PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[M18CTID]

I doubt this is true.

The PL and PGMOL would want actual proof of corruption from reputable sources not from an internet conspiracy theorist. Not least Walton who would be entitled to a throrough and proper investigation by a tribunal/panel or else he could sue.

He would also not be employed by a sports broadcaster.

No doubt they'd need something more concrete but it's also worth noting that after Everton complained so vigorously about Clattenburg's refereeing in the 2007 Merseyside derby at Goodison, they succeeded in getting him banned from reffing any Everton games for a full 7 years afterwards. Now I'm not sure if Everton were in possession of any evidence pointing to Clattenburg being biased against them (although some of his decisions were dodgy as fuck in that match) but by complaining they got him removed from their games for a very lengthy period of time. And while I say fair play to them for succeeding in that, it's unfair on all the other clubs who had to put up with Clattenburg reffing their games during that 7 year spell.

Oh, and fast forward a couple of years from that 2007 derby debacle to one of Hughes's last matches in charge of City before he was sacked - a 3-3 draw at Bolton. That was a match reffed by Clattenburg too and he wrongly gave Bellamy a second yellow card for diving when any fucker at that end of the pitch could clearly see that he was fouled. What followed after that match were a series of revelations by City's management staff about comments made by Clattenburg around that game, which if true would've presented a clear case of him being biased against us when reffing that match. Much of that story has now been largely forgotten - not least because Hughes was sacked a week later and that became a much bigger story - but I remember hearing about it at the time and thinking if it had substance then there's no way that prick should be anywhere near a football field.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Some of his stuff is a bit outlandish but as @Prestwich_Blue has mentioned he was the source of a lot of the info that resulted in Walton being punted in 2012.

Ignore them. Sheikh Mansour & Khaldoon Al Mubarak don't waste time & money on lunatics and fantasists. And they've considered it worth spending a lot of money on his services.

And he's told me things that sounded bizarre at the time but subsequently were proven to be correct and I've had independent verification of.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I doubt this is true.

The PL and PGMOL would want actual proof of corruption from reputable sources not from an internet conspiracy theorist. Not least Walton who would be entitled to a throrough and proper investigation by a tribunal/panel or else he could sue.

He would also not be employed by a sports broadcaster.

Everyone is so black and white these days. There is a fuck load of grey in between that no-one knows about and could easily explain either of the two extremes being discussed. Doesn't mean any possibility can't be entertained.

 

[Keeper!]

Let's keep the thread on topic, and not derail it again with arguments about that FootballIsFixed guy's conspiracy theories.

I do not see what these lunatic theories have to do with our case and as said previously, a minority of our fan base does the club no favours in bringing them up.

Clear and irrefutable evidence, if so we have nothing to worry about.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

Funny how he keeps avoiding those questions. Anyone would think he might be a ref himself, and a fucking bent one at that!

I’m not avoiding nothing. Show me where a PL referee has been found to be corrupt and I will shut up.

We keep on hearing that FIF has all this evidence but never publishes it.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

If football is fixed, and City are winning title after title... Are some of you guys saying we're cheating?

Not at all. There have been "problems" with officiating as long as the PL has existed. I thought that in the early years it was a question of undue influence rather than outright corruption because it became increasingly obvious that the GPC was allowed to influence the selection of refs to an extent that no-one else could approach. For the past few years it is decisions which have raised questions and eyebrows and every week we have several scandalous incidents, with many involving the rags' or dippers' matches. Is it just a bad day for the officials? Is it bribery, by betting syndicates? Or another form of corruption? Is there "undue influence" allowed to some (2?) clubs to ensure favourable and sympathetic officiating? I suspect that City's defence to the PL charges will seek primarily to prove the charges are completely devoid of any merit, but secondarily that the financial regulations are not concerned with financial stability but with the maintenance of a football elite and that they therefore are part of a mechanism which is allied to "undue influence" on officials to maintain specific club's predominance. So, GT, in my opinion it certainly isn't City who are the cheats.

 

[M18CTID]

I’m not avoiding nothing. Show me where a PL referee has been found to be corrupt and I will shut up.

We keep on hearing that FIF has all this evidence but never publishes it.

Double negative

 

[Stoned Rose]

I’m not avoiding nothing. Show me where a PL referee has been found to be corrupt and I will shut up.

We keep on hearing that FIF has all this evidence but never publishes it.

How does someone avoid nothing?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Not at all. There have been "problems" with officiating as long as the PL has existed. I thought that in the early years it was a question of undue influence rather than outright corruption because it became increasingly obvious that the GPC was allowed to influence the selection of refs to an extent that no-one else could approach. For the past few years it is decisions which have raised questions and eyebrows and every week we have several scandalous incidents, with many involving the rags' or dippers' matches. Is it just a bad day for the officials? Is it bribery, by betting syndicates? Or another form of corruption? Is there "undue influence" allowed to some (2?) clubs to ensure favourable and sympathetic officiating? I suspect that City's defence to the PL charges will seek primarily to prove the charges are completely devoid of any merit, but secondarily that the financial regulations are not concerned with financial stability but with the maintenance of a football elite and that they therefore are part of a mechanism which is allied to "undue influence" on officials to maintain specific club's predominance. So, GT, in my opinion it certainly isn't City who are the cheats.

Spot on. Refs giving penalties against united then not officiating their games for over a year, then giving them a soft penalty on their reappearance.

Scudamore openly saying they'd like a variety of PL winners. That doesn't happen by chance.

Cameras or camera angles not being available for controversial incidents. Apologies after the event for blantatly incorrect decisions. The Adebayor and Aguero incidents. Etcetera, etcetera.

 

[mattcity5]

If football is fixed, and City are winning title after title... Are some of you guys saying we're cheating?

It's part of why we needed Pep in charge.

The biggest risk is always incidents around your own goal. Pep keeps us up the other end of the pitch and we keep the ball, so it reduces the chance of red cards.

Reduces though, doesn't get rid of.

We still don't get penalties we should, get called for minimal contact at times (eg Haaland at Anfield) and get dodgy decisions against us (Rashford). But the way we play minimises it, and makes it so that if a ref really wants to do us over, they have to do something ridiculous, something 'clear and obvious'.