City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024

Oranges038 said:
Like I said to another Juve conspiracy theorist.

Maybe if they weren't obviously up to dodgy business all the time they wouldn't be such an easy target.
Click to expand...
Exploiting grey areas is what gives team an advantage.

Just look at the amount of times F1 teams pushed grey area boundaries and were later not allowed to use it.

Sport is all about gaining as many advantages as you can no matter how small pushing those grey areas can be the difference between being 1st or 2nd.

Oranges038 said:
Aye, Acquitted but mostly because the statute of limitations had passed and no further charges could be brought against them or the rest.



And of course Moggi was totally innocent and had his life time ban lifted.
Click to expand...
18/20 serie A teams were later found to be doing the same as Juventus.

The whole league was doing it and it wasn't anything out of the ordinary.

Unethical yes but it was only punished by fine until they changed the rules when all the revelations about Juventus and the league came to light.

Yes Juventus may behave unethical at times but there was definitely a witch hunt to take Juve down in 2006.
 
Ah man, he would have been so much better to say nothing and pretend the finances of the club are none of his business or above his head.

To defend this looks really bad now and will look a lot worse in the future
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Evidence was time barred so wasn't considered (although I'm not sure if it takes a genius to work out that the Etihad £400m sponsorship package wasn't market value). I just don't see a way when it's not time barred this is ever explained without them being punished and that's not even going into double contracts or the mysterious sponsors who don't exist.

They were charged for failing to cooperate, just as they are doing now. Not found guilty, not proven innocent (despite their press releases).
Click to expand...

Some breaches were time barred not evidence. So they couldn't even look in to the Etihad deal pre 2015 iirc... Basically some of Uefa's charges were too old. The ones that weren't were argued away by our army of lawyers and as CAS put it "not established". So basically Everything pre 2015 or 16 (not sure) was too old, and City won almost everything that could be put in front of CAS.
 
Andy_Cole said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they were guilty with UEFA?

They just paid a £10m fine as punishment (rather than a ban).
Click to expand...

Pep clearly has no idea.

Imagine being innocent and paying a fine. Its just that the journalists asking him dont have the Cojones to say.. its not innocent when you have to pay a fine is it?
 
One friend pointed to one thing. Something along the lines of they wont get punished with being thrown to Championship or points deducted cause, with Superleague looming large again, that kind of punishment might pushed them to SL again and PL wouldn't want that.
 
SuperiorXI said:
:lol: how can so many people get something so basic completely wrong?

City were found guilty and had to pay a fine. How this translates to completely innocent is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Found guilty of not co-operating with UEFA. And that was several years into the process after according to City the trust between the two parties broken down. The time-barred stuff that half this thread thinks we got found guilty on but not punished because of a technicality on was thrown automatically out of court so no one knows what would have happened at CAS if both sides could run that case. We will find out now
 
But city weren’t proven completely innocent were they? They were time barred and got off on technicalities.
 
So if they'll not be proven innocent he says they'll accept the decision but he wont leave. :lol:

But if they get thrown to lower league I fully expect him to leave, giant hypocrite he is.
 
padr81 said:
Some breaches were time barred not evidence. So they couldn't even look in to the Etihad deal pre 2015 iirc... Basically some of Uefa's charges were too old. The ones that weren't were argued away by our army of lawyers and as CAS put it "not established". So basically Everything pre 2015 or 16 (not sure) was too old, and City won almost everything that could be put in front of CAS.
Click to expand...
3 were time barred, 2 lacked sufficient evidence. The 2 though were basically just going off the hacked emails and, given City didn't cooperate, it probably wasn't too difficult to make it impossible for someone to prove. That's what people always forget in these cases, the defendant doesn't have to prove their innocence, they simply have to make it impossible for a judge have conclusive evidence to find them guilty. For example, one of City's defences was some of the arrangements contained in the emails which would have breached FFP never actually happened - without actually going through the clubs finances with a fine comb there's no way you could disprove this and there's also things like 'his highness' being the wrong prince and lots of vague details which you wouldn't be able to prove without complete access to accounts. When you add that up and include the controversy around 2/3 of the panel appointments it wasn't particularly surprising CAS ruled the way it did.

I'm not sure I'd say City "won" given this was what prompted the PL investigation - seeing evidence of cheating and knowing there'd be no time bar option this time - but City were not found guilty of what UEFA ad accused them of, that is correct.
 
The fact the media will just let them portray a false narrative in the open.

This we were innocent last time rubbish which is a complete lie they even got punished albeit a lot less then the initial charges were for.

shows just how many people have been coerced by the same methods.
 
FeedTheGoat said:
Found guilty of not co-operating with UEFA. And that was several years into the process after according to City the trust between the two parties broken down. The time-barred stuff that half this thread thinks we got found guilty on but not punished because of a technicality on was thrown automatically out of court so no one knows what would have happened at CAS if both sides could run that case. We will find out now
Click to expand...
The time barred stuff has you bang to rights. Like you say, it's only a technicality why it got thrown out. Had it been admissible you'd have no way out. Pep's 'completely innocent' wording is plainly wrong.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
3 were time barred, 2 lacked sufficient evidence. The 2 though were basically just going off the hacked emails and, given City didn't cooperate, it probably wasn't too difficult to make it impossible for someone to prove. That's what people always forget in these cases, the defendant doesn't have to prove their innocence, they simply have to make it impossible for a judge have conclusive evidence to find them guilty. For example, one of City's defences was some of the arrangements contained in the emails which would have breached FFP never actually happened - without actually going through the clubs finances with a fine comb there's no way you could disprove this and there's also things like 'his highness' being the wrong prince and lots of vague details which you wouldn't be able to prove without complete access to accounts. When you add that up and include the controversy around 2/3 of the panel appointments it wasn't particularly surprising CAS ruled the way it did.

I'm not sure I'd say City "won" given this was what prompted the PL investigation - seeing evidence of cheating and knowing there'd be no time bar option this time - but City were not found guilty of what UEFA ad accused them of, that is correct.
Click to expand...

The PL investigation was started long before the CAS verdict. Of course won is the right word, while I don't feel it was clean, Uefa tried to say City cooked the ffp books and lost therefor City won.
This doesn't mean I believe we're innocent (I don't), but as we all know theres guilty and theres legally guilty.
 
SuperiorXI said:
The time barred stuff has you bang to rights. Like you say, it's only a technicality why it got thrown out. Had it been admissible you'd have no way out. Pep's 'completely innocent' wording is plainly wrong.
Click to expand...

What makes you so confident it does? Also if you aren't guilty you are completely innocent, thats kinda how it works. Presuming guilt because something was time barred is not how it works. I think City are guilty as do most, but proving it is a hell of a challenge.
 
I wouldn't have thought it would be a good idea for Pep to publicly comment on this.
 
Pep is not a stupid man. In fact, he could be stupid and it wouldn't matter because anyone can see how City's original growth was achieved. I am convinced the only reason City gets away with this is if they have covered their tracks so well that nothing sticks. There is no innocence to be had here, just technicalities. If Pep is so convinced of any wrongdoing, then he is clearly complicit. There is no shock in football that City is accused of these charges, everyone already knew. The only shock comes from the fact the Premier League had actually gone through with it.
 
The blood scandal at barca should be enough for you to know pep’s part of the narrative.
 
Xaviesta said:
I wouldn't have thought it would be a good idea for Pep to publicly comment on this.
Click to expand...

There's usually a press officer around to block questions or answer questions on behalf of the club or sometimes just read a statement out at the beginning when something big is happening. The fact that they sent him out in front of the cameras on his own is kinda wild.
 
Saint Pep is bending the knee for his paymasters again, I see. Certain of what happened at the club before he was even there.
 
WeePat said:
There's usually a press officer around to block questions or answer questions on behalf of the club or sometimes just read a statement out at the beginning when something big is happening. The fact that they sent him out in front of the cameras on his own is kinda wild.
Click to expand...

That was the weird thing about it. But honestly people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

What he essentially said
"Just like last time the club told me they are confident of being proven not guilty and they were last time. I believe them"
"If we're found not guilty the other clubs will say what they've said all along"
"If we are found guilty we'll accept it and deal with it"
 
Just heard the pep, and that's all I heard was behind the bullshit was we have good lawyers and hope the other teams have good lawyers.
And they were found innocent. My ass
 
SuperiorXI said:
The time barred stuff has you bang to rights. Like you say, it's only a technicality why it got thrown out. Had it been admissible you'd have no way out. Pep's 'completely innocent' wording is plainly wrong.
Click to expand...
We will find out
 
padr81 said:
What makes you so confident it does? Also if you aren't guilty you are completely innocent, thats kinda how it works. Presuming guilt because something was time barred is not how it works. I think City are guilty as do most, but proving it is a hell of a challenge.
Click to expand...

If a paedo within plain sight hid evidence of his shenanigans, and three of his 5 'files' "probably" contained damning pictures. Would you say it was in his interest to ensure all five files were clearly in the open to avoid any confusion? Or is he completely and utterly 'legally innocent' because those 3 files never got to court (time barred)?

Would you send your kids to his house to play? :lol:

Edit: would Pep send his kids because it was his loyal work colleague?
 
Crimson King said:
I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned, but the BBC released a good podcast today on the Sports Desk. I'd advise everyone to give it a listen, they do quite a good job of summing everything up in just under an hour.

They invite a City fan on for his opinions and he does okay...although he's understandably defensive. One thing he does mention is how 'fantastic' (he uses that word a lot to describe them) their owners have been for the local community, building houses and a college and whatnot. I've been hearing that a lot recently, especially as a comparison with the Glazers (completely ignoring that we agree that the Glazers should never have been allowed to buy the club) and it's such self-serving bollocks. Anyone can invest in a community out of the goodness of their heart, that doesn't mean you have to cheat so the football team you own in that area is the best. You don't have to be much of a cynic to argue that one is just trying to build goodwill to help with the eventual fallout from the other...

One good point that was made towards the end of the podcast (I can't remember by whom) was about FFP just being a way to protect the richest clubs. The reporter agreed that there is an element of that, those clubs are always going to have an advantage due to their popularity after all, but he also argued that FFP has revolutionised football finances. It's main aim is to stop overspending that sees clubs like Bury completely destroyed, and it still does it's best to restrain the spending of the traditional powers. Look how Chelsea and others are constantly looking for loopholes.

He also said that thinking billionaire owners being allowed to buy the odd club here and there is a terrible way to introduce fairness. The best way to do this would be to find a way to more fairly redistribute the wealth that football generates, which is actually made harder by these greedy owners, especially the Glazers and their ilk. The thing is, this would only ever truly work if it was agreed across all of the world's league's, in some form. Germany obviously already has something like this, but good luck getting Madrid and Barca to share the wealth a bit more. They're still pushing the Super League idea so they can take even more of it away from the rest of Spanish football.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up was a good listen, apart from the city fan who trotted out the same old ridiculousness that 99% of them do. He lost me about 30 seconds in when he said ‘back before the takeover when we had no money and united and Chelsea could spend what they liked and do what they liked’

Ignoring that our spend from the start of the prem until their takeover in 08 was £350mill and City’s was £200mill despite them spending a third of that time in lower divisions.

Good listen apart from that.
 
padr81 said:
That was the weird thing about it. But honestly people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

What he essentially said
"Just like last time the club told me they are confident of being proven not guilty and they were last time. I believe them"
"If we're found not guilty the other clubs will say what they've said all along"
"If we are found guilty we'll accept it and deal with it"
Click to expand...
What is weird is having irrefutable evidence of being innocent and refusing to hand it over to your accusers. Spending four years fighting a case that you can’t wait for so that this can all end once and for all. Putting up blockers and refusing to cooperate for years, when you’re only the innocent victims in all of this.

That’s weird. It’s almost like City are guilty as hell and are trying everything possible to find technicalities to delay, stall and get off.

Disgrace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fortitude
padr81 said:
The only thing City were found guilty of is telling UEFA to feck off, which was a clear strategy to get to CAS apparently.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...tball-news/man-city-uefa-cas-premier-26175605
Click to expand...

Fool no one, you only ran away with your lives on the technicality of time barred and the "sources of the evidence".

FoX3LtWXEAEw1Z0
 
WeePat said:
Click to expand...

Just in case we are not innocent we will accept what the premiership decide...
:wenger::lol::wenger::lol::wenger::lol: We will be back, I'm sure...
He is pretending its the same accusations as before.
No Pep, baby, this is fraudy fraudy by 'My People'.
 
These 19 Premier League have set a precedent. What they have done to us, be careful with that.

Be careful in the future. Many clubs can make suggestions and there are a lot of clubs that can be accused, like we have been accused.
Click to expand...

Feck off Pep. Nobody else is up to this stuff. He's absolutely shameless. Hopefully his reputation is in tatters after this.
 
He's basically saying "PL clubs wanted us out of the Champions League, because they want that position. To take that position that we won on the pitch"

This bald fraude is saying they envy us because we're the best. But he is only saying what PL has been pushing for so long - that he is the best. That’s what PL / media gets for going down on Pep's dick year in and year out
 
Last edited:
Real Name said:
One friend pointed to one thing. Something along the lines of they wont get punished with being thrown to Championship or points deducted cause, with Superleague looming large again, that kind of punishment might pushed them to SL again and PL wouldn't want that.
Click to expand...
OMG, are they going to take all 6 of their fans and the revenue they generate? feck off to the superleague, no one will miss your small time club.
 
Withnail said:
Feck off Pep. Nobody else is up to this stuff. He's absolutely shameless. Hopefully his reputation is in tatters after this.
Click to expand...
What does he think the PL is? It's a fecking club owned competition, if the clubs didn't get a say they'd feck off somewhere else, but then again, he knows all about that, City and teams like Burnley and Stoke were always voting against regulations that would have made it easier for big teams when it came to the pre season votes on various matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.