Interesting i put the same question / text to Google - it didn't do too bad a job, well certainly a lot better than the above here is its answer ....
While those five players certainly had their moments at Maine Road and the City of Manchester Stadium, none of them would typically feature in a consensus top 5 list for Manchester City's pre-takeover era. Your list focuses heavily on the decade immediately preceding the 2008 takeover, but City's history stretches back over a century with many iconic figures who achieved greater longevity or higher honors with the club.
Analysis of Your Top 5
These players are often viewed by historians and long-term fans through a different lens than your expert perspective:
A More "Traditional" Pre-Takeover Top 5
- Gelson Fernandes (2007–2009): A hardworking midfielder who made 59 appearances, but his time at the club was very brief, spanning only one full season before the takeover.
- Terry Cooke (1999–2002): A cult hero for his role in the 1999 Division Two playoff final win, but he struggled to maintain a first-team place afterward, making only about 50 total appearances.
- Stephen Jordan (1999–2007): A reliable homegrown defender who made 53 league appearances, but he was often used as a backup and was released just before the takeover.
- Andy Dibble (1988–1997): A long-serving goalkeeper (116 appearances) remembered for some heroics, but he spent much of his City career as a second or third choice behind keepers like Tony Coton.
- Steve McManaman (2003–2005): Arrived with a massive reputation from Real Madrid, but his time at City is generally considered underwhelming due to injuries and declining form towards the end of his career.
If we look at the entirety of Manchester City's history before September 2008, these names are almost universally ranked higher based on their impact and legacy:
Colin Bell 1966–1979 Widely considered City's greatest ever player; a legendary midfielder with 492 appearances. Bert Trautmann 1949–1964 Iconic goalkeeper who famously played on with a broken neck in the 1956 FA Cup Final. Francis Lee 1967–1974 A prolific forward who was a key part of the club's golden era in the late 60s and early 70s. Georgi Kinkladze 1995–1998 A mesmerizing playmaker who remained loyal during the club's darkest period in the 90s. Richard Dunne 2000–2009 The only player to win City's Player of the Year award four times in a row (2005–2008).
I see what you did there…Having McMinimum on the list is a pointer to how shit it can be
View attachment 183478
Poor Gelson, missing out like that. And calling Ste Jordan a potential top 10 world defender is lovely bit of LLMing
I am sure that is true, but the point I was making is that the process the panel are going through is huge across 128 alleged breaches. Huge amount of work before, during and after the hearing and only so many hours in the day across a small group of people.That's unlikely to be the process. We would have submitted our defence as a written statement and referenced our evidence as part of that. The panel will have then sought to set an agenda for the hearing to cover what they deemed to be critical in reaching a decision (some charges may have been withdrawn pre-hearing, albeit I doubt that was the case).
They would then consider the evidence from the hearing in conjunction with what they had received in writing pre-hearing (that they will have already reviewed in all likelihood). That's the only way for the hearing to be conducted effectively and properly.
You missed “and he pointed a lot”Steve McManaman (2003–2005): Arrived with a massive reputation from Real Madrid, but his time at City is generally considered underwhelming due to him being the laziest **** to ever walk the earth. He died suddenly with the cause of death being recorded as “excessive pointing for no reason”.
You’ve put your finger on it there…..Having McMinimum on the list is a pointer to how shit it can be
You do know Aabar is not a related party don't you? this was proved by the CAS court case and all of UEFA's, 3rd party auditors and PL accounting teams. Aabar is an associated party which is why the PL brought in rules over the past 5 years to try and stop these deals (illegally I might add).1. "In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties, its....."
Think I covered that tbf mate.You missed “and he pointed a lot”
Premier League is not bound by what UEFA concluded in any of its investigations. What matters here is not UEFA’s 2014 settlement or the CAS judgment, but whether Aabar can be regarded as a related party under the Premier League’s own rules. As HH Sheikh Mansour was the chairman of IPIC, which owned Aabar, and his close aides were managing IPIC and Aabar, there is a serious argument that Aabar was not an independent third party but was indirectly controlled by the club’s owner and therefore a related party.You do know Aabar is not a related party don't you? this was proved by the CAS court case and all of UEFA's, 3rd party auditors and PL accounting teams. Aabar is an associated party which is why the PL brought in rules over the past 5 years to try and stop these deals (illegally I might add).
You may be on to something here, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to the Steve McManaman thread?After seeing the overwhelming wave of recent sponsorship deals, I’m now convinced of one thing: we have secured a flawless victory in all 115 charges. This sudden surge of simultaneous contracts speaks volumes.
Link?You may be on to something here, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to the Steve McManaman thread?
Premier League is not bound by what UEFA concluded in any of its investigations. What matters here is not UEFA’s 2014 settlement or the CAS judgment, but whether Aabar can be regarded as a related party under the Premier League’s own rules. As HH Sheikh Mansour was the chairman of IPIC, which owned Aabar, and his close aides were managing IPIC and Aabar, there is a serious argument that Aabar was not an independent third party but was indirectly controlled by the club’s owner and therefore a related party.
Well, the question the Premier League can ask is essentially the same one UEFA asked in 2014: did Sheikh Mansour exercise significant influence over Aabar, Etisalat and Etihad?The PL accepts auditors' assessment of what is and what isn't a related party. If it's disclosed as such in the accounts, it's related. If it isn't, it isn't. This was confirmed in the APT hearings and the perception that it wasn't good enough was what led to the APT rules in the first place. So, as such, the PL itself doesn't have any rules regarding related party transactions, other than that any transactions noted as such in the accounts should be at fair value - they use accounting standard definitions as assessed by the auditors.
What I think you are arguing is that the PL thinks the auditors came to the wrong assessment, or that the auditors were misled by the club's management. Neither of which seems very plausible to me - if you know the inner workings of Aabar, I am pretty sure the auditors and the PL did and came to the right conclusions. Also bearing in mind Aabar was peanuts and hardly worth 30 million of costs.
But I am feeling generous, so where I think you may have a point is on the wider issue of related parties as it concerns the Etihad allegations (I should say assumed allegations). There is a fundamental contradiction between what (we think are) the Etihad allegations and the acceptance that Etihad is not a related party. So if the PL is to have any chance of landing those allegations (I still maintain they don't), they will have to show that Mansour was in a position to "encourage" Etihad to play ball. I have a sneaking feeling the PL have been sniffing around ownership and legal entity structures in a way that would hopefully (for them) make such a connection. I don't know much about either so I can't conclude either way, but I always thought it odd that the ultimate controlling party changed from ADUG (one legal firm) to Newton (another) around the time of the UEFA and PL investigations. It may be nothing, of course, but it may have been a way of strengthening the club's defence or of weakening a potential line of attack. It seems to me that that would be much more beneficial to the PL and certainly worth much more than attacking the Aabar transactions.
Just my twopenneth.
Except they've known about them since at least 2014 and taken no action until 2023Well, the question the Premier League can ask is essentially the same one UEFA asked in 2014: did Sheikh Mansour exercise significant influence over Aabar, Etisalat and Etihad?
The answers are probably Aabar: yes, Etisalat: maybe, Etihad: no.
So if the Premier League is relying on broadly the same evidence as UEFA, Etihad looks like a dead end, and Aabar and Etisalat are the only areas where they might realistically score some points in section 1.
Note to self… Read the bloody post you’re quotingThink I covered that tbf mate.
The rules on Related Parties aren't determined by the PL. They're determined by IAS 24 and that's the standard that drives our statutory reporting.Premier League is not bound by what UEFA concluded in any of its investigations. What matters here is not UEFA’s 2014 settlement or the CAS judgment, but whether Aabar can be regarded as a related party under the Premier League’s own rules. As HH Sheikh Mansour was the chairman of IPIC, which owned Aabar, and his close aides were managing IPIC and Aabar, there is a serious argument that Aabar was not an independent third party but was indirectly controlled by the club’s owner and therefore a related party.