Big institutions love to do whatever might be necessary in order to hide how much corruption and rule breaking they allowed. And I think you overestimate the knowledge average people have about City‘s wrongdoings. Most of them will shrug at the penalty and think if that’s all, it wasn’t that bad.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) look forward to a new life under Ruben Amorim. What system will we be playing? What players will impress? and how will it all go? We also say goodbye to Ruud Van Nistelrooy and review United's 3-0 win at home against Leicester City.
They can sue to find out if that agreement is legally binding, which isn't a given at all.
I mean we are all on the same boat here.. hoping for the most extreme punishment.
Like you say, if they get away with it, not only is the super league going to rear up again, it sets another precedent, where Newcastle are waiting.
Villa, Chelsea, Newcastle will be watching this carefully and if City get away with it, they will end up spending and hiding figures for years knowing nothing will happen.
It is legally binding, the agreement all clubs sign when they sign up each season is legally binding
Can’t make my mind up if this is a good or bad idea. Sounds like the PL are simply washing their hands of any outcome so they can’t be blamed.
if they are found guilty of most of the charges and those that have hindered the investigation then the book should be thrown at them. You can’t have 19 teams sticking to the rules and the other team doing what they want for multiple years. Those years have a major effect on ever
No matter the outcome it won’t be enough. So many multitudes of the butterfly effect at play here. Without the rule breaking (if guilty) they would not have been able to sign half the players\manger that they have assembled. Teams\fans have missed out on winning trophies\top4\relegation… how do you put in terms the experience fans might have missed out on due to City’s rule breaking. At the other end City have also improved infrastructure \recruitment\scouting\youth to help with everything going forward.
To many things to list and why no punishment can be enough. I personally hope a single punishment like points deduction or fine won’t be they way to go as other teams can simply ignore this scandal knowing nothing will get done. Stripping of titles and expulsion would set the standard so we never have to witness something like this again in the English league. However, I very much doubt the independent panel will review how each charge has effected multiple layers of English football and beyond.
Yeah, that's not how that works.
I think City will be punished and as a result have been trying to put themselves in a good net spend position.
What would sicken me would be something like, relegation and 1 season outside of the PL. As when they come straight back up, Sky will be force feeding us the narrative that they've had their "punishment" And now everything the do is above board....
What would sicken me would be something like, relegation and 1 season outside of the PL. As when they come straight back up, Sky will be force feeding us the narrative that they've had their "punishment" And now everything the do is above board....
Does a club have entitlement to be allowed to be part of, what is a private competition, if they've breached the agreements? Their 'invitation' to the premier league should just be revoked for a period of time.
That depends on a lot of factors, there's no general answer to that question.
When the private competition is the Premier League, and the breach is to challenge the legality of a clause, then kicking someone out over that would almost certainly be super illegal.
If a document is illegal it's still illegal regardless of who has signed it.
They will get done but it won't be the punishment they deserve or everyone is hoping for. Guilty on 40 of the 115 charges, mainly the failing to comply ones and 30 point reduction or something like that.
That will allow City them to save face by arguing that they just didn't comply because of x,y z and the rest is bogus. That will still leave them 4th/5th and loose the title this year but behind closed doors they will be high fiving. They will win it next season and carry on.
Plus it will allow the Prem to say we got them and we gave them a record points deduction. 3 times more than previous highest which I think is 10. But really they did sht
That will allow City them to save face by arguing that they just didn't comply because of x,y z and the rest is bogus. That will still leave them 4th/5th and loose the title this year but behind closed doors they will be high fiving. They will win it next season and carry on.
Plus it will allow the Prem to say we got them and we gave them a record points deduction. 3 times more than previous highest which I think is 10. But really they did sht
Who is on that independent commission and who chose those people?
Don’t, Pannick
It's three people, don't think it's known who, chosen by Murray Rosen. He's the head of the Premier League Judicial Panel.
Thank you.
An independent panel also decided the Everton and Forest punishments, each time. It's not something new just for Man City.
It's been legally binding enough that the PL won the case that the league has the power to collect documents from City. I doubt that will have held up if the league wouldn't then have the power to punish them. The league would just point to that decision that City couldn't fight against which meant the league has authority over them in this kind of matter.
Of course they have the power to punish them, no one is questioning that.
I'm talking about a specific clause in the agreement, not the whole contract.
You do realise that an agreement is a contract and that some contracts are found not to be legally enforceable, if City lose this badly they will almost certainly go to the courts, they may not ultimately win but that process could take years
All the contracts will be checked by the relevant legal teams becore they are signed, you cant sign a contract then just decide its not legally enforceable whenever you dont want to follow the rules you signed up for
Absolutely mate, it will be the end of the Premier League as a competitive league and it will just slowly evolve into a middle eastern pissing contest. With all other clubs looking in with no chance of ever competing with unlimited budgets of nation states. No doubt with Qatar and Dubai joining the party before long.
It would be so great to form a new league with that type of ownership outlawed. Long term it will probably happen as it's so much more entertaining when teams have peaks and troughs.
As you say a “butterfly effect” is set off by City cheating. You also mentioned “ the other 19 clubs” sticking to the rules, but you haven’t mentioned any butterfly effects caused by Everton, Forest and Man Utd when they were found guilty of breaches.
Are you certain those breaches, minor or otherwise, didn’t affect the rest of the clubs in the league negatively, or by breaching in the first place gain an unfair advantage?
I’m not defending City in any way, it’s just kind of weird watching all the rocks being thrown in one direction.
If a one of points deduction afters 10 years of cheating and not complying is what ends up happening it'll mean all clubs will just spend what they want, cover it up and get a one off hit rather than complying like Everton etc.
That alone is reason enough to stamp it out.
If legal and within the rules, they should realistically be excluded for multiple years and ban all those involved from football (directors CEOs all those in the emails etc) for multiple years also.
It's probably not possible to force an ownership change but realistically that should also happen - the actual owner will play dumb and it'll be unprovable - but all those clearly involved should be banned.
I'm going to guess this also extends after the periods in question also though - but after the hack there's likely no email trail of this, they'll likely communicate this all in person.
That alone is reason enough to stamp it out.
If legal and within the rules, they should realistically be excluded for multiple years and ban all those involved from football (directors CEOs all those in the emails etc) for multiple years also.
It's probably not possible to force an ownership change but realistically that should also happen - the actual owner will play dumb and it'll be unprovable - but all those clearly involved should be banned.
I'm going to guess this also extends after the periods in question also though - but after the hack there's likely no email trail of this, they'll likely communicate this all in person.
The truth is after the Amramovich debacle and now with City's unprecedented cheating. It should have never been allowed in the first place. Letting Oligarchs with close ties to dictators and middle eastern regimes into English football was only going to ever end one way. These people have no business owning football clubs as they have no interest in football.
Forcing 50 +1 is probably the only solution, as with no control then there is less interest for states.
Of course that ship has sailed though.
That's just not true with Roman, he attended hundreds of games during his time owning Chelsea.
No idea about Man City's owners but Abramovic obviously had an interest in the football.
Thank you @roseguy64 . I’m still not sure if this is the way it should be, especially on a major case like this.
IMO this should also be public so we know the events taking place and no shenanigans can occur
In the legal system it happens every day, I don't think City will win in the long run, but they will not accept a harsh punishement without going thru the courts, that process could take years
Well to be fair I was referring to the rulers of middle eastern states.
But while we're at it was Roman a massive lifelong football fan before he bought Chelsea? Or did he buy it for other 'reasons'?
It's a big jump from "having no interest in football" to being "a massive lifelong football fan".
Roman was probably somewhere in the middle before he bought the club, after which he attended 100s of games over nearly two decades.
There's plenty of perfectly legit things to criticise him for but "having no interest" is just obviously wrong.
Khaldoon the Chairman was a Chelsea fan until they bought City - his younger brother was a massive Utd fan - they obviously switched allegiance quite quickly along with the rest of the Abu Dhabi Govt.
Only if the circumstances are the sameIsn't Everton getting a 10 point deduction for one charge also a precedent?
I was being sarcastic mate. The story goes he'd never even watched a football game until United 4-3 Real in 2003.
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/the...-3-real-madrid-2003/e3r5j8ub5glj1g1glqgu7bzex
What does that mean?
The circumstances are that Everton got a 10 point deduction for one charge relating to a breach of PSR. City have 115 of them.
*s 130 charges are for a number of different breaches of PL rules..What does that mean?
The circumstances are that Everton got a 10 point deduction for one charge relating to a breach of PSR. City have 115 of them.
The only direct correlation would be charges where the breaches / circumstances are the same as that which Everton were deemed liable.
So it isn’t as simple as ‘Everton got 10 points so * get 10 x 130’.
No shit, Sherlock. My comment to the other poster was irt Pep getting every credit imaginable when it was the entire Barca apparatus being bought and brought to City that really laid the groundwork.
If this plays out then the PL is basically the three clowns in the pub with replica pistols while City is Bullet Tooth Tony with his Desert Eagle scene. Pathetic and might as well stop watching the league.
Who appoints this panel? Or how is it assembled?
I vaguely recall Roman had looked at a handful of clubs prior to Chelsea in the preceding year or so, including Man United but was supposedly put off by the cost to buy full control. I vaguely recall he was highly interested in Spurs but Levy wouldn't give up majority stake.