Interesting if true
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.
Do me a favour....Real Madrid is/was the most powerful club in the world and the favoured team of the establishment in Spain. The MAdrid team had Pepe and Ramos at the back stooping to whatever level was required to win a game, schooled by Mourinho. Giardiola's side played all the football in those games, they didn't need the ref.
There was also that game against Arsenal in 2011 in which Van Persie was sent off.
The first bit is definitely true - I recall seeing it on Bloomberg.
Villa Egyptian owner and the City owner have a very close connection.
Yeah, that was a farce.
That's irrelevant when it's a UEFA competition though. Any scandal that might have taken place with referees has only been alleged to involve Spanish refereeing.
Tough luck you Bertie cnuts
Somebody explain in English what has happened
Five defeats in a row now for Man City!
If Man City opposed it then I'm happy it passed.
Sounds like Premier League Clubs voted in favour 16-4.
It's the tyranny of the majority yet again!
It's the tyranny of the majority yet again!
It's not related to the FFP charges.
This is about the ability of clubs to arrange sponsorships and transactions with Associated Parties - i.e. companies and organizations owned by the same people as the club. Essentially the EPL wants to limit how these deals are handled, City (amongst others like Villa) don't, because a lot of their sponsorships come from associated parties. There was a case earlier in the year where City won on a point related to shareholdings between associated parties, but the majority of their complaints against the EPL APT rules were dismissed. These new rules being voted on and reported today take into account the outcomes of that case and reaffirm the APT rules. City were pushing hard for the clubs to reject the EPL rules, and have taken a massive L in that respect.
TL-DR - City L, EPL W and Mike Keegan looking (again) like a massive loser shill. On a knife edge indeed.
Newcastle ?
Heard Everton were voting for it after changing their minds. Maybe Newcastle or one of the more subtle dickhead clubs who s!mp for City because they hope one day they can do that too.
City and Villa for certain, then likely two of Chelsea, Newcastle and Forest.
It was reported earlier that Everton would vote with the Premier League. It sounds like the potential new Everton owners align themselves more with other clubs.
City, Villa, Newcastle and Forest.
Villa? My opinion of them has suddenly plummeted. Pricks.
They've been towing this line for a while now. Turning into a bit of an unlikable club off the pitch.
Excellent post. My thoughts except with clarity. The way he was reacting on interviews and on the touchline. Something amiss. Can you imagine what those ******s are like towards their ‘employees’?
Eat shit bitters!!!
Wow; in light of the theory of #C’est Moi Cantona, this statement takes on a very different gloss. It’s like a kidnap victim message traced on glass. Sort of.
Great news, would have been a huge blow if Manchester City were able to secure enough votes to prevent things like this from passing.
So they lost, how will they spin this into a victory? Last time they lost like 16-4 and claimed victory?
Really? I thought it was well known that their owners were bellends.
They'll probably find a reason to sue again, and then complain about how high the legal fees of the PL are when most of them are spent defending against City cases.
Ha. Take that you cheats.
So City have lost a fight for sponsorship but still think they are innocent?
The reason they wanted the rule changes is so they can filter the money and make up numbers.
I am glad they lost that case, it would have been the end of fairplay otherwise.
It is obvious that they are using the state backed sponsors. Just look at all their sponsors, they all stem from the middle east.. There is only one reason for that.
City need to be made an example of so the likes of Newcastle, Chelsea do not follow suit.
The reason they wanted the rule changes is so they can filter the money and make up numbers.
I am glad they lost that case, it would have been the end of fairplay otherwise.
It is obvious that they are using the state backed sponsors. Just look at all their sponsors, they all stem from the middle east.. There is only one reason for that.
City need to be made an example of so the likes of Newcastle, Chelsea do not follow suit.
16-4 is a pretty heavy defeat. Villa are essentially a Belarus type of entity at this point, so City are always going to have at least two votes. After that they have Forest, who also have an axe to grind with the PL and Newcastle who I suspect are playing both sides.
Closed a loophole which has allowed City to write themselves a blank cheque for the last 15 years. It's good news for all clubs unless you're owned by a middle eastern sovereign wealth fund.
In London earlier. What a bunch of crybabies
Perfect analogy!
They'll need a bigger banner to fit all the other clubs that voted against.
In London earlier. What a bunch of crybabies
They wanted to achieve a lot of things, like the tyranny of the majority claim.
For them, a dream scenario would’ve been delaying the vote until the conclusion from the tribunal, then potentially block every attempt at introducing APT rules. Something that would’ve been a bit of a nightmare for the majority of the league.
Results like this make me feel better about Ineos buying stake.
If it were the Qataris, we would have most likely been on the same side as City.
If it were the Qataris, we would have most likely been on the same side as City.
How would Newcastle be playing both sides? They’ve been fairly direct about where they stand in all of this
It’s also why the PL should have enforced far more strict rules for ownership, simply to prevent the league from essentially ending up in the hands of foreign states and/or groups that have enough cash to finance hefty sponsorships.
Not that it's any less pathetic but wasn't this from weeks ago?
In London earlier. What a bunch of crybabies