PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[johnevans]

This is the absolute crux of the matter.
The ‘history clubs’ feel denied and they won’t have it.
If we go back in history to the 63rd edition of the league (which was half the number of today) the most title wins were Arsenal (7) and then Sunderland (6) Rags, Dippers and Everton, all with 5
So the red shirts had 17 between them, about 27% of the titles available.

In the second half of the history of the league, from 1962/63, the Rags are on 15, Dippers on 14, Arsenal on 6 giving a total of 35 which is more than double the first half of football history.
Without City, they’d have won another 8 between them, which would have put them on 43. So, since 1962/63 they’d have won 69% of all top flight titles.

Even more starkly, since the introduction of the PL, without City, they’d have won 25 out of 32 or EIGHTY percent.

Spot on!

And to amplify your point, between the 1958-59 season when the great Wolves side under Stan Cullis won the title and the 1971-72 season when Cloughie's Derby County won it, there were 11 different victorious clubs in 14 seasons, including ourselves in 1967-68.

When I was growing up, at the start of every season every team harboured some hopes of either challenging for the championship or 'having a run in the FA Cup'

The advent of television controlled football in this (and every other European) country, plus the accretion of power around those core clubs/the Red Cartel that drove that television agenda, has resulted in where we are today, as in:

- 'The Devil take the hindmost' (such as the rest of the football pyramid) as far as the enormous amounts of money generated by the game are concerned and

- 'Don't even think about it.. that moolah is OURS, keep your hands off it or else..'

Absolutely disgraceful how our national sport has been treated by self-interested, self-entitled clubs..

 

[silva_is_gold]

You missed Owen, Warnock, Face Jones, Sturridge, Henry, James, and probably a cast of thousands more

Danny Murphy

 

[Lord Blue]

It's against best practices to change your passwords. What was missing from city by the sound of it was the implementation of 2FA and SSO

well i'll be a monkeys uncle

i thought you were wrong on that so i went to check my facts and to my surprise you're dead right.

there are many links so just chose one for those that care modern-password-guidelines

whilst many years ago it was recommended to change regularly, that's no longer the case, as you rightly say. i wonder when it changed.

thank you for educating me that little bit.

i wrote some encryption code for our software years back to help with licensing and renewal etc. i might have to go check that isn't out of date too. although its point was more to make hacking attempts clear and deliberate rather than be foolproof

 

[hammocity]

So they filming the new Brassic ? I love that series, absolutely bloody love it .

Yes mate, filming started today in Burnley, it's going to be a shorter series, filming is scheduled for 7 weeks. Michelle Keegan is in it but not as much as she's up the duff!

 

[Lord Blue]

This is the absolute crux of the matter.
The ‘history clubs’ feel denied and they won’t have it.
If we go back in history to the 63rd edition of the league (which was half the number of today) the most title wins were Arsenal (7) and then Sunderland (6) Rags, Dippers and Everton, all with 5
So the red shirts had 17 between them, about 27% of the titles available.

In the second half of the history of the league, from 1962/63, the Rags are on 15, Dippers on 14, Arsenal on 6 giving a total of 35 which is more than double the first half of football history.
Without City, they’d have won another 8 between them, which would have put them on 43. So, since 1962/63 they’d have won 69% of all top flight titles.

Even more starkly, since the introduction of the PL, without City, they’d have won 25 out of 32 or EIGHTY percent.

this is a huge part of why i'd sack of financial fair play rules in the premier league. completely.

the top clubs would still be restricted by the uefa financial fair play rules. that should be sufficient. why hamper our clubs on the european stage with additional domestic rules.

still have a version of profit and sustainability aimed at stopping clubs going bankrupt. so it would allow owner investment etc.

that way smaller clubs, no let me rephrase that, less successful clubs, can grow freely up until they qualify for europe.

newcastle would be able to build a squad capable of challenging for the premier league which would seem to be fair.

city would still need to satisfy uefa rules.

oh and if we're relegated for some unknown reason we'd be able to fund our resurgence :)

we might end up with more different winners of the premier league too.

 

[SilverFox2]

well i'll be a monkeys uncle

i thought you were wrong on that so i went to check my facts and to my surprise you're dead right.

there are many links so just chose one for those that care modern-password-guidelines

whilst many years ago it was recommended to change regularly, that's no longer the case, as you rightly say. i wonder when it changed.

thank you for educating me that little bit.

i wrote some encryption code for our software years back to help with licensing and renewal etc. i might have to go check that isn't out of date too. although its point was more to make hacking attempts clear and deliberate rather than be foolproof

I wonder which takes precedent, not changing your password or changing best procedure which probably means changing your password?

 

[pauls]

Spot on!

And to amplify your point, between the 1958-59 season when the great Wolves side under Stan Cullis won the title and the 1971-72 season when Cloughie's Derby County won it, there were 11 different victorious clubs in 14 seasons, including ourselves in 1967-68.

When I was growing up, at the start of every season every team harboured some hopes of either challenging for the championship or 'having a run in the FA Cup'

The advent of television controlled football in this (and every other European) country, plus the accretion of power around those core clubs/the Red Cartel that drove that television agenda, has resulted in where we are today, as in:

- 'The Devil take the hindmost' (such as the rest of the football pyramid) as far as the enormous amounts of money generated by the game are concerned and

- 'Don't even think about it.. that moolah is OURS, keep your hands off it or else..'

Absolutely disgraceful how our national sport has been treated by self-interested, self-entitled clubs..

Interestingly, when those two smarmy wankers Pierce Morgan and Times scoop of the year Lawton put that hit piece on City over the alleged 30m Etisalat breach, David Dein was set up to add fuel to the fire but to the two tossers surprise backed our corner.
He fuckin knows being heavily involved in the Cartel Premiership creation.

 

[JULES]

This is the absolute crux of the matter.
The ‘history clubs’ feel denied and they won’t have it.
If we go back in history to the 63rd edition of the league (which was half the number of today) the most title wins were Arsenal (7) and then Sunderland (6) Rags, Dippers and Everton, all with 5
So the red shirts had 17 between them, about 27% of the titles available.

In the second half of the history of the league, from 1962/63, the Rags are on 15, Dippers on 14, Arsenal on 6 giving a total of 35 which is more than double the first half of football history.
Without City, they’d have won another 8 between them, which would have put them on 43. So, since 1962/63 they’d have won 69% of all top flight titles.

Even more starkly, since the introduction of the PL, without City, they’d have won 25 out of 32 or EIGHTY percent.

no Aston Villa?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

no Aston Villa?

Should have popped them in with Sunderland.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Interestingly, when those two smarmy wankers Pierce Morgan and Times scoop of the year Lawton put that hit piece on City over the alleged 30m Etisalat breach, David Dein was set up to add fuel to the fire but to the two tossers surprise backed our corner.
He fuckin knows being heavily involved in the Cartel Premiership creation.

Also, Interesting that arsenals first title was in 1931 and their 5th was in 1938. That can’t have been through ‘organic growth’ and today, they’d be up on charges…

 

[TheGhost]

Also, Interesting that arsenals first title was in 1931 and their 5th was in 1938. That can’t have been through ‘organic growth’ and today, they’d be up on charges…

They bought Huddersfield, First Division winners for 3 years on the bounce, pretty much lock stock and barrel. Not really organic.

 

[waspish]

Spot on!

And to amplify your point, between the 1958-59 season when the great Wolves side under Stan Cullis won the title and the 1971-72 season when Cloughie's Derby County won it, there were 11 different victorious clubs in 14 seasons, including ourselves in 1967-68.

When I was growing up, at the start of every season every team harboured some hopes of either challenging for the championship or 'having a run in the FA Cup'

The advent of television controlled football in this (and every other European) country, plus the accretion of power around those core clubs/the Red Cartel that drove that television agenda, has resulted in where we are today, as in:

- 'The Devil take the hindmost' (such as the rest of the football pyramid) as far as the enormous amounts of money generated by the game are concerned and

- 'Don't even think about it.. that moolah is OURS, keep your hands off it or else..'

Absolutely disgraceful how our national sport has been treated by self-interested, self-entitled clubs..

Sky money made the scum there partner in effect

 

[TheGhost]

Sky money made the scum there partner in effect

Sky bought shares in United and tried to buy the club. The PL and government stepped in to stop it.

Sky also bought a chunk of City a few years later.

 

[waspish]

Sky bought shares in United and tried to buy the club. The PL and government stepped in to stop it.

Sky also bought a chunk of City a few years later.

Yeah I know! Think sky plan was to buy a % of all top clubs in premier

 

[Chappie]

Sky bought shares in United and tried to buy the club. The PL and government stepped in to stop it.

Sky also bought a chunk of City a few years later.

They were trying to buy a stake in most clubs at the time,until they were stopped.

 

[Centurions]

Also, Interesting that arsenals first title was in 1931 and their 5th was in 1938. That can’t have been through ‘organic growth’ and today, they’d be up on charges…

It's always been bent, from Wiki:-

The club controversially rejoined the First Division in 1919,[18][19] despite having only finished sixth in 1914–15, the last season of competitive football before the First World War — although an error in the calculation of goal average meant Arsenal had actually finished fifth, an error which was corrected by the Football League in 1975.[20][21] The First Division was being expanded from 20 teams to 22, and the two new entrants were to be elected at an AGM of the Football League. On past precedent the two places would be given to the two clubs that would otherwise have been relegated, namely Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur. Instead one of the extra places was awarded to Chelsea and a ballot was called for the remaining place. The candidates included 20th-placed Tottenham and, from the Second Division, Barnsley (who had finished third); Wolverhampton Wanderers, (fourth); Birmingham (fifth, later amended to sixth); Arsenal; Hull City (seventh); and Nottingham Forest (eighteenth).[20] The League voted to promote sixth-placed Arsenal, for reasons of history over merit; Norris argued that Arsenal be promoted for their "long service to league football", having been the first League club from the South.[19] The League board agreed; Arsenal received 18 votes, Tottenham 8, Barnsley 5 and Wolves 4, with a further 6 votes shared between the other clubs.[18]

The announcement of the vote reportedly caught all the clubs, except Arsenal, unawares and the affair is a major contributing factor to the rivalry which has fuelled the long-standing enmity between Arsenal and Tottenham.[18][19] There is also an inconsistency in the argument – if "long service to league football" was the criterion for promoting Arsenal instead of Tottenham then Wolverhampton Wanderers, who finished two points ahead of Arsenal and were founder members of the Football League, would appear to have had a stronger claim. It has been alleged that this was due to backroom deals or even outright bribery by Sir Henry Norris,[18] colluding with his friend John McKenna, the chairman of Liverpool and the Football League, who recommended Arsenal's promotion at the AGM.[18] No conclusive proof of wrongdoing has come to light, though other aspects of Norris's financial dealings unrelated to the promotion controversy have fuelled speculation on the matter; Norris resigned as chairman and left the club in 1929, having been found guilty by the Football Association of financial irregularities; he was found to have misused his expenses account, and to have pocketed the proceeds of the sale of the Arsenal team bus.[22] Regardless of the circumstances of their promotion, Arsenal have remained in the top division since 1919, and as a result hold the English record for the longest unbroken stretch of top-flight football.[23] There appear to be no extant records of the meetings which elected Arsenal to the First Division in 1919, however the book Making the Arsenal proposes a different reason for their election in that year, arguing that match-fixing issues from the final year of football before the war (1914–15) were used by Norris as a weapon in his battle to get Arsenal promoted. He demanded that Liverpool and Manchester United (some of whose players had been found guilty of match fixing) be punished by relegation or expulsion, and threatened to organise a breakaway from the league by Midlands and southern clubs if nothing was done. To placate him the League offered Arsenal a place in the First Division.[24]

History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lancs blue]

Also, Interesting that arsenals first title was in 1931 and their 5th was in 1938. That can’t have been through ‘organic growth’ and today, they’d be up on charges…

Arsenal by-passed the maximum wage by getting their best players "jobs" with firms run by the Arsenal directors.

 

[TheGhost]

Another Arsenal scandal - pasted from Wiki

In the same year, Arsenal became embroiled in a scandal; footballers' pay at the time was limited by a maximum wage, but an FA inquiry found that Charlie Buchan had secretly received illegal payments from Arsenal as an incentive to sign for the club.[70] Sir Henry Norris was indicted for his part and banned from football, but Chapman escaped punishment, and with the autocratic Norris replaced by the more benign Samuel Hill-Wood, Chapman's power and influence within the club increased, allowing him control over all aspects of the club's business.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Would BMW be able to get together with other car companies to set limits on Peugeot investment. I don't think so. That might be a bit simplistic but that's the way I see it. I feel sorry for our owners because when they bought City their was no FFP, our owners business model never took into account FFP because it didn't exist. We have had to react to the goalposts being moved and its wrong. Maybe we should of took these clowns to court on day one instead of trying to comply with these artificial barriers being imposed.

I don't think this is the case. Sheikh Mansour was told that regulations to control spending were to be introduced when he was negotiating the purchase of the club. How much detail he was given, I don't know but I believe he informed FIFA that he envisaged an initial period of heavy investment but afterwards he intended the club to sustain itself from its own resources. This is very much what he promised in the open letter of September 2008. I agree that FFP and PSR do seem to drive a coach and horses through EU and UK commercial law, but they have not been challenged in court and so the "exception" of "competitive balance" (which FFP and PSR most certainly don't guarantee) still holds sway.

The thing is, of course, that City don't need to challenge FFP and/or PSR because because the club has ensured that UEFA will never be able tp pull a trick like the one they got away with in 2013 and City will never need to resort to any of the accounting irregularities the club is charged with. Our defence is based on the principle that the club has simply done nothing wrong.

 

[Coljj]