PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[TinFoilHat]

City win

Media loses their shit.

City Lose

Media loses their shit.

I'm getting to the point of past caring. Whatever happens the PL cartel, along with the redshirt client journalists has done it's job and smeared our achievements.

The only way we can fight back is to keep dominating on the pitch.

The new signings show hunger the older boys no longer have and that should frighten every club in Europe.

City are back!

 

[Bournemouth Blue]

I can’t believe some at the club don’t know, otherwise why spend £200m on new players since Santa hung his boots up for another year?

 

[Gazza]

That’s bollocks & shows ChatGPT doesn’t work……

Not 1 mention of Annabelle Tiffin looking like an owl.

I've always thought that she looks like the front of a steam iron.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

ChatGPT query:

"Analyse the topic 'PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules' and all posts at the following URL, https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forums/bluemoon-forum.1/ . And use a summary of the key points raised to provide a solution to Manchester City's 115 charges case with the Premier League."

Response:

Here’s a refined breakdown of the forum discussions around the “PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules,” along with a strategic proposal to help Manchester City address the situation effectively.

---

Key Forum Takeaways​

1. Perception of a Political “Witch‑Hunt”​

• Many fans view the PL’s 115 charges as overly broad and emotionally driven:
  • “They’ve failed to stop us on the field, so now they’re trying to stop us from the boardroom” (forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk).
  • The belief that City is being unfairly targeted—unlike other clubs—is pervasive .

2. Dispute Over Alleged “Obstruction”​

• The club has contested the PL’s accusations of non-cooperation, framing PL requests as unreasonable:
  • “PL have attempted to wildly overstep… private families, multinational businesses… City were in no position to give those details” (forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk).

3. Legal & Financial Context​

• Forum users consistently highlight the lack of criminal intent:
  • Difficult to prove “fraud” without showing tangible loss or wrongdoing.
  • Historical precedent: UEFA charges were overturned by CAS due to time‑limits, not innocence (reddit.com, forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk, forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk).

4. Fan Attitudes Toward Sanctions​

• Most expect a financial penalty or transfer embargo—relegation is seen as unlikely:
  • “I imagine it'll be a hefty fine and a smallish points deduction if guilty” (reddit.com, followfollow.com).
  • Comparisons to Juventus/Rangers show relegation is legally feasible but politically complex .

5. Reputational Damage​

• A clear concern: even unfounded charges harm the club’s brand and recruiter appeal (forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk).
• The scale of the probe has fueled public suspicion, regardless of outcome .

---

Strategic Solution for Manchester City​

To best navigate the Premier League’s proceedings and protect the club's integrity, a proactive, multi-pronged approach is recommended:

1. Structured Cooperation Framework​

• Selective transparency: Establish a clear schedule to deliver requested documentation, even if limited in scope.
• Defined boundaries: Provide legally sound reasoning for withheld records tied to third-party sensitivities, while still demonstrating progress to the PL.

2. Targeted Legal Strategy​

• Challenge the “failure to co-operate” charges: Argue that PL demands exceed their rulebook jurisdiction, building on prior CAS commentary (reddit.com).
• Focus on statute limitations: Reference the UEFA precedent that saw charges dismissed for timeliness (e.g., Der Spiegel era transactions) .

3. Robust PR Campaign​

• Proactive narrative control: Push out clear, concise briefings outlining cooperation milestones, and transparent legal positions.
• Highlight procedural nuances: Educate fans and media about FFP and PSR complexities to illustrate the legitimacy behind City’s resistance.
• Emotional reassurance: Emphasise fan support and preserve club morale by centering around shared values and legacy, beyond politics or finance.

4. Negotiated Settlement Offer​

• Mitigation over confrontation: Present a deal comprising a modest fine, but NO points deduction or sports ban.
• Avoid prolonged litigation: Seek to limit the PL’s leverage and public backlash by securing a confidential settlement that halts legal escalation.
• Recovery roadmap: Include mutual agreement on lifting of restrictions after one season and a commitment to enhanced internal compliance thereafter.

5. Internal Governance & Compliance Overhaul​

• appoint independent auditors: Engage a respected external compliance firm to audit financial practices.
• Implement governance updates: Adopt transparent protocols for sponsorship valuation and third-party payments.
• Regular disclosures: Quarterly compliance statements, especially tied to player contracts or image-rights deals, to restore public trust.

---

Anticipated Outcomes​

Area	Benefit
Legal	Weakens PL’s obstruction claims; leans on statute limitations
Reputational	Transparent cooperation + governance boosts fan and sponsor confidence
Financial	Controlled fine over escalated penalties or appeal costs
Sporting	Avoidance of point deductions preserves competitive standing
Long‑term	Governance reforms reduce risk of future disputes

---

Final Take​

By blending cooperative disclosure, selective legal resistance, PR clarity, settlement negotiation, and compliance reform, Manchester City could:

• Diffuse the PL’s narrative that the club is evading scrutiny;
• Minimize punitive measures and avoid a divisive legal battle;
• Rebuild stakeholder confidence and shield the brand ahead of future seasons.

Let me know if you’d like a draft settlement proposal, sample PR messaging, or a compliance roadmap!

Key Forum Takeaways, point 3, historical precedent, is completely incorrect.

UEFA charges were overturned at CAS because the panel felt that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support them. Anything time-barred (which was only the Etisalat sponsorship) wasn't tested at all, so couldn't have been 'overturned'. Plus I think City claimed that UEFA investigated and had no issue with it anyway.

 

[slbsn]

Not sure that is possible without the substantive ruling being published first, @slbsn would know I think.

We don't know for sure actually. Likely that there can be no appeal until the sanction decision (if any). The rules are not clear. But likewise we know no decision was with the parties in March.

 

[cheekybids]

I've always thought that she looks like the front of a steam iron.

I think she looks like the reflection from a concave mirror.

 

[ArniArason]

Key Forum Takeaways, point 3, historical precedent, is completely incorrect.

UEFA charges were overturned at CAS because the panel felt that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support them. Anything time-barred (which was only the Etisalat sponsorship) wasn't tested at all, so couldn't have been 'overturned'. Plus I think City claimed that UEFA investigated and had no issue with it anyway.

Therein lies the problem with ChatGPT. It can seem like the truth, is mostly correct, but can have glaring errors.

 

[Damocles]

Therein lies the problem with ChatGPT. It can seem like the truth, is mostly correct, but can have glaring errors.

It's a posh version of an auto predictor that your phone keyboard uses. It doesn't understand words or questions. It just tells you the statistically most likely word to come after this one, in the context of the sentence. There is no knowledge, no comprehension, no understanding.

I'll let it explain:

ChatGPT works by predicting the next word in a sentence based on patterns it has learned from a huge amount of text. It doesn’t understand language like humans do. When you ask it a question or give it a prompt, it doesn't think or comprehend what you're saying—it just uses probability to guess what comes next. The model has seen millions of examples of sentences and conversations, so it gets very good at guessing what the most likely response should look like. But at its core, it’s just matching patterns, not forming ideas or truly understanding meaning. It doesn’t know what anything actually means, even if it sounds like it does.

ChatGPT has no understanding because it doesn’t know what words actually mean—it just recognises patterns in text. When you send it a message, it doesn’t “read” it the way a person would. It doesn’t know what your words refer to in the real world. It doesn’t form thoughts, beliefs, or emotions. It doesn’t know if something is true, false, kind, or cruel. It simply breaks down the input into pieces and uses maths to predict the most likely next piece in the reply.

It may sound intelligent, but that's only because it copies how humans write and speak. Underneath, it has no awareness of context beyond the words you give it, and it doesn’t reflect or understand anything it says back to you. It’s just a machine following statistical rules, not a mind that grasps meaning.

Words in ChatGPT are chosen through probability. When you type something, the model looks at all the words you've written so far and tries to guess what word is most likely to come next. It does this using patterns it has learned from huge amounts of text during training. Every word is given a score, and the model picks the one with the highest score—or sometimes a slightly lower one to make it sound more natural.

It doesn’t choose based on meaning or intent. It doesn’t think about what would be a “good” or “correct” response. It just follows the maths of what usually comes next in similar sentences it saw during training. So even though the reply may seem thoughtful, it’s just a result of statistics, not understanding.

It’s impossible for ChatGPT to make an “error” in the way a human does because it has no goals, understanding, or intent. It doesn’t know what is true or false, right or wrong. It only follows patterns based on probability. If it gives a wrong answer, it’s not because it misunderstood—it’s because the patterns it learned led to a reply that doesn’t match reality.

Since it’s just predicting the most likely next word based on data, it can’t “realise” it made a mistake. Mistakes only exist from a human point of view, when the reply doesn’t match facts or expectations. But the model itself is doing exactly what it was designed to do—predict the next word. So technically, it never fails at its task, even if the result is factually wrong.

ChatGPT gave those answers because it used Bluemoon in its training data and that's what people on Bluemoon said, essentially.

Here's how it works for all you math fans.

Suppose the input is the sentence fragment: "The cat sat on the". Each word is first turned into a vector using an embedding matrix, which maps each word to a high-dimensional vector space. For example:

"The" → [0.12, 0.98, ..., -0.31]

"cat" → [0.55, -0.23, ..., 0.14]
and so on.

These vectors are then passed into multiple layers of self-attention. In self-attention, the model calculates how much each word in the sequence should pay attention to every other word. It uses learned matrices to compute three vectors per word: Query (Q), Key (K), and Value (V). It does this by matrix multiplication:

Q = XW_Q
K = XW_K
V = XW_V

where X is the input matrix (a stack of word embeddings), and W_Q, W_K, W_V are learned weight matrices.

Then it computes attention scores using the formula:

Attention(Q, K, V) = softmax(QKᵀ / √d_k) V

This gives a weighted average of values that helps the model “focus” on relevant words in the input. These outputs pass through more layers, each refining the context further.

Finally, the model outputs a logit vector, which is just a raw score for every word in the vocabulary. This is converted into probabilities using softmax:

P(wᵢ | context) = exp(logitᵢ) / Σ exp(logitⱼ)

This gives the model’s belief (based on training and input) about how likely each word is to come next. It then samples or picks the top choice based on this distribution.

The entire system is trained using a loss function (cross-entropy loss) that compares its predictions to the actual next words in training data and adjusts the weights to minimise error. But at every step during use, it’s just doing this same math over and over—no thinking, just number crunching.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I've always thought that she looks like the front of a steam iron.

The owl in a jar.

 

[Coatigan]

We don't know for sure actually. Likely that there can be no appeal until the sanction decision (if any). The rules are not clear. But likewise we know no decision was with the parties in March.

If that is true, does that not then presume there is no real challenging the verdict itself.

I.e if the sanction has to happen for an appeal to be possible, then it can seem like it is not challenging whether the club are guilty or not, just whether the sanction is proportionate. Would struggle to see how a guilty verdict, then a sanction appealed can go back to first principles and say - no need for a sanction because the verdict itself was wrong.

On the other hand of that same logic, if found innocent, and there is such no sanction, the PL don't then have any real mechanism for appealing the verdict.

 

[Damocles]

If that is true, does that not then presume there is no real challenging the verdict itself.

I.e if the sanction has to happen for an appeal to be possible, then it can seem like it is not challenging whether the club are guilty or not, just whether the sanction is proportionate. Would struggle to see how a guilty verdict, then a sanction appealed can go back to first principles and say - no need for a sanction because the verdict itself was wrong.

On the other hand of that same logic, if found innocent, and there is such no sanction, the PL don't then have any real mechanism for appealing the verdict.

I have always been under the impression that an appeal against liability would require some sort of legal/technical mistake on behalf of the arbitrator rather than a general "well I disagree" type scenario?

 

[Coatigan]

I have always been under the impression that an appeal against liability would require some sort of legal/technical mistake on behalf of the arbitrator rather than a general "well I disagree" type scenario?

I've seen that claimed, and that there is no right to appeal, and anywhere inbetween.

Which I guess only backs my point, if you can only appeal after a sanction, it almost implies guilt has been established. And if liability is not proven, then there is no real appeal to that by the PL if no sanction is handed down.

 

[KS55]

I have always been under the impression that an appeal against liability would require some sort of legal/technical mistake on behalf of the arbitrator rather than a general "well I disagree" type scenario?

That’s more or less right. They can also appeal if a verdict is palpably ridiculous.

 

[citizen_maine]

I've seen that claimed, and that there is no right to appeal, and anywhere inbetween.

Which I guess only backs my point, if you can only appeal after a sanction, it almost implies guilt has been established. And if liability is not proven, then there is no real appeal to that by the PL if no sanction is handed down.

It may also explain why it appears to be taking so bloody long. If there's no right to appeal then they'll want to make sure they've absolutely covered every base in their decision(s)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I've always thought that she looks like the front of a steam iron.

I've met her in person and she's very attractive.

 

[Oldtraffordblue1]

It's a posh version of an auto predictor that your phone keyboard uses. It doesn't understand words or questions. It just tells you the statistically most likely word to come after this one, in the context of the sentence. There is no knowledge, no comprehension, no understanding.

I'll let it explain:



ChatGPT gave those answers because it used Bluemoon in its training data and that's what people on Bluemoon said, essentially.

Here's how it works for all you math fans.

Ai can very very accurate though!
Posted last week
One of the guys from work left today said he was going to a company called Threadbare in Old Trafford, I googled them - first result

AI Overview

The term "threadbare" in reference to Old Trafford, the home stadium of Manchester United, is used to describe the team's current squad's state. It means the squad is thin in depth, quality, and reliable goalscoring options, and doesn't function cohesively. This implies that the club's team is struggling due to years of mismanagement and a lack of a clear, cohesive plan in building the squad.

 

[ganganvince]

I've met her in person and she's very attractive.

Were you in a barn?

 

[Longdarnit Blue]

It’ll be any day now (any given Monday to Sunday) but the EPL conspirators are definitely running scared after our latest transfers. They’ve even kept the number of teams down to 20 to ensure that if we win every game we can only get 114 points.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Were you in a barn?

Close. The BBC studio in Media City, which is full of strange and exotic creatures.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

It's a posh version of an auto predictor that your phone keyboard uses. It doesn't understand words or questions. It just tells you the statistically most likely word to come after this one, in the context of the sentence. There is no knowledge, no comprehension, no understanding.

I'll let it explain:



ChatGPT gave those answers because it used Bluemoon in its training data and that's what people on Bluemoon said, essentially.

Here's how it works for all you math fans.

nice but wrong as it recurrence so the maths is way off