PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[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...

 

[Dribble]

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.

At the third time of asking, do you actually have "some sort of financial controls" to suggest or not?

 

[Gone for a Burton]

Marks and Spencer was a street stall in Leeds.

Rolls Royce a workshop in Hulme.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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

It's pretty clear most of the allegations are the same as those that were either rejected by CAS in 2020 for the years that weren't time limited, or were found by CAS in 2020 to be time limited (which makes sense as the two investigations are based on the same "evidence"), or were investigated and settled with UEFA in 2014 and not raised again in 2020.

The only thing that is new is Mancini and that is the least serious and most spurious of the allegations in my book.

So while it may be true to say the allegations aren't exactly the same as UEFA's 2020 charges / 2014 allegations, they have all, with the exception of Mancini, been defended previously either in 2014 or 2020.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Got to say myself with regards to spending and richer clubs, there needs to be a level; playing field and I dotnt like the idea that some clubs pay a luxury tax.. Thats pay to win. Fuck that. Fuck that if it was utd, lfc or City