Bottom of the league

Seeing as nobody else will post it, here's the table:

Ethical Premier League Table

Fulham 115

Aston Villa 114

Burnley 112

Brighton 110

Crystal Palace 110

Everton 110

Leicester City 105

Liverpool 105

Chelsea 100

West Brom 100

Leeds United 96

Arsenal 95

West Ham 92

Tottenham 91

Newcastle 90

Southampton 90

Manchester United 85

Sheffield United 60

Wolves 57

Manchester City 20



I wonder if there are any teams elsewhere in Europe with a score as low as ours?
 
Shows how utterly ridiculous this "league table" is. The reason we're supposedly at the bottom is because of issues with our ownership. Yet Chelsea, owned by an alleged kleptocrat who's a mate of Putin, is in 10th place.

Brighton, owned and financed by a man who made his fortune from gambling, is in 4th place. Etc, etc.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Shows how utterly ridiculous this "league table" is. The reason we're supposedly at the bottom is because of issues with our ownership. Yet Chelsea, owned by an alleged kleptocrat who's a mate of Putin, is in 10th place.

Brighton, owned and financed by a man who made his fortune from gambling, is in 4th place. Etc, etc.
Click to expand...
It’s nonsense Colin. Their membership is not exactly full of the world’s greatest political and economic analysts and academics. It is a tiny body of self-righteous ego trippers suddenly given the veil of legitimacy by the genuine proven deviant sex cases and hypocrites on the Guardian sports desk who for the last two years have pretty much declared open warfare with our club.
My only surprise is that McGeehan hasn’t daubed his Qatari-funded fingerprints all over it
 
Weirdly, the author of this particular Guardian hatchet job, Michael Savage, has not written any single other sports story about any other team in recent months.All his other stuff is Covid or politics. Almost as if someone like Conn or Nakrani has farmed it off to a junior from the online churn factory to dodge the personal flak

Michael Savage | The Guardian

<p>Michael Savage is the Guardian's media editor</p>
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
So all that's changed is we get new owners who have invested more of their own money into every aspect of our club and more into the community than probably any club ever and we go from mid table darlings earning 2003 and 2008 Fairplay spots into the Uefa Cup to the worst ethical club?
 
mikemcfc said:
So all that's changed is we get new owners who have invested more of their own money into every aspect of our club and more into the community than probably any club ever and we go from mid table darlings earning 2003 and 2008 Fairplay spots into the Uefa Cup to the worst ethical club?
Click to expand...
Jealousy is a very powerful emotion, mate.
 
mccity said:
Seeing as nobody else will post it, here's the table:

Ethical Premier League Table

Fulham 115

Aston Villa 114

Burnley 112

Brighton 110

Crystal Palace 110

Everton 110

Leicester City 105

Liverpool 105

Chelsea 100

West Brom 100

Leeds United 96

Arsenal 95

West Ham 92

Tottenham 91

Newcastle 90

Southampton 90

Manchester United 85

Sheffield United 60

Wolves 57

Manchester City 20



I wonder if there are any teams elsewhere in Europe with a score as low as ours?
Click to expand...
Not seen this before we’re second bottom so
furloughing staff and making redundancies building mountain of debt =ethical
Not furloughing staff donating millions in ventilators and essential medical supplies across Europe and USA =unethical
What a load of bollox who makes up these lists
 
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