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.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
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.
Wasn’t the story his helicopter went over Stamford bridge and he basically said ‘I’ll have that’ when he’d been planning to buy spurs originally?
The sheikh opens his wallet
The 3 man panel are chosen by the Independant Chair Murray Rosen KC, its different from the CAS hearing where City were allowed to choose 2 of the men on the panel themselves.
What the actual feck. Why on earth were they allowed to choose 2 of the panel men themselves??
Of course they'd choose someone who would side with them. Stinks of corruption.
A huge percentage of City's charges are about not providing information and delaying proceedings. Not for actual breaches of PSR.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.
There's very little similarity between Everton and City cases, I'm not sure why people keep thinking there is.
Clearly one breach that has been admitted to, is a lot easier to deal with, then 115 charges where every element is fought and denied.
The PSR charges among the 115 relate to entire seasons of non-compliance with the regulations though. I keep reading this point about them making up the minority of charges, as if it doesn't cover an entire period of about 10 years.
@Niall we need a giant asterisk thingy in case we need to refer to the shell company that used the Ethiad
Do you know this for a fact?
The most depressing thing about all of this is that it’s not even being treated with the weight it deserves.
It’s being trialled by the Premier League. The Premier League is not looking for a fair outcome. They’re not looking at the evidence, and deciding a punishment befitting the ‘crimes’.
Their first and most pressing concern is to protect their brand. If relegating City that best, they’d do it. If a points deduction or huge fine or transfer ban does that best, that’s what they’ll do.
They want the whole thing to go away. They don’t actually care about anything other than protecting their brand, and the cash register.
The atomised nature of fans is really helping here. Tribal cohorts of fans of different clubs haven’t managed to coalesce around a sense of what they want. United fans are lunatics for wanting them punished to the maximum available outcome. Liverpool fans are just bitter as they got beat. Chelsea fans are quiet as they cheated too. Small club fans drink the kool aid and somehow seem to think punishing City doesn’t help them as the Big 6 Cartel are all the same. It goes on and on.
The sheer volume of charges and brazenness of City’s cheating, truly should see a landmark charge. A real line in the sand that sees English football move on.
I just can’t see that happening. The PL will attempt to balance all the shit that shouldn’t matter, against the shit that does, and treat them of unequal value. Ultimately handing out a points deduction that barely represents a speed bump to City.
At that point, fans should be out on the streets as they were with the Super League. Instead we’ll just all carry on and bitch online.
Depressing.
It’s being trialled by the Premier League. The Premier League is not looking for a fair outcome. They’re not looking at the evidence, and deciding a punishment befitting the ‘crimes’.
Their first and most pressing concern is to protect their brand. If relegating City that best, they’d do it. If a points deduction or huge fine or transfer ban does that best, that’s what they’ll do.
They want the whole thing to go away. They don’t actually care about anything other than protecting their brand, and the cash register.
The atomised nature of fans is really helping here. Tribal cohorts of fans of different clubs haven’t managed to coalesce around a sense of what they want. United fans are lunatics for wanting them punished to the maximum available outcome. Liverpool fans are just bitter as they got beat. Chelsea fans are quiet as they cheated too. Small club fans drink the kool aid and somehow seem to think punishing City doesn’t help them as the Big 6 Cartel are all the same. It goes on and on.
The sheer volume of charges and brazenness of City’s cheating, truly should see a landmark charge. A real line in the sand that sees English football move on.
I just can’t see that happening. The PL will attempt to balance all the shit that shouldn’t matter, against the shit that does, and treat them of unequal value. Ultimately handing out a points deduction that barely represents a speed bump to City.
At that point, fans should be out on the streets as they were with the Super League. Instead we’ll just all carry on and bitch online.
Depressing.
The Athletic podcast was interesting. Sam Lee and another guy suggesting they think Pep will stay out of ‘defiance’ if they are relegated 
The Athletic podcast was interesting. Sam Lee and another guy suggesting they think Pep will stay out of ‘defiance’ if they are relegated
Pep will do whatever suits him best and given the setup at Manchester City i'd be surprised if he just walked away from it. They'll be happy to fund million after million after million to whatever project he wants as a retirement package.
It will be rats leaving a sinking ship. To be fair though Pep is dirty anyway so his reputation is hardly at threat.
They are also assuming that they are only relegated to the championship. If lower the financial restrictions will hit them hard in the EFL.
Depends on how bad it gets, players are more likely to leave than Guardiola. He's achieved everything there is to achieve, the payday that is Manchester City and the money they funnel into other projects means that there's little reason to walk away.
He said he would leave, and then changed his mind and said he'd stay no matter what. He's a liar and will say whatever he needs to in the situation to suit himself and his Abu Dhabi overlords.The Athletic podcast was interesting. Sam Lee and another guy suggesting they think Pep will stay out of ‘defiance’ if they are relegated
He's dirty, just as you say.
Guessing he maybe believed they were innocent and said that.
Then looked in to it more, realised they aren't so changed his mind.
I think that’s extremely unrealistic. He knows perfectly well, what’s happening around him. He just doesn’t care. He’s a hypocrite who will do whatever is necessary to achieve his goals. The man would push his mother down the stairs, if he believed it would make the next win 1,3% more likely.
There’s literally emails in the public domain proving their guilt and speaking openly about circumventing FFP. Not sure he ever thought they were legit but most of his career is shrouded in controversy so it’s not surprising he would stay.
the margins can be fine sometimes.
the season before roman bought Chelsea they were on the brink of bankruptcy and John Terry to Liverpool was a half done deal already. But they pipped us to 4th on the last day, secured CL qualification and then Roman bought them that summer and everything changed.
the season before roman bought Chelsea they were on the brink of bankruptcy and John Terry to Liverpool was a half done deal already. But they pipped us to 4th on the last day, secured CL qualification and then Roman bought them that summer and everything changed.
Might have purchased them either way.
It's a bit like you signing Torres, ending up with Klopp, fine margins.
I think you are forgetting that "the PL" is constituted by the clubs in the Premier League. And the biggest brands incorporating that all think Manchester City is bad for the Premier League.
If(hopefully when) City get implicated, it doesn't really paint a good look for our new CEO who was the CFO at Man City for the last 3-4 years?
Not sure how it matters? They simply represent whoever is in the PL at the moment, but nothing will happen unless enough clubs in the PL group together to force change, and quite a few clubs might actually like the outcome if it allows them to spend more.
That happens all the time.
Companies want to weasel out of contracts they have signed or argue they were unfair etc when things start going wrong.
I find it curious that this is your opinion of him, when most Barcelona and all City fans worship the ground he walks on.
Is he disliked amongst Bayern fans for some reason?
I remember watching the program about City and this stuck out like a sore thumb.
What is the point of having a 3 man panel when you allow City to choose 2 of them ?, and surprise surprise, guess which 2 sided with City ?
CAS should be binned for this alone.
I hate these behind closed door scenarios, you just get the impression City are pulling strings everywhere and they will eventually get a acceptable outcome for themselves.