PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Another Arsenal scandal - pasted from Wiki

In the same year, Arsenal became embroiled in a scandal; footballers' pay at the time was limited by a maximum wage, but an FA inquiry found that Charlie Buchan had secretly received illegal payments from Arsenal as an incentive to sign for the club.[70] Sir Henry Norris was indicted for his part and banned from football, but Chapman escaped punishment, and with the autocratic Norris replaced by the more benign Samuel Hill-Wood, Chapman's power and influence within the club increased, allowing him control over all aspects of the club's business.
Yet when we got done for overpaying players some years before that - a practice that was recognised as being prevalent at pretty much every club - our manager was banned for life and the FA forced us to auction off our entire first-team squad in what was surely the heaviest punishment handed out in the history of English football.
 
It wouldn’t have surprised me if the system was sold on a “per user” basis and clubs just decided to save money by buying one licence to share between multiple users. I’ve seen plenty of businesses being cheapskates in this way.
Not sure about that, because if it was it would perhaps never have been detected. They illicitly used the details of a City scout (Rob Newman)who was still at the club; I believe they did this in the belief (correctly) that it would appear it was Rob using the site.
 
You're actually largely incorrect on this.

The Liverpool one involved the former City employees using an existing enployee's login credentials. I don't know how they got that password (although I'm sure City does) but I do know that the City employee involved was still there a few years later, and may still be. So he wasn't sacked, suggesting he wasn't actively involved in whatever happened. It still puzzles me why we didn't go to the police over this, as it was a clear criminal offence under the Computer Misuse Act.

My understanding of the Pinto hack is that it involved an phishing email designed to look like it came from UEFA, which was opened by a senior club official. You can warn people all you like and carry out regular phishing tests, but there's pretty well no way you can guarantee security if someone doesn't carefully check an email address every time before they open it or click on a link.
Exactly this
 
Not sure about that, because if it was it would perhaps never have been detected. They illicitly used the details of a City scout (Rob Newman)who was still at the club; I believe they did this in the belief (correctly) that it would appear it was Rob using the site.
That all depends on the frequency of use of the off-site software and theoretically it could have been detected when the legit user was blocked due to a fraudulent user being logged in, or as part of an audit of ip addresses, or as a result of changing from simple password to 2FA or a number of other matters. I work with software that still to this day allows the same login to be used from different locations at the same time, too. Sometimes the two logins are unaware of each other, sometimes they conflict and "steal" the screen of the other back and forth.

My point then and now is that if an ex employee had stolen a login from another user and had continued to use it after leaving the company I would have expected that user to be charged accordingly. As that didn't happen, I suspect both sides wanted to play the issue down.
 
That all depends on the frequency of use of the off-site software and theoretically it could have been detected when the legit user was blocked due to a fraudulent user being logged in, or as part of an audit of ip addresses, or as a result of changing from simple password to 2FA or a number of other matters. I work with software that still to this day allows the same login to be used from different locations at the same time, too. Sometimes the two logins are unaware of each other, sometimes they conflict and "steal" the screen of the other back and forth.

My point then and now is that if an ex employee had stolen a login from another user and had continued to use it after leaving the company I would have expected that user to be charged accordingly. As that didn't happen, I suspect both sides wanted to play the issue down.
Your last paragraph is spot on, I totally agree
 
Yet when we got done for overpaying players some years before that - a practice that was recognised as being prevalent at pretty much every club - our manager was banned for life and the FA forced us to auction off our entire first-team squad in what was surely the heaviest punishment handed out in the history of English football.
Leading Utd to claim their first title with a team /squad made up of our auctioned off players including the league’s superstar player Billy Meridith !
All because the leagues self proclaimed history clubs ( Arsenal /Villa etc) didn’t like the upstarts from the north that had bought their way to the top table with their ‘new’ money !

No where have I heard this before ?
 
Costs were probably split in the APT hearing but we may never know. It would be a very good indicator who the Tribunal assessed as the overall winner.

Etihad has gone through for at least this season (look around) and it’s very large. We don’t know if City have successfully gone back on the rejected deal or simply accepted a lower amount as approvable. The ten year deal with the compounded uplifts in the later years will exceed £1bn.

That's interesting. Do you think we may never know the judgment on costs? If so, do you think we may never know the outcome of the "second part" if the APT hearing at all?
 
It's always been bent, from Wiki:-

The club controversially rejoined the First Division in 1919,[18][19] despite having only finished sixth in 1914–15, the last season of competitive football before the First World War — although an error in the calculation of goal average meant Arsenal had actually finished fifth, an error which was corrected by the Football League in 1975.[20][21] The First Division was being expanded from 20 teams to 22, and the two new entrants were to be elected at an AGM of the Football League. On past precedent the two places would be given to the two clubs that would otherwise have been relegated, namely Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur. Instead one of the extra places was awarded to Chelsea and a ballot was called for the remaining place. The candidates included 20th-placed Tottenham and, from the Second Division, Barnsley (who had finished third); Wolverhampton Wanderers, (fourth); Birmingham (fifth, later amended to sixth); Arsenal; Hull City (seventh); and Nottingham Forest (eighteenth).[20] The League voted to promote sixth-placed Arsenal, for reasons of history over merit; Norris argued that Arsenal be promoted for their "long service to league football", having been the first League club from the South.[19] The League board agreed; Arsenal received 18 votes, Tottenham 8, Barnsley 5 and Wolves 4, with a further 6 votes shared between the other clubs.[18]

The announcement of the vote reportedly caught all the clubs, except Arsenal, unawares and the affair is a major contributing factor to the rivalry which has fuelled the long-standing enmity between Arsenal and Tottenham.[18][19] There is also an inconsistency in the argument – if "long service to league football" was the criterion for promoting Arsenal instead of Tottenham then Wolverhampton Wanderers, who finished two points ahead of Arsenal and were founder members of the Football League, would appear to have had a stronger claim. It has been alleged that this was due to backroom deals or even outright bribery by Sir Henry Norris,[18] colluding with his friend John McKenna, the chairman of Liverpool and the Football League, who recommended Arsenal's promotion at the AGM.[18] No conclusive proof of wrongdoing has come to light, though other aspects of Norris's financial dealings unrelated to the promotion controversy have fuelled speculation on the matter; Norris resigned as chairman and left the club in 1929, having been found guilty by the Football Association of financial irregularities; he was found to have misused his expenses account, and to have pocketed the proceeds of the sale of the Arsenal team bus.[22] Regardless of the circumstances of their promotion, Arsenal have remained in the top division since 1919, and as a result hold the English record for the longest unbroken stretch of top-flight football.[23] There appear to be no extant records of the meetings which elected Arsenal to the First Division in 1919, however the book Making the Arsenal proposes a different reason for their election in that year, arguing that match-fixing issues from the final year of football before the war (1914–15) were used by Norris as a weapon in his battle to get Arsenal promoted. He demanded that Liverpool and Manchester United (some of whose players had been found guilty of match fixing) be punished by relegation or expulsion, and threatened to organise a breakaway from the league by Midlands and southern clubs if nothing was done. To placate him the League offered Arsenal a place in the First Division.
[24]


Cunts to the power of 10.
 
Last edited:
The Chinese gov has recently hacked Trump and several other senior personnel. US gov staff are forbidden to have the Tik Tok app on their phones.It is very hard to stop a determined hacker.
The Chinese govt basically pwn US telco’s.
and have done for years - ‘Salt Typhoon’

You are old enough to remember the Duke of Edinburgh Prestel account being hacked… well nothing has changed in 40 years.

Interesting opinion piece here:

 
It's always been bent, from Wiki:-

The club controversially rejoined the First Division in 1919,[18][19] despite having only finished sixth in 1914–15, the last season of competitive football before the First World War — although an error in the calculation of goal average meant Arsenal had actually finished fifth, an error which was corrected by the Football League in 1975.[20][21] The First Division was being expanded from 20 teams to 22, and the two new entrants were to be elected at an AGM of the Football League. On past precedent the two places would be given to the two clubs that would otherwise have been relegated, namely Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur. Instead one of the extra places was awarded to Chelsea and a ballot was called for the remaining place. The candidates included 20th-placed Tottenham and, from the Second Division, Barnsley (who had finished third); Wolverhampton Wanderers, (fourth); Birmingham (fifth, later amended to sixth); Arsenal; Hull City (seventh); and Nottingham Forest (eighteenth).[20] The League voted to promote sixth-placed Arsenal, for reasons of history over merit; Norris argued that Arsenal be promoted for their "long service to league football", having been the first League club from the South.[19] The League board agreed; Arsenal received 18 votes, Tottenham 8, Barnsley 5 and Wolves 4, with a further 6 votes shared between the other clubs.[18]

The announcement of the vote reportedly caught all the clubs, except Arsenal, unawares and the affair is a major contributing factor to the rivalry which has fuelled the long-standing enmity between Arsenal and Tottenham.[18][19] There is also an inconsistency in the argument – if "long service to league football" was the criterion for promoting Arsenal instead of Tottenham then Wolverhampton Wanderers, who finished two points ahead of Arsenal and were founder members of the Football League, would appear to have had a stronger claim. It has been alleged that this was due to backroom deals or even outright bribery by Sir Henry Norris,[18] colluding with his friend John McKenna, the chairman of Liverpool and the Football League, who recommended Arsenal's promotion at the AGM.[18] No conclusive proof of wrongdoing has come to light, though other aspects of Norris's financial dealings unrelated to the promotion controversy have fuelled speculation on the matter; Norris resigned as chairman and left the club in 1929, having been found guilty by the Football Association of financial irregularities; he was found to have misused his expenses account, and to have pocketed the proceeds of the sale of the Arsenal team bus.[22] Regardless of the circumstances of their promotion, Arsenal have remained in the top division since 1919, and as a result hold the English record for the longest unbroken stretch of top-flight football.[23] There appear to be no extant records of the meetings which elected Arsenal to the First Division in 1919, however the book Making the Arsenal proposes a different reason for their election in that year, arguing that match-fixing issues from the final year of football before the war (1914–15) were used by Norris as a weapon in his battle to get Arsenal promoted. He demanded that Liverpool and Manchester United (some of whose players had been found guilty of match fixing) be punished by relegation or expulsion, and threatened to organise a breakaway from the league by Midlands and southern clubs if nothing was done. To placate him the League offered Arsenal a place in the First Division.
[24]


Always the same cunts!
 
It's always been bent, from Wiki:-

The club controversially rejoined the First Division in 1919,[18][19] despite having only finished sixth in 1914–15, the last season of competitive football before the First World War — although an error in the calculation of goal average meant Arsenal had actually finished fifth, an error which was corrected by the Football League in 1975.[20][21] The First Division was being expanded from 20 teams to 22, and the two new entrants were to be elected at an AGM of the Football League. On past precedent the two places would be given to the two clubs that would otherwise have been relegated, namely Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur. Instead one of the extra places was awarded to Chelsea and a ballot was called for the remaining place. The candidates included 20th-placed Tottenham and, from the Second Division, Barnsley (who had finished third); Wolverhampton Wanderers, (fourth); Birmingham (fifth, later amended to sixth); Arsenal; Hull City (seventh); and Nottingham Forest (eighteenth).[20] The League voted to promote sixth-placed Arsenal, for reasons of history over merit; Norris argued that Arsenal be promoted for their "long service to league football", having been the first League club from the South.[19] The League board agreed; Arsenal received 18 votes, Tottenham 8, Barnsley 5 and Wolves 4, with a further 6 votes shared between the other clubs.[18]

The announcement of the vote reportedly caught all the clubs, except Arsenal, unawares and the affair is a major contributing factor to the rivalry which has fuelled the long-standing enmity between Arsenal and Tottenham.[18][19] There is also an inconsistency in the argument – if "long service to league football" was the criterion for promoting Arsenal instead of Tottenham then Wolverhampton Wanderers, who finished two points ahead of Arsenal and were founder members of the Football League, would appear to have had a stronger claim. It has been alleged that this was due to backroom deals or even outright bribery by Sir Henry Norris,[18] colluding with his friend John McKenna, the chairman of Liverpool and the Football League, who recommended Arsenal's promotion at the AGM.[18] No conclusive proof of wrongdoing has come to light, though other aspects of Norris's financial dealings unrelated to the promotion controversy have fuelled speculation on the matter; Norris resigned as chairman and left the club in 1929, having been found guilty by the Football Association of financial irregularities; he was found to have misused his expenses account, and to have pocketed the proceeds of the sale of the Arsenal team bus.[22] Regardless of the circumstances of their promotion, Arsenal have remained in the top division since 1919, and as a result hold the English record for the longest unbroken stretch of top-flight football.[23] There appear to be no extant records of the meetings which elected Arsenal to the First Division in 1919, however the book Making the Arsenal proposes a different reason for their election in that year, arguing that match-fixing issues from the final year of football before the war (1914–15) were used by Norris as a weapon in his battle to get Arsenal promoted. He demanded that Liverpool and Manchester United (some of whose players had been found guilty of match fixing) be punished by relegation or expulsion, and threatened to organise a breakaway from the league by Midlands and southern clubs if nothing was done. To placate him the League offered Arsenal a place in the First Division.
[24]

Need a huge banner to commemorate these shenanigans, get those tongues wagging "what does that mean?" followed by googling it across the country.
 
It would be great if everyone connected to City would fight back, hopeful I know.
If I was a city player I would be banned by the club from ever giving post match press conferences.

How did you think the team played today Hilts? It was a good away win.

Surprised we didn't beat candlepool by more what with them all having asthma

Err yeah so you finished that 1st goal well

Thanks its easier to concentrate when your fans haven't killed some Italians

Moving on quickly, Jamie Carragher felt that Doku went down to easy for the pen

He hasn't spat on Jeremy has he?

Last question what's your hopes for the future?

The coach driver gets us out of the car park alive.
 
Last edited:
They were trying to buy a stake in most clubs at the time,until they were stopped.
1989 - Michael Knighton had his £10M offer to buy 50%(+) of ManU accepted by Martin Edwards- although he eventually acquired a seat on their board - he agreed not to acquire a majority stake. Subsequently - the directors of the club realised they could make a lot more money by floating on the London FTSE - which they duly did. Indeed, a number of clubs "went public" in the 90s. ( usually to benefit the directors )
1998 - BSkyB - who had a monopoly of live TV coverage ( the Premiership had come into being in the early 90s ) made an offer of £625M to buy 100% of the shares of ManU. The offer was duly accepted by ManU shareholders. So we could have seen ManU becoming a sort of "Haarlem Globetrotters" of football- forever on TV - and with Murdoch's backing dominating English ( World ? ) Football with the media, the football authorities, referees totally beholden to them.
( wait a minute ! ) .
Even the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal could see the problem here - the matter was debated in Parliament and referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission who banned the takeover. And - yes - Murdoch purchased a 10% (only) interest in a number of other clubs ( including City ) but he soon relinquished these holdings. Then - of course - the Glazers came along and paid c.£800M ( in a manner of speaking ) to acquire ManU - hence Sky's continued obsession with ManU.

P.S. I can't help thinking that should a "Super League" ever come into being with ManU ( and Liverpool ) appointing themselves - the "legacy clubs" -as top dogs - and this without the support of FIFA, UEFA, the FA, etc. , then I suspect ManU would again find their "world domination " ambitions thwarted by higher authority . Just a thought !
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top