Why aren't the other teams in the Premier League rallying to have City ousted?

Marcelinho87 said:
Because all clubs are taking a piece of the corruption pie one way or another.
Click to expand...
Red in STL said:
Well we don't know but my guess would be that there's a probably few other PL clubs that have some dodgy financials that they don't want exposing
Click to expand...
This is the take I think might be the most plausible, and how saddening it would be if what’s known is just the tip of an iceberg clubs would rather stay submerged.
 
TheReligion said:
Everton turning the heat up..

“The club will also monitor with great interest the decisions made in any other cases concerning the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules. Everton cannot comment on this matter any further until the appeal process has concluded"
Click to expand...

Finally, some kind of commentary placed in the public arena.
 
Call me cynical but I think whichever way this falls, in 10-20 years time people will look back on this current run of City success as what ultimately destroyed top flight English football.

And in reality it isn't really their fault. They are just a product of too much money becoming involved and too many people wanting a slice of it.
 
noodlehair said:
Call me cynical but I think whichever way this falls, in 10-20 years time people will look back on this current run of City success as what ultimately destroyed top flight English football.

And in reality it isn't really their fault. They are just a product of too much money becoming involved and too many people wanting a slice of it.
Click to expand...
Not too late to recover, plenty of exciting talent coming through with many exciting club sides.

Strip them of all their titles and impose new rules that limit Newcastle from doing the same and a lot of the damage has been remedied.
 
To answer the OP’s question, the billionaires who own the other clubs might have business interests that may be harmed by going against Abu Dhabi
 
noodlehair said:
Call me cynical but I think whichever way this falls, in 10-20 years time people will look back on this current run of City success as what ultimately destroyed top flight English football.

And in reality it isn't really their fault. They are just a product of too much money becoming involved and too many people wanting a slice of it.
Click to expand...

A story just broke today about Liverpool's shirt sponsor allegedly facilitating ~$100 billion of transactions in breach of sanctions and helping to fund terrorist groups and there is barely a peep about it on here.

Maybe its beneficial to first attempt to have a more neutered version of City around, as they are the current biggest avatar of the money-in-football problem, and the rest can go about their relative grubbiness in peace.
 
Red the Bear said:
Not too late to recover, plenty of exciting talent coming through with many exciting club sides.

Strip them of all their titles and impose new rules that limit Newcastle from doing the same and a lot of the damage has been remedied.
Click to expand...

It won't be that simple. City will drag that through every court they can and the process will take years as its not really that clear cut.

The charges against them are one thing and without knowing the details hard to comment, but any punishment from those that harms them going forwards they will fight until the bitter end.

The legal challenge on the rule changes is a different matter as its pretty obvious the rule changes are directed at City or set ups similar to them which gives them a case to argue. The counter argument is City's set up is purposely against the spirit of competition and the existing rules, and that the changes to them only seeked to remedy that. Whichever way that falls is likely to be very murky and will drag on and on.
 
Taribo's Gap said:
A story just broke today about Liverpool's shirt sponsor allegedly facilitating ~$100 billion of transactions in breach of sanctions and helping to fund terrorist groups and there is barely a peep about it on here.

Maybe its beneficial to first attempt to have a more neutered version of City around, as they are the current biggest avatar of the money-in-football problem, and the rest can go about their relative grubbiness in peace.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between your friend being a cnut on whom you have no power or can't make decisions for him and you being a cnut. First part is Liverpool and every other club who have no idea what their sponsors are up to, second is City who controls everything.
 
roonster09 said:
There is a big difference between your friend being a cnut on whom you have no power or can't make decisions for him and you being a cnut. First part is Liverpool and every other club who have no idea what their sponsors are up to, second is City who controls everything.
Click to expand...

Ok...?

You still have the power to choose who you are friends with. Standard Chartered have been up to no good for a while, as have the sponsors of many other clubs. It's not like their shenanigans are new to Liverpool and I doubt they will drop them as a sponsor. Of course it's not the same, but it's still grubby money and I'm sure clubs don't mind having the scrutiny go elsewhere.
 
As a private organization doesn’t the FA/PL gave the legal right to set and enforce its rules as they wish, so long as those rules are not arbitrary?
 
Taribo's Gap said:
Ok...?

You still have the power to choose who you are friends with. Standard Chartered have been up to no good for a while, as have the sponsors of many other clubs. It's not like their shenanigans are new to Liverpool and I doubt they will drop them as a sponsor. Of course it's not the same, but it's still grubby money and I'm sure clubs don't mind having the scrutiny go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Do you think Liverpool knew about standard chartered thing before they signed deal?

Also it's like comparing shop lifting guy with murderer. Both are crimes but not same level.
 
roonster09 said:
Do you think Liverpool knew about standard chartered thing before they signed deal?

Also it's like comparing shop lifting guy with murderer. Both are crimes but not same level.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. They renewed the sponsorship in 2022 and this is not new behavior by SCB. Do you think Liverpool are now suddenly going to drop SCB as a sponsor now that they do know? For many reasons, I doubt it.

I don't know why you keep talking about the crimes being the same level when I have never suggested they are. If the murderer is out of the picture, then maybe people will start looking at the shoplifter a little more closely in ways the shoplifter does not want, which could then affect the bottom line.

I have no idea what any club's actual calculus is. It's probably way more involved and complicated than anyone here knows. But in the context of this thread, the hypothesis is that you can simultaneously engage in questionable dealings yourself (which many clubs are) and hide behind a PL dispute process as a recourse of first instance to try to neuter, rein in or punish City. No need to stick your neck out and publicly crusade against City if the PL process can achieve your ends for you. If you do preempt the process in such a public manner, then you are putting a target on yourself (legally, reputationally, commercially) and potentially helping to set a precedent by which your own activities might come back to work against you later.
 
Taribo's Gap said:
Yes, I do. They renewed the sponsorship in 2022 and this is not new behavior by SCB. Do you think Liverpool are now suddenly going to drop SCB as a sponsor now that they do know? For many reasons, I doubt it.

I don't know why you keep talking about the crimes being the same level when I have never suggested they are. If the murderer is out of the picture, then maybe people will start looking at the shoplifter a little more closely in ways the shoplifter does not want, which could then affect the bottom line.

I have no idea what any club's actual calculus is. It's probably way more involved and complicated than anyone here knows. But in the context of this thread, the hypothesis is that you can simultaneously engage in questionable dealings yourself (which many clubs are) and hide behind a PL dispute process as a recourse of first instance to try to neuter, rein in or punish City. No need to stick your neck out and publicly crusade against City if the PL process can achieve your ends for you. If you do preempt the process in such a public manner, then you are putting a target on yourself (legally, reputationally, commercially) and potentially helping to set a precedent by which your own activities might come back to work against you later.
Click to expand...

They haven't involved in questionable dealings. Signing a sponsorship deal and them involving in some stupid shit doesn't mean clubs are involved in some shady shit.

This is exactly what I said in other thread, the mental gymnastics by people who keeps defending city is different level. They keep bringing some minor cases where clubs have nothing to do with actual wrongdoing.

Worst case is Liverpool will get new shirt sponsorship deal if PL bands standard chartered deals.

Clubs might have broken couple of rules or close to breaking, nothing compares to the cheats of this magnitude, the worst we have seen in PL and probably Football history.
 
roonster09 said:
They haven't involved in questionable dealings. Signing a sponsorship deal and them involving in some stupid shit doesn't mean clubs are involved in some shady shit.

This is exactly what I said in other thread, the mental gymnastics by people who keeps defending city is different level. They keep bringing some minor cases where clubs have nothing to do with actual wrongdoing.

Worst case is Liverpool will get new shirt sponsorship deal if PL bands standard chartered deals.

Clubs might have broken couple of rules or close to breaking, nothing compares to the cheats of this magnitude, the worst we have seen in PL and probably Football history.
Click to expand...

I'm not even defending City. I'm providing a rationale (maybe right, maybe wrong) for why a club might not be rushing out with a pitchfork like a bunch of uninformed, emotional fans.

You are seeing things that aren't there and arguing points I'm even not making.
 
It's obvious why Chelsea and Newcastle are siding with Abu Dhabi FC, but why on earth are Villa siding with them?

What do they have to gain in all of this?
 
RoyH1 said:
To answer the OP’s question, the billionaires who own the other clubs might have business interests that may be harmed by going against Abu Dhabi
Click to expand...

Yep, and even if the uk government had the governing body overseeing football that is just another group of people with their handout - in fact politicians are best at it.
 
DarkLord1984 said:
It's obvious why Chelsea and Newcastle are siding with Abu Dhabi FC, but why on earth are Villa siding with them?

What do they have to gain in all of this?
Click to expand...

Have super rich ownership themselves don't they?
 
Aggressively litigating against the FA, for a decision made by a governing body they're a member of? Wow. They're intolerable, beyond the pale. If there's no successful pushback against this, it'll be very, very bad.

You'd hope there's a connection between this and the lack of enthusiasm quite a few of their players seem to have for staying on. But who knows.
 
DarkLord1984 said:
It's obvious why Chelsea and Newcastle are siding with Abu Dhabi FC, but why on earth are Villa siding with them?

What do they have to gain in all of this?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing Villa see a chance to really cement their place among the league's top sides over the next years and feel they just need a bit of ownership investment to do it? Their owners definitely have the money and they could want to invest more than the current rules allow them to.
 
Rnd898 said:
I'm guessing Villa see a chance to really cement their place among the league's top sides over the next years and feel they just need a bit of ownership investment to do it? Their owners definitely have the money and they could want to invest more than the current rules allow them to.
Click to expand...

Yep. Makes complete sense. Also is arguably rather shortsighted in disregarding the wider interests of not allowing nation state clubs with limitless resources to steamroller regulation when they don't get their way, which at the next juncture could hurt Villa, but there you go. I guess that shows where their priorities lie.
 
You'd think after 30 odd years folks would understand the difference between the Football Association (FA) and the Premier League (PL)

City are not being investigated by the FA and are not instigating a lawsuit against them either
 
I don't see the big deal with City. All they've done is spent their own money.

They've just done it a lot better than us, Utd and others. I don't think their spending on players has even been that high.

They could well be relegated, but likely bounce back like Juve did anyway.

Meanwhile the case damages the league I think. Too much focus on it instead of positive things.

What should happen for me, is financial rules that are the same for all the clubs in the league. Not related to revenue or profit. Possibly punish debt / cash ratio being low, or things that can make clubs go under. As La liga do pretty much.
 
Anyone siding with City should be fecked off along with them. Including us if it turns out we’re one of them.
 
Mb194dc said:
I don't see the big deal with City. All they've done is spent their own money.

They've just done it a lot better than us, Utd and others. I don't think their spending on players has even been that high.

They could well be relegated, but likely bounce back like Juve did anyway.

Meanwhile the case damages the league I think. Too much focus on it instead of positive things.

What should happen for me, is financial rules that are the same for all the clubs in the league. Not related to revenue or profit. Possibly punish debt / cash ratio being low, or things that can make clubs go under. As La liga do pretty much.
Click to expand...

This is the sort of view and simplistic outlook I'd expect from a child. No offence, but if you think that's all they've done you're at best willfully ignorant.
 
Mb194dc said:
I don't see the big deal with City. All they've done is spent their own money.

They've just done it a lot better than us, Utd and others. I don't think their spending on players has even been that high.

They could well be relegated, but likely bounce back like Juve did anyway.

Meanwhile the case damages the league I think. Too much focus on it instead of positive things.

What should happen for me, is financial rules that are the same for all the clubs in the league. Not related to revenue or profit. Possibly punish debt / cash ratio being low, or things that can make clubs go under. As La liga do pretty much.
Click to expand...

Even if you believe that clubs should be able to spend as much money as they want (and there's a very good reason why this isn't the case) - the rules are in place and are the same for everyone. Everyone else has had to abide by the rules - so one team not following them and thus having a competitive advantage over everyone else is kind of a big deal?

Athletics could make it so that everyone racing in the 100m is allowed PED's and whatever goes goes, but they don't, so anyone that takes PED's and wins the 100m race is doing so unfairly.
 
Mb194dc said:
I don't see the big deal with City. All they've done is spent their own money.

They've just done it a lot better than us, Utd and others. I don't think their spending on players has even been that high.

They could well be relegated, but likely bounce back like Juve did anyway.

Meanwhile the case damages the league I think. Too much focus on it instead of positive things.

What should happen for me, is financial rules that are the same for all the clubs in the league. Not related to revenue or profit. Possibly punish debt / cash ratio being low, or things that can make clubs go under. As La liga do pretty much.
Click to expand...

Fan of club only relevant because of unchecked spending doesn't think it's fair check what clubs are spending.
 
Mb194dc said:
I don't see the big deal with City. All they've done is spent their own money.

They've just done it a lot better than us, Utd and others. I don't think their spending on players has even been that high.

They could well be relegated, but likely bounce back like Juve did anyway.

Meanwhile the case damages the league I think. Too much focus on it instead of positive things.

What should happen for me, is financial rules that are the same for all the clubs in the league. Not related to revenue or profit. Possibly punish debt / cash ratio being low, or things that can make clubs go under. As La liga do pretty much.
Click to expand...

Whatever you think they’ve spent on players, multiply it by 5 and you’re closer to the reality. And if you can’t see how having a nation state funding a football club severely damages the integrity of the entire sport, then there’s no hope for you. It’s this kind of childish ignorance that allows this kind of problem to go unchecked, but I’d expect nothing less from a Chelsea supporter.
 
Mb194dc said:
I don't see the big deal with City. All they've done is spent their own money.

They've just done it a lot better than us, Utd and others. I don't think their spending on players has even been that high.

They could well be relegated, but likely bounce back like Juve did anyway.

Meanwhile the case damages the league I think. Too much focus on it instead of positive things.

What should happen for me, is financial rules that are the same for all the clubs in the league. Not related to revenue or profit. Possibly punish debt / cash ratio being low, or things that can make clubs go under. As La liga do pretty much.
Click to expand...

No, they've spent their owners money. Big difference and you know it.
 
No surprise to see Chelsea and City fans in bed together since they’ve probably supported both teams at some point anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.