this.No problem, no need to apologise, my fault for not being up to date with the cases, I've lazily tended to put them in the same bracket when as you say they are different. Probably will try to read into the detail at some point before it gets underway.
Because people are aware how the world works, and that if you have enough money or influence you can get away with basically anything.
City's owners have both.
Is it true that Man City have had to pay part of the legal fees for the PL to bring them to trial due to PL rules? If true that's fecking funny
Heh heh hehI think all PL clubs have to contribute to the pot so yes.