PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Shirley]

From the article above….

t’s Pep Guardiola. Don’t you see that? It’s not Manchester City, it’s him. City are a well-run club, we know. Intelligent, empowering, exceptional recruitment strategies. Even so, take Guardiola away, and they don’t win five titles in six.

Sporting success is about individuals, not institutions. We underestimate the influence of these lone figures sometimes. Arsène Wenger, Sir Alex Ferguson. We think a club has a way of playing, a signature, when a club just sits there useless, largely, until an individual flicks a switch, ignites a spark. That is what Guardiola has done at Manchester City. That is why this is about him, more than them. Everyone is scared of them. Everyone thinks they will dominate for years. Really? Without Guardiola? We’ll see.

​

 

[hertsblue]

Fuck face Stone with another pile of bollocks… obstructing the UEFA case ? a failure not to cooperate becomes obstruction… then he moves on to his ongoing fixation of Pep leaving. What an utter **** this charlatan is… cancel your TV licence immediately.

Why we let the BBC and esp Stone in the ground is baffling.
There is zero mention ever by them or other media as to why we got fined for not co operating, the many leaks from UEFA, the doctored emails ( remember when they added bits from different emails into one mail), the hateful 8 ( or 9, cant remember).

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

I think Guardiolas comments are to counter the narrative we are seeking to delay proceedings brought about by the recent "leak" that we are allegedly seeking to remove the arbitration panel Arsenal member, KC Rosen from the panel.
So which is it City want you journalist whores, speed it up or delay it?

 

[halfcenturyup]

From the article above….

t’s Pep Guardiola. Don’t you see that? It’s not Manchester City, it’s him. City are a well-run club, we know. Intelligent, empowering, exceptional recruitment strategies. Even so, take Guardiola away, and they don’t win five titles in six.

Sporting success is about individuals, not institutions. We underestimate the influence of these lone figures sometimes. Arsène Wenger, Sir Alex Ferguson. We think a club has a way of playing, a signature, when a club just sits there useless, largely, until an individual flicks a switch, ignites a spark. That is what Guardiola has done at Manchester City. That is why this is about him, more than them. Everyone is scared of them. Everyone thinks they will dominate for years. Really? Without Guardiola? We’ll see.

​

https://archive.ph/Kd4Kz

And another one today. He is on a roll.

https://archive.ph/MakPU

A little snippet:

The alleged inaccurate reporting of finances is supposed to trump any beauty we have seen. And doesn’t that cut to the heart of the modern game? After all, how many times do fans leave the stadium with spotless accountancy the only light in a bleak horizon? “Well, we might have been stuffed by Middlesbrough again, lads, but what about the accurate reporting of our finances, eh? If you excuse me, I must rush home to craft a giant flag for when our accountants come by on an open-top bus.”

 

[Winchester]

Why we let the BBC and esp Stone in the ground is baffling.
There is zero mention ever by them or other media as to why we got fined for not co operating, the many leaks from UEFA, the doctored emails ( remember when they added bits from different emails into one mail), the hateful 8 ( or 9, cant remember).

Ferguson just banned the hacks who dared to write anything negative regarding the rags, I wish we followed by his example.

City imo are too soft at times.

 

[waspish]

From the article above….

t’s Pep Guardiola. Don’t you see that? It’s not Manchester City, it’s him. City are a well-run club, we know. Intelligent, empowering, exceptional recruitment strategies. Even so, take Guardiola away, and they don’t win five titles in six.

Sporting success is about individuals, not institutions. We underestimate the influence of these lone figures sometimes. Arsène Wenger, Sir Alex Ferguson. We think a club has a way of playing, a signature, when a club just sits there useless, largely, until an individual flicks a switch, ignites a spark. That is what Guardiola has done at Manchester City. That is why this is about him, more than them. Everyone is scared of them. Everyone thinks they will dominate for years. Really? Without Guardiola? We’ll see.

​

Majority of us fans realised it is pep why we win so much last 6 years and also realise when he leaves we will fall back into the pack and not be as successful! Unlike the rags who still think they should be winning everything! Probably why when pep leaves we will except the drop of and we probably end up winning the league again with a new manager before the rags..

 

[petrusha]

I first heard the term 'Big 6' in the mid-late 70's by the likes of Jimmy Hill, with the 6 being City, utd, Everton, liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal and measured by clubs who could regularly attract 40,000 + crowds. The 'Big 5' would have remained as the 'Big 6' but for reasons we all know about....

Yes, this is my memory of it, too. A 'Big 6' started being spoken about in the mid and late seventies based on gates - and it referred to the six clubs who were achieving 40K averages at the time (we did it in 1976/77 and 1977/78) or had managed the feat in the previous 10 - 12 years. Granada Reports and BBC North West were all over it because they liked to boast about having two-thirds of the teams in question within their region.

I don't particularly remember it but it's possible that, when Spurs were relegated in 1977, people started referring to a 'Big 5' without them, but it would have been short-lived if so. They came straight back up and, having bought two Argentinian World Cup winners right after the 1978 tournament, began the new season in a swirl of hype in front of big crowds.

The 'Big 6', very much including us, lobbied hard for a change in the rule whereby home clubs shared gate receipts with the away team. Peter Swales was rapaciously enthusiastic for this move, which was approved in 1982 (when City were still part of the gang) but which took effect only from the 1983/84 season, IIRC.

Our relegation in 1983 really cost us the perceived status as a big club, and after that reference was always to a 'Big 5' when they switched over to their next project, which was to ensure a much more unequal split of TV revenue. After a few years of jockeying for position, this resulted in the eventual formation of the PL, another step avidly favoured by Swales but one which on this occasion his influence was peripheral in securing.

His calamitously ham-fisted stewardship of our club meant that football's great and good by the early 1990s no longer regarded City as being on a par with the 'Big 5'. That state of affairs lasted until our recent success and is the reason why to this day we still get taunts about not being a genuine big club (in the late seventies, no one doubted that fact).

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

From Pep’s statements it sounds like we have produced and it’s the PL that are dragging this out.

Probably aligns with what Sky are saying with the nodding dogs of Carragher and Neville, trying to assert that we are dragging our feet when the reality is the opposite.

Trusting in our club comes naturally for me and I’m 100% sure that they have absolutely nothing on us apart from us telling them that we won’t let them have insight to our business model and telling them to get fucked every time they ask.

 

[cheekybids]

The media response is how dare pep say let’s get it sorted when City have caused all delays.

 

[daveoswald]

He also repeats the much quoted mistake that City have been accused of inflating sponsorships. Not true. The allegations are about where the money came from. UEFA said the figures were a fair value after an independent audit. He is incompetent.

That is i suspect because it nails the state owned lie they have parroted for years, the big uefa charge was of course the Etihad sponsorship money was coming from the owner Sheikh Mansour rather than the airline which is owned by the state. logic dictates that if you believe City broke FFP rules then you have to accept City are not state owned. The nasties like Jordan have worked this one out and use the "state backed" term, which is intended to imply the same thing, we have unlimited funds and it's not fair on the red tops.