Bottom of the league

The people behind this are nothing to do with FIFA, they're just a bunch of nobodies using FIFA's name to make themselves sound important by the looks of it. They did a poor job of justifying their scoring and they haven't even been consistent with it.

The report judged that the club’s connections to the regime meant it scored low for women’s rights, LGBTQ+ issues, religious and political rights, as well as losing points in the environmental category for its sponsorship by the Etihad airline.
Click to expand...

City get docked points for being sponsored by an airline, yet no mention of that for Arsenal or any other club. No mention of City being top or joint top in two different surveys completed in 2019 either: edie.net and Sport Positive Summit both found City to be one of if not the greenest club in the PL operationally.

That pretty much leaves them trying to claim City have connections to a country's regime, even though they conceded(surprising they got that right) City aren't owned by Abu Dhabi to start out with. Surely they should be looking at the way the club is run and behaves towards these groups instead, or is that just too sensible for them?

It's a bullshit table from top to bottom,what's ethical about Iranian "blood money" launderers sponsoring your club? Or condoning illegal acts such as hacking? How about no stadium bans made by the club in response to their fans attacking an opposition team bus? Or the cheating scandals that FSG have in their other sports teams? They're obviously pretty selective on their ethics in this "study".

Wasn't John Henry looking for investment in the middle east in 2014, into his Liverpool project? Did we find out who he ended up doing a deal with? It would make so much sense, if there are strong links with Qatar found at some point. I don't think it's a coincidence, that while the bid to make the UAE and City, football's number 1 enemies has intensified in the past 2 years. At the same time, the criticism on Qatar's regime and their world cup bid seem an afterthought, if not forgotten about. Clear and organised, you could say, or paid for.

How are Chelsea treated so much more leniently, when they've broke more FIFA regulations in recent years as far as I know and they are owned by a Russian "oil billionaire". Is his Leiston Holdings company and their dealings revealed in the FinCEN Files Leaks not deemed unethical enough to affect their score much?
 
Last edited:
This being deemed newsworthy by the Guardian, couldn't be anything to do with poor John Henry and the rest of the American owners rightly coming under criticism, for coming together to further corrupt the English game for their own gain, could it? Looks like more "sportsmudslinging" on behalf of the cartel, it's the same trick that Qatar have been using IMO, with a bit of entitlement added for good measure:

"Look over there not here, we're the good guys and stop your 'whataboutism'(ha) too, we control the narrative."

The Guardian, yet again showing themselves to be enemies of the club and give it the big: "Yeah what you gonna do about it?" knowing what the answer is.
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
The people behind this are nothing to do with FIFA, they're just a bunch of nobodies using FIFA's name to make themselves sound important by the looks of it. They did a poor job of justifying their scoring and they haven't even been consistent with it.



City get docked points for being sponsored by an airline, yet no mention of that for Arsenal or any other club. No mention of City being top or joint top in two different surveys completed in 2019 either: edie.net and Sport Positive Summit both found City to be one of if not the greenest club in the PL operationally.

That pretty much leaves them trying to claim City have connections to a country's regime, even though they conceded(surprising they got that right) City aren't owned by Abu Dhabi to start out with. Surely they should be looking at the way the club is run and behaves towards these groups instead, or is that just too sensible for them?

It's a bullshit table from top to bottom,what's ethical about Iranian "blood money" launderers sponsoring your club? Or condoning illegal acts such as hacking? How about no stadium bans made by the club in response to their fans attacking an opposition team bus? Or the cheating scandals that FSG have in their other sports teams? They're obviously pretty selective on their ethics in this "study".

Wasn't John Henry looking for investment in the middle east in 2014, into his Liverpool project? Did we find out who he ended up doing a deal with? It would make so much sense, if there are strong links with Qatar found at some point. I don't think it's a coincidence, that while the bid to make the UAE and City, football's number 1 enemies has intensified in the past 2 years. At the same time, the criticism on Qatar's regime and their world cup bid seem an afterthought, if not forgotten about. Clear and organised, you could say, or paid for.

How are Chelsea treated so much more leniently, when they've broke more FIFA regulations in recent years as far as I know and they are owned by a Russian "oil billionaire". Is his Leiston Holdings company and their dealings revealed in the FinCEN Files Leaks not deemed unethical enough to affect their score much?
Click to expand...
No one knows as the report or scoring system etc is not public so we know very little about how this table was compiled or what it was intended for.

it could have been a rough hypothetical experiment just to test the formulas worked in a spread sheet. The other thing was the experimental version is knocking points off for types of sponsors, and city have dozens, hardly any are whiter than white, and I guess fulham have far less.

What is written in the paper about it is unlikely to be a fair reflection - or completely made up.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
City have been named the Premier League's least ethical club in an analysis of club ownerships.

20 clubs got points based on 12 criteria - sponsorship, employment practices, free speech, human rights and fan involvement.

Fulham came top in the table drawn up by FIFA Ethics and Regulation Watch with 115 points.

City are at the bottom with 20.

Unsurprisingly, some media outlets have felt this needed publishing today.

Amazing what people will do to tar our club.

Sports washing, eh?
Click to expand...
Shame the media were not involved in this poll, they would not have registered a single point when it come to ethics, fucked off with our club being lambasted and judged on what are patent lies from the media.. Its about time City bit back and sued some of these gobshite cunts...!!
 
We lost points for being sponsored by an airline. I wonder if Liverpool lost points for being sponsored by a bank that was fined for money laundering and possible funding of terrorism.
 
FERW. Appear to be a bunch of self appointed nobodies, including an agent (maybe looking for some ethics?) who is standing for FIFA Presidency in 2022. I wonder who is funding this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.