- Joined
- May 23, 2022
- Messages
- 810
If you ignore all his doping he was greatFootball's Lance Armstrong.
If you ignore all his doping he was greatFootball's Lance Armstrong.
If you ignore all his doping he was great
But he isn't and he knows it, whether you like it or not, City don't need to prove anything, it's up to the authorities to prove the allegations, just like they have to do in a court of lawYou know it’s a sad state of affairs when Richard fecking Keys is speaking sense.
But he isn't and he knows it, whether you like it or not, City don't need to prove anything, it's up to the authorities to prove the allegations, just like they have to do in a court of law
Actually they don'tIt is up to City to cooperate and stop obstructing the justice…
If only the evidence of external payments has been leaked years ago.But he isn't and he knows it, whether you like it or not, City don't need to prove anything, it's up to the authorities to prove the allegations, just like they have to do in a court of law
I had in mind the idea that they start the next two seasons -70 points. It basically allows players and staff to find new jobs or clubs. And a fine equivalent to all the prize and broadcasting money that they received during the cheating years.
I like that. It would probably relegate them by default without actually doing it.
I wonder how many, if any of their squad would stick around. My money would be on zero.
Actually they don't
It is up to City to cooperate and stop obstructing the justice…
Yeah everything that gets leaked is aways 100% reliable or genuine, don't get me wrong, I think they're guilty, but proving it is what mattersIf only the evidence of external payments has been leaked years ago.
They won't be using Al Capone's playbook, he ended up in jail!The sooner you cooperate and have the case actually settled, the sooner you can prove your innocence if you’re innocent... When you keep playing the Al Capone playbook, chances are people will tend to believe you’re good at getting away with it, not that you’re innocent…
They won't be using Al Capone's playbook, he ended up in jail!
And to what depths do you think City with their "creative accountant" would've sunk to if United were successful on the pitch and winning successive PL titles?If Man Utd were doing good on field, Man Utd fans wont even mention city's financial doping, but at the moment thats the only stick they are left to beat man city with. And, they dont want anyone to talk abt the fact that Man Utd's net expenditure easily matches city's or even higher....fact is pep has totally transformed man city and Man Utd are jut playing catchup game now and it can easily be decades for them before they win title, and thats why all this bitterness. Fans all over the world just want to see their teams playing fantastic football , scoring goals and winning titles...and only one team in manchester seems to be doing all that at the moment, while fans of other one are left with no choice but to badmouth city's success...
Which is why the charges need to be proven, what you know is irrelevant, it's what you can prove that mattersHe was responsible for anywhere between 12 and 33 murders. He never got convicted for any of them… He spent 7 years in jail for tax fraud. That’s less than 3% of the potential sentences for his known crimes… City will probably end up with even less than 3% of the punishment they deserve…
Coming at this from the perspective of someone who is more a general fan of English football than of any one particular team, this thread is actually extraordinarily pathetic.
Manchester City have put together an incredible squad at a lower cost in transfer fees than Chelsea's and on a lower overall wage bill than both Manchester United and Chelsea (and no, Manchester City's transfer fees/wages for this season are not part of the charges brought against them by the Premier League).
In any case, those FFP rules that Manchester City are accused of breaking are despicable in their nature. I will never understand why it should be fair that teams like Manchester United and Real Madrid be legally protected to continuously outspend all their rivals simply through having created more revenue historically, leading to a perpetual cycle of anti-competitive protectionism where the fresh investment required for new competition is throttled.
I also notice a distinct lack of appreciation for what Manchester City have given to English football. Since 2009, Manchester City have brought a large volume of star players to the Premier League, contributed some of the league's most defining moments, contributed to England's coefficient in Europe and ultimately been a major reason behind the dramatic increase in television revenues which have benefitted the entire league and wider football pyramid.
I understand that there is also this "sportswashing" angle, but as with the above aspects, I also do not understand it at all - what exactly is the practical point that those who use this argument are trying to make?
Everybody cares about human rights abuses across the world and specifically in this instance, the related issues in the Middle East.
However, if Abu Dhabi hadn't purchased Manchester City, would all the political prisoners being held in the UAE now be free? If England had given the UAE and other Middle Eastern countries the cold shoulder in the past, would their subsequent pivot towards China and Russia have improved the human rights situations there?
Simply holding the position that you don't want such states to be involved in English football, with zero additional thought given to the wider context within which this viewpoint sits, is a completely closed-minded and morally indefensible position to hold. The way these situations improve is through dialogue and communication, through giving Qatar the World Cup then using this to push through the abolition of the kafala system.
It does not improve with stonewalling through the adoption of an us vs them attitude.
As I mentioned in the post you are replying to, Manchester City's transfer fees and wages for this season are not contained within the 115 FFP charges, given those charges relate to the period between 2009-2018.City pay less on transfers and wages because they cook the books. See the 115+ rule breaches which are currently in process. See the UEFA breach where they got away because of a time barred technicality through CAS.
As I mentioned in the post you are replying to, the migrant kafala system in Qatar was abolished in 2016, so "nothing has changed" is factually incorrect.Your post is factually wrong and a bit naive.
Nothing has changed in Qatar. Your post is an example of sportswashing at work.
Manchester City didn't agree to the FFP rules, they voted against them. Why should they accept being bullied out of the Premier League through mob rule?Maybe, if they disagreed so strongly, they could have sold the club and moved to another league.
Regarding the vastness of the inward investment itself, if such investment was properly controlled through a genuinely fair means of Financial "Fair" Play - for example a hard annual transfer fee/wage cap for all clubs - then why shouldn't they be allowed to own football clubs? As I detailed in the post you are replying to, such investment has done wonders for the growth of the league and wider English football over recent decades.No country should own football clubs in this country. Particularly not those with such terrible human rights records and, even more so, those who so obviously don't care about the rules of the competition.
I would doubt that we do most of the time, which is why you get worthless echo chambers like this thread.how do these posters even get promoted?
Which is why the charges need to be proven, what you know is irrelevant, it's what you can prove that matters
We had a tender teacher at our school, but one morning he didn't show up and the principal came in to tell us about the importance of reporting any grown-up stuff that we see or experience to our parents.@Tender Teacher
So you think that if you don't agree with a rule or law, you shouldn't have to abide by it?
Any chance you could let us know which school you teach at so we can avoid sending our kids there? Thanks Sir/Miss.
As I mentioned in the post you are replying to, Manchester City's transfer fees and wages for this season are not contained within the 115 FFP charges, given those charges relate to the period between 2009-2018.
Manchester City didn't agree to the FFP rules, they voted against them. Why should they accept being bullied out of the Premier League through mob rule?
Regarding the vastness of the inward investment itself, if such investment was properly controlled through a genuinely fair means of Financial "Fair" Play - for example a hard annual transfer fee/wage cap for all clubs - then why shouldn't they be allowed to own football clubs?
As I detailed in the post you are replying to, such investment has done wonders for the growth of the league and wider English football over recent decades.
they've made a mockery of the game tbh. clear cheating. the league needs to punish them heavily to set things straight.
they could have easily kept within the rules and improved gradually over time but couldn't resist quick success.
City released a statement saying they're looking forward to clearing their name so why would they delay things and not just show the evidence that proves their innocenceBut he isn't and he knows it, whether you like it or not, City don't need to prove anything, it's up to the authorities to prove the allegations, just like they have to do in a court of law
Initially, I thought they would get pinned down on something. However, as time goes on, I am starting to suspect they'll get, at most, a slap on the wrist.
They paid the UEFA fine and now people talk like they got found not guilty and got away with it, will be the same with the premier league if it's only a fine. Unfortunately the fans and media are already coming out with bullshit like it's not about the money they just have a great manager and team, forgetting the fact if they followed the same ffp rules as everyone else they wouldn't have the squad they've been able to build by cheatingAgreed. They'll stretch it out, pay a fine and get off on a technicality in court. Everyone else will know they were hiding something but they'll avoid punishment, same as the UEFA ban.
The latter is correct but for the former the allegations are that City have not been reporting the real money they have actually spentThis thread is kinda pathetic tbh. why are we complainin? We’ve spent way more money than City the past 7 years. Fact is they have a better infrastructure than we do.
sanctioning city will not magically make our club be managed better.
You need to do a lot more reading up on this.why are we complainin? We’ve spent way more money than City the past 7 years.
And i think thats a can of worms as a lot of clubs have done shady dealings to get players. (See Neymar to Barcelona, Bebe to United…etc, companies in South America buying into players and selling them to clubs )The latter is correct but for the former the allegations are that City have not been reporting the real money they have actually spent
Not too late to delete all that.Coming at this from the perspective of someone who is more a general fan of English football than of any one particular team, this thread is actually extraordinarily pathetic.
Manchester City have put together an incredible squad at a lower cost in transfer fees than Chelsea's and on a lower overall wage bill than both Manchester United and Chelsea (and no, Manchester City's transfer fees/wages for this season are not part of the charges brought against them by the Premier League).
In any case, those FFP rules that Manchester City are accused of breaking are despicable in their nature. I will never understand why it should be fair that teams like Manchester United and Real Madrid be legally protected to continuously outspend all their rivals simply through having created more revenue historically, leading to a perpetual cycle of anti-competitive protectionism where the fresh investment required for new competition is throttled.
I also notice a distinct lack of appreciation for what Manchester City have given to English football. Since 2009, Manchester City have brought a large volume of star players to the Premier League, contributed some of the league's most defining moments, contributed to England's coefficient in Europe and ultimately been a major reason behind the dramatic increase in television revenues which have benefitted the entire league and wider football pyramid.
I understand that there is also this "sportswashing" angle, but as with the above aspects, I also do not understand it at all - what exactly is the practical point that those who use this argument are trying to make?
Everybody cares about human rights abuses across the world and specifically in this instance, the related issues in the Middle East.
However, if Abu Dhabi hadn't purchased Manchester City, would all the political prisoners being held in the UAE now be free? If England had given the UAE and other Middle Eastern countries the cold shoulder in the past, would their subsequent pivot towards China and Russia have improved the human rights situations there?
Simply holding the position that you don't want such states to be involved in English football, with zero additional thought given to the wider context within which this viewpoint sits, is a completely closed-minded and morally indefensible position to hold. The way these situations improve is through dialogue and communication, through giving Qatar the World Cup then using this to push through the abolition of the kafala system.
It does not improve with stonewalling through the adoption of an us vs them attitude.
Because they've been cheating for years, their infrastructure might be better but it helps when you make up fake income allowing you to spend more than ffp allows, if they're not following the same rules as everyone else then they've got an unfair advantageThis thread is kinda pathetic tbh. why are we complainin? We’ve spent way more money than City the past 7 years. Fact is they have a better infrastructure than we do.
sanctioning city will not magically make our club be managed better.
Ok. Lets say they fake their income. United has spent more than them in the past 6-7 years.Because they've been cheating for years, their infrastructure might be better but it helps when you make up fake income allowing you to spend more than ffp allows, if they're not following the same rules as everyone else then they've got an unfair advantage
Because they've been cheating for years, their infrastructure might be better but it helps when you make up fake income allowing you to spend more than ffp allows, if they're not following the same rules as everyone else then they've got an unfair advantage
Officially, maybe. Once you add up all the hidden extras it's probably not even close. What a massive surprise it will be when in 5/10 years some ex-City players tour the middle-east to rack-up some totally legit money.Ok. Lets say they fake their income. United has spent more than them in the past 6-7 years.
spending wise we have the advantage. You know where they have the true advantage? The football people making the decisions.
Your whole post is written like a true Man City fan apologist.Coming at this from the perspective of someone who is more a general fan of English football than of any one particular team, this thread is actually extraordinarily pathetic.
Manchester City have put together an incredible squad at a lower cost in transfer fees than Chelsea's and on a lower overall wage bill than both Manchester United and Chelsea (and no, Manchester City's transfer fees/wages for this season are not part of the charges brought against them by the Premier League).
In any case, those FFP rules that Manchester City are accused of breaking are despicable in their nature. I will never understand why it should be fair that teams like Manchester United and Real Madrid be legally protected to continuously outspend all their rivals simply through having created more revenue historically, leading to a perpetual cycle of anti-competitive protectionism where the fresh investment required for new competition is throttled.
I also notice a distinct lack of appreciation for what Manchester City have given to English football. Since 2009, Manchester City have brought a large volume of star players to the Premier League, contributed some of the league's most defining moments, contributed to England's coefficient in Europe and ultimately been a major reason behind the dramatic increase in television revenues which have benefitted the entire league and wider football pyramid.
I understand that there is also this "sportswashing" angle, but as with the above aspects, I also do not understand it at all - what exactly is the practical point that those who use this argument are trying to make?
Everybody cares about human rights abuses across the world and specifically in this instance, the related issues in the Middle East.
However, if Abu Dhabi hadn't purchased Manchester City, would all the political prisoners being held in the UAE now be free? If England had given the UAE and other Middle Eastern countries the cold shoulder in the past, would their subsequent pivot towards China and Russia have improved the human rights situations there?
Simply holding the position that you don't want such states to be involved in English football, with zero additional thought given to the wider context within which this viewpoint sits, is a completely closed-minded and morally indefensible position to hold. The way these situations improve is through dialogue and communication, through giving Qatar the World Cup then using this to push through the abolition of the kafala system.
It does not improve with stonewalling through the adoption of an us vs them attitude.