PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Plain Speaking]

The longer it goes on the more likely that City have won, independent PL panels do not generally debate guilt, just the level of punishment, Leicester city taught us that, so if we were guilty of anything significant we would have been punished already. Then there is the Cartel spending big and attacking the NE giant, a preemptive strike?
Then there is non-cooperation, now it is in the rule book but is it being used in collaboration with the rules, and this is where the PL lied, when it told us that City were different from Everton, they were charged on the first instance, but City were not, 35 charges later they decide to find out if non-cooperation is permissible.
Just my view of course.

Stefan @slbsn made an assumption, on the 2/7/25, that a "quicker" result was likely to be better for City?

I think I started the assumption but I am happy with it. Quicker better. That is not to say a delay is definitively bad news because there are so many things that can impact timing but as a general rule, I think it is a good assumption. Then is the question of when is early. April was the opening of the window for judgment. If the season starts without a decision, I would say this is a negative signal. I fully expect a decision imminently although I believe as of earlier this week, the decision wasn't with the parties.

At that time he thought 'if the season starts without a decision', then that would be 'a negative signal'. I am not sure if he still holds this view?

 

[cheekybids]

Same mafia ! Parry was parachuted into the EFL job by Liverpool et al and the 72 EFL clubs fell for it. He sits at the H Of C Select Committee moaning about the growing gap between PL and EFL income… when all along he was a main architect of the problem over which he presides.

& whilst he rejects offers then no money changes hands & the EFL clubs get nothing…..

Clear & organised.

 

[dadnlad]

& whilst he rejects offers then no money changes hands & the EFL clubs get nothing…..

Clear & organised.

atleast you can see the Big Picture

 

[Bluemoon230989]

Here you go mate, just put it together in my spare time:​

​

Overall Thread Summary: "PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules"​

1.​

• The thread began on February 6, 2023. It centers on claims that Manchester City has been charged by the Premier League (PL) over alleged breaches of financial rules.
• Fans are intensely reacting to reports, quoting pundits, insiders, and interpreting every media snippet.
• A key focus is Financial Fair Play (FFP) and the Premier League's Profitability and Sustainability Rules; there's also ongoing discussion around potential involvement of an external regulator.

2.​

• Misinformation & Media Interpretation
  Many users point out that pundits or talk show guests often misrepresent details. As one member puts it: “I think the answer is to never believe anything anyone says unless it's under oath.”
• Role of a Regulator vs the Premier League
  The discourse repeatedly circles around what a regulator is supposed to do—whether they’d oversee day-to-day operations like sponsorships—or if the PL maintains sole authority over these financial rules. Observers note that whatever the plans for regulation, they seem aimed at financial sustainability, not match rules like offside.
• UEFA’s Influence
  Some speculate that UEFA or FIFA might restrict regulator involvement in club governance, threatening sanctions or exclusion from European competition if national regulators get too heavy-handed.
• Procedural Frustration
  There's a notable undercurrent of impatience: with so many pages filled, readers are tired of speculation, with posts like “Here's to the start of another week when fuck all happens.”
  The thread is clearly one that’s grown massive in length, with some users obviously fatigued by the slow drip of news or official updates.
• Expert Input vs Fan Opinion
  A repeated viewpoint is that this issue requires qualified voices—lawyers, financial specialists, sports regulation experts—not just armchair pundits or fans quoting rumors.

3.​

• Forum users are responding to comments by a woman—possibly a league official—who was discussing whether a regulator would get involved in the Premier League case and whether “rules of the game” are being mixed into financial rule enforcement.
• One user says she “conflates the offside etc with FFP PSR,” suggesting confusion between sporting rules and financial governance.
• Another member points out that the regulator was set up due to the Super League fallout and governance concerns, indicating a deeper context for why this is even under discussion.
• There’s also light sarcasm—someone joking the thread title might as well be “Favourite Cheese”—evidencing how side conversation has drifted away from financial rules.

---

Final Thoughts​

This thread highlights the tension between fan speculation, evolving media narratives, and the opaque nature of regulatory processes in elite football. Over its thousands of pages since February 2023, it’s become a messy mix of serious debate, sarcasm, rumor, and impatience. And that 'Masters' is likely to be a nonce.

GENIUS!!

 

[Carrl]

The longer it goes on the more likely that City have won, independent PL panels do not generally debate guilt, just the level of punishment, Leicester city taught us that, so if we were guilty of anything significant we would have been punished already. Then there is the Cartel spending big and attacking the NE giant, a preemptive strike?
Then there is non-cooperation, now it is in the rule book but is it being used in collaboration with the rules, and this is where the PL lied, when it told us that City were different from Everton, they were charged on the first instance, but City were not, 35 charges later they decide to find out if non-cooperation is permissible.
Just my view of course.

I think slbsn said the opposite regarding "the longer it goes on"

 

[burning blue soul]

Here's to the start of another week when fuck all happens

 

[burning blue soul]

Yes, creamy which was the original version. Crumbly only appeared in the 1950s!

Shocked me too!

 

[MeatnSpudsMCFC]

The longer it goes on the more likely that City have won, independent PL panels do not generally debate guilt, just the level of punishment, Leicester city taught us that, so if we were guilty of anything significant we would have been punished already. Then there is the Cartel spending big and attacking the NE giant, a preemptive strike?
Then there is non-cooperation, now it is in the rule book but is it being used in collaboration with the rules, and this is where the PL lied, when it told us that City were different from Everton, they were charged on the first instance, but City were not, 35 charges later they decide to find out if non-cooperation is permissible.
Just my view of course.

Think Stefan said the opposite though.

 

[KS55]

A sensational thread with excellent background on rhubarb from Eswatini, Himalayan coffee and the beluga caviar sandwiches enjoyed for luncheon by Pannick.

 

[uwe rosler 28]

Isn't it more likely the longer it goes the 3 person panel have been able to agree on guilt/non guilt???

 

[Plain Speaking]

I think slbsn said the opposite regarding "the longer it goes on"

Think Stefan said the opposite though.

Stefan @slbsn did, I quoted him above ;-)

 

[Carrl]

Stefan @slbsn made an assumption, on the 2/7/25, that a "quicker" result was likely to be better for City?

At that time he thought 'if the season starts without a decision', then that would be 'a negative signal'. I am not sure if he still holds this view?

That negative signal comment worries me a bit.

 

[City Raider]

There’s no way a guilty decision is just announced without consideration of political implications. Hopefully that is not the reason for the delay.

 

[slbsn]

Stefan @slbsn made an assumption, on the 2/7/25, that a "quicker" result was likely to be better for City?

At that time he thought 'if the season starts without a decision', then that would be 'a negative signal'. I am not sure if he still holds this view?

I think it is a negative signal but the positive signals have kept coming

 

[halfcenturyup]

That negative signal comment worries me a bit.

It shouldn't.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

I think it is a negative signal but the positive signals have kept coming

Hi mate, this is probably an unfair question to ask of you, and if you think it is then please don’t answer - I wouldn’t be offended in the least - but in your professional, experienced, opinion, knowing what we know and now having seen the timescales involved with no published decision, on a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being we are totally fucked and 10 being we are likely to be totally exonerated), what number would you give our chances as of this moment?

Again, if this is a stupid question, no problem, don’t feel the need to answer.

 

[Plain Speaking]

I think it is a negative signal but the positive signals have kept coming

Always a balanced view! ;-)

 

[chris85mcfc]

Stefan @slbsn made an assumption, on the 2/7/25, that a "quicker" result was likely to be better for City?

At that time he thought 'if the season starts without a decision', then that would be 'a negative signal'. I am not sure if he still holds this view?

What's 'quicker' though?

It's a subjective term really isnt it

It could come out this time next year and that could be labelled 'quick' given the nature of the hearing

 

[manimanc]

God is this fuckin thread still going?

I have totally rinsed my hands of this shite now, it's gone on far too long.

I think I'll let the red wanker clubs moan and cry about it from now on!

 

[Bournemouth Blue]

I frankly don’t give a f*ck any more, look at the spending our rivals have done since the charges were made. The Scum are millions in Debt but spending like their wives stole their credit cards, but nobody complains.