PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dribble]

If they accused a senior member of the UAE government of fraud all hell will break lose from a legal and also a political stand point. It’s going to be a brave member of the three man panel who wants to deliver that verdict within the forum the case is heard in.

Hence why they'd rather use the court of public opinion to damage our reputation.

We as fans have a duty to do what our owner & management can't. We need to keep highlighting that we're essentially being accused of fraud on an industrial scale, but then question why no football authorities have ever come out & used the word against us?

They've had 11 years of nods & winks in our direction, & yet we've never been accused of anything illegal, or had the word fraud levelled against us. Ask opposition fans why?

When I've done so, they've all shut up & fucked off.

 

[Coatigan]

There’s nothing dishonest about it.

They do not cover the same set of accounts - or timeframe. PL is 2010-2019, UEFA/CAS was 2014-2019.

They do not cover the same events. Nothing about not disclosing manager or player remuneration in UEFAs investigation,

They did not involve the same parties. UEFA not PL.

They do not relate to the same rules.


Those are indisputable facts.

It is dishonest. In the sense you are hanging on a technicality to deflect a valid point.

I.E. fact one is Uefa and one is the PL.

Both investigations are a consequence of the email hacks and der spiegel allegations. Of course they both cover the same accounts, don't be so obtuse. The period is longer because the investigation has gone on longer. The same people have faced the same allegations, and are dealing with the same issue. Just by a different body, but as part of the same implication.

 

[cheekybids]

It’s very hard to have a grown up conversation about anything on here when people are this dishonest from the outset.

The city executives have not faced these accusations before, that is a lie, and it’s a shit lie because everyone in this thread knows it’s a lie.

They faced accusations of breaking different rules written by a different organisation over a different time frame and most likely (we can’t know because it’s not been revealed) for different points of fact.

Don’t be a dick. The charges are all based on allegations that came from the Der Spiegel leaks. So no they haven’t faced 115 charges from the premier league but all charges have come from the same source of information & our execs have stated we have irrefutable evidence & I have no reason to doubt considering our execs seem calm as fuck & the results of CAS showed just how amateur & prejudiced the UEFA case was.

As I also said if the premier league was confident with their evidence they wouldn’t have loaded 115 charges. They’d go big on 1 or 2 years on the most likeable conviction & get it over & done with.

 

[domalino]

You have kind of generalised an already broad question. And while that is fair and I don't disagree with your view, I find your inability to resist throwing in a dismissive disecting of the forum and it's failures a bit unnecessary.

This is not a personal thing, I say the same for anyone that mocks entire threads or comes onto a specific topic to be amused at others' interest in that topic.

I don't think your assumption above is entirely teue, I've seen plenty arguing they would welcome a newcastle, everton, villa etc spending big as a challenge to the league. And when arguing that view, most often it is done on the ffp as is, rather than as a wide concept of spending.

I think the fact that the first and most popular response to my comment was “so no more Manchester City’s” proves that I’m not wrong.

Do you know how many Manchester City stories there’s been in the 60 years between all financial restrictions in football being removed and ffp coming in? 2. Maybe 3 if you want to include Bournemouth

Out of over a hundred professional clubs in England.

No one in the rest of the country is saying “I hope they get rid of ffp so that we have a 1 in a million chance of becoming the next city story”.

Clearly a forum of City fans has about as biased a view on FFP as is possible. Of course we do, again if we can’t acknowledge our own biases then we can’t have a grown up conversation.

 

[domalino]

It is dishonest. In the sense you are hanging on a technicality to deflect a valid point.

I.E. fact one is Uefa and one is the PL.

Both investigations are a consequence of the email hacks and der spiegel allegations. Of course they both cover the same accounts, don't be so obtuse. The period is longer because the investigation has gone on longer. The same people have faced the same allegations, and are dealing with the same issue. Just by a different body, but as part of the same implication.

It’s a lie to say that the city execs have faced and defeated these charges before.

If you disagree with that you’re disagreeing with reality.

And no, the period is not longer because the investigation went on longer, it’s longer because there’s no time bar in the PL, so they can span 9 years not 5.

They don’t cover the same accounts because the 2009-2014 accounts were not involved in the uefa case.

They are not the same allegations, anyone who has spent 2 minutes in this thread knows that, let alone you.

 

[Dribble]

Oh really? Point to where I endorsed or even mentioned ffp or psr?

I specifically said financial controls and not FFP/PSR precisely because I was talking about all other sports and other systems.

We're currently governed by FFP/PSR. If you mean something else, or have an alternative to offer, fill yer boots. I'm all ears...

 

[KS55]

I didn’t say it was transfer costs? It’s total spending.

No it’s not. Its wages full stop. If you add in transfer costs, the total is no longer a good predictor. Witness the biggest spender over the last decade who have not won the title once. Currently Chelsea are outspending all and are mid table.

 

[domalino]

We're currently governed by FFP/PSR. If you've mean something else, or have an alternative to offer, fill yer boots. I'm all ears...

Which part of my comment about the NFL, cricket, Hockey and baseball made you think I was talking about FFP and not the literal thing I explicitly spoke about - some sort of financial control vs no financial control?

Help me understand, because really the last thing I want is people like you replying to things you’ve imagined I’ve said, instead of what I’ve actually said.

 

[route46]

The Premier version of FFP came in 2013

what was the first year it was possible to fail?? 2016?

 

[KS55]

It's like discussing the decor of the main ballroom on the Titanic, instead of bailing into the lifeboats.

I knew bits about FFP, but there seemed no coherent explanation about our specific situation until @Prestwich_Blue took part in a discussion on YouTube.

Using his take on matters, I did my own detailed research & tried to simplify it for the FFP lay-members amongst our fans.

Essentially, UEFA & the PL are accusing us of fraud, but daren't use the word for fear of the legal can of worms it would open.

When we as fans get entangled with all the innuendo, nods & winks from the governing bodies which are designed to damage our reputation & public image, & ultimately stunt our challenge to their cherished cartel clubs, we lose sight of what all these alleged breaches are really about & designed to do.

They've failed to stop us on the field, so now they're trying to stop us from the boardroom. That's the tall & short of it.

Cutting to the chase, I repeat they're essentially accusing City of fraud. If this is the case, it's long past the time that the PL & UEFA should come out & say so, or shut the fuck up.

Personally, I'm done playing their idiotic games. The more we try to unpick their 115 breach bollocks, the more we add fuel to the fire they started.

This is why when faced with vitriolic opposition fans, I keep it simple & basic. "If you're calling City cheats, this implies fraud. So where's your proof?". This for me is the beginning & end of the matter.

CAS have already ruled UEFA had no evidence, so why the fuck are the PL picking up their baton & coming at us using the same charges which have already failed?

It's all bollocks mate. They need to call our alleged breaches what they keep hinting at, & suffer the consequences. The thing I keep highlighting to all is why aren't/don't they?

Outside of this, I'm not getting dragged any deeper into their bullshit rabbit hole about processes, rules or whatever, which are plainly the only mechanisms they have left to stop Manchester City Football Club.

I reather think you are missing the point. If the PL adopted my ‘commitment’ hearing idea, none of this would be happening. So, for example, the ’charges’ that UEFA cleared us of would not be heard again by the PL. Process is just as important as the substantive issue and we are likely to use this if we are found ‘guilty’.

 

[domalino]

The Premier version of FFP came in 2013

what was the first year it was possible to fail?? 2016?

Yes.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

if the wider world of business had adopted the financial controls that some, ahem, City fan(s), are so in favour of, and arguing so vigorously in favour of, in this of all places, Marks and Spencer would still be a market stall in the East End. As would Tesco. As would J Sainsbury and we would all be buying our groceries on a daily basis from the local shopkeeper.
We wouldn't have fridges to store them in as the fridge manufacturers would have found it impossible to invest in their businesses and develop the technology and would have been legislated out of existence. We wouldnt have cars for the same reasons - the blacksmiths would have legislated the car makers out of existence.
We wouldnt have fitted kitchens, fitted bathrooms, 4k TV's, or very much of anything at all.
29 of the last 30 titles would have been won by the old money redshirts, infact probably 30 of 30 as Leicester would have been kept in the championship for 'cheating FFP'.
It is backward thinking, adopted by backward people.

An remember when reading this thread Blues:

If it looks like a rag twat, writes like a rag twat, and argues like a rag twat, it almost certainly isnt a City fan.

 

[Dribble]

Which part of my comment about the NFL, cricket, Hockey and baseball made you think I was talking about FFP and not the literal thing I explicitly spoke about - some sort of financial control vs no financial control?

Help me understand, because really the last thing I want is people like you replying to things you’ve imagined I’ve said, instead of what I’ve actually said.

What exactly does "Some sort of financial control vs no financial control" in a post about FFP/PSR mean?

Explain & I'll listen & respond accordingly.

 

[domalino]

What exactly does "Some sort of financial control vs no financial control" in a post about FFP/PSR mean?

Explain & I'll listen & respond accordingly.

Like I said in the post it means some sort of financial control so that sport is more than who spends the most. Every sport has something different, but they all have something for a reason, which is that runaway unrestricted spending is shit for everyone not owned by the top 5 richest people in the sport.

 

[KS55]

There’s nothing dishonest about it.

They do not cover the same set of accounts - or timeframe. PL is 2010-2019, UEFA/CAS was 2014-2019.

They do not cover the same events. Nothing about not disclosing manager or player remuneration in UEFAs investigation,

They did not involve the same parties. UEFA not PL.

They do not relate to the same rules.


Those are indisputable facts.

Note: some of the charges are specified as “not fulfilling UEFA Rules” and the time periods overlap.

 

[KS55]

if the wider world of business had adopted the financial controls that some, ahem, City fan(s), are so in favour of, and arguing so vigorously in favour of, in this of all places, Marks and Spencer would still be a market stall in the East End. As would Tesco. As would J Sainsbury and we would all be buying our groceries on a daily basis from the local shopkeeper.
We wouldn't have fridges to store them in as the fridge manufacturers would have found it impossible to invest in their businesses and develop the technology and would have been legislated out of existence. We wouldnt have cars for the same reasons - the blacksmiths would have legislated the car makers out of existence.
We wouldnt have fitted kitchens, fitted bathrooms, 4k TV's, or very much of anything at all.
29 of the last 30 titles would have been won by the old money redshirts, infact probably 30 of 30 as Leicester would have been kept in the championship for 'cheating FFP'.
It is backward thinking, adopted by backward people.

An remember when reading this thread Blues:

If it looks like a rag twat, writes like a rag twat, and argues like a rag twat, it almost certainly isnt a City fan.

Marks and Spencer was a street stall in Leeds.

 

[Bluewonder]

Like I said in the post it means some sort of financial control so that sport is more than who spends the most. Every sport has something different, but they all have something for a reason, which is that runaway unrestricted spending is shit for everyone not owned by the top 5 richest people in the sport.

So, what would you propose?

 

[Maly]

Well Remember football had spending controls into the 60's.

Are you telling me you've not heard a million FOCs on here tell everyone how much better the football league was when teams came and went at the top of the table and United/Liverpool didn't dominate the top of the table for 40 years? It's not a coincidence that competitiveness decreased rapidly as soon as clubs' spending became unregulated.

We know from decades of data that the biggest predictor of league position at the end of the season is how much is spent. We all see for ourselves every year how the major compeititons boil down to 3/4 clubs in the world who can spend enough to compete, and the number is shrinking every decade.

There's only 4 relevant countries in European football these days because unless you're from a TV market with 30m+ people, you can't afford to compete.

Why is that better than a level playing field again? Because we're one of the lucky few? How quickly people forget...

I think it could be argued that it was the stopping of shared gate receipts which reduced competition, not the deregulation of capped wages

I’ve got no issues with financial controls as long as it allows clubs with a small revenues to invest to the levels of the largest revenue generators via owner investment

 

[Coatigan]

It’s a lie to say that the city execs have faced and defeated these charges before.

If you disagree with that you’re disagreeing with reality.

And no, the period is not longer because the investigation went on longer, it’s longer because there’s no time bar in the PL, so they can span 9 years not 5.

They don’t cover the same accounts because the 2009-2014 accounts were not involved in the uefa case.

They are not the same allegations, anyone who has spent 2 minutes in this thread knows that, let alone you.

Yeah good juggling of a technicality, but it is dishonest to the discussion and the point. I stand by that and I have said why. Wasn't my point to beigin with, so will leave it there, but I agree with it.

I think the fact that the first and most popular response to my comment was “so no more Manchester City’s” proves that I’m not wrong.

Do you know how many Manchester City stories there’s been in the 60 years between all financial restrictions in football being removed and ffp coming in? 2. Maybe 3 if you want to include Bournemouth

Out of over a hundred professional clubs in England.

No one in the rest of the country is saying “I hope they get rid of ffp so that we have a 1 in a million chance of becoming the next city story”.

Clearly a forum of City fans has about as biased a view on FFP as is possible. Of course we do, again if we can’t acknowledge our own biases then we can’t have a grown up conversation.

I think it is easy to argue anyone saying anything on this forum is being biased, by default and by their basic being on here. I thought it was an unfair one in that instance, and that people that are arguing against ffp are not doing so because 'we happen to have rich owners' but because that's their take. I don't disagree with the rest of your post as I already said, even if it was about a general concept as opposed to ffp.

Presumably by the 2 you mean Chelsea and Blackburn. Since you are so quick to broaden discussions, (but also readily narrow it down to technicalities when it suits), I would broaden that to include Liverpool in the 80s, Utd in the 90s, Arsenal in the late 90s, Blackpool, Fulham too if you want to and there will be more. That have had significant investment that eclipses others, secured by their owners in various forms (be it debt, new sponsorship, selling of assets etc). If the whole premise is that financial restrictions give parity, there have been eras of disparity in equal measure to City, Chelsea, Blackburn, and Newcastle trying it, just through different formats.

The issue with FFP, imo, is it targeted one specific format, and not the general principle.

 

[Dribble]

I reather think you are missing the point. If the PL adopted my ‘commitment’ hearing idea, none of this would be happening. So, for example, the ’charges’ that UEFA cleared us of would not be heard again by the PL. Process is just as important as the substantive issue and we are likely to use this if we are found ‘guilty’.

UEFA & the PL are different organisations under different jurisdictions, governed by different laws.

However, none of this matters, because if we get back to basics, we've essentially got two branches of a private members club, trying to do City for breaches of the same club rules twice.

It's total bullshit, hence why I no longer get dragged into the nuts & bolts of this breaches bollocks, which only gives it oxygen, & makes others believe we've got something to hide.

This is why I now cut to the chase & make it very simple...

The Premier League are essentially accusing us of fraud. They should use the word fraud if they dare & provide their evidence.

For the fear of the legal ramifications, they daren't use the word "fraud". Plus CAS has already ruled they've offered ZERO evidence.

Why're we all getting dragged into all the other surrounding bullshit, which only serves to give these accusations of "breaches" of a private members club's "rules" more oxygen to breathe?

It's like someone being hinted at being a murderer, arguing about the technical term, the process being used for the investigation, whether double jeopardy maybe a factor etc.

If it was me, everything would have to stop & I'd demand those "hints" become an accusation backed by evidence, or they'd be getting a smack in the gob.

To even consider discussing anything outside that would lead others to believe there was no smoke without fire & that I had something to hide.

Nah mate. I'd put the cat amongst the pigeons & tell them straight to either put up, or shut the fuck up & fuck off. It's that simple...