Man City CAS

[urban.spaceman]

4 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

surely his name isn’t really Lord Pannick?

Gonna patent it and send it to Marvel.

 

[MPH]

4 hours ago, TJQuik said:

There's absolutely zero chance they get expelled. My prediction is a (relatively) small fine and a transfer embargo for a single season.

 

if you look at the nature of the alleged ‘crimes’, it’s not a small matter. It’s either guilty and a severe punishment, or not guilty.there can be no inbetween!

[Jon the Hat]

I am pretty ambivalent about whether they get busted or not.  FFP Rules are simply an attempt to retain the closed shop of the major clubs by stopping investment.  If owners want to put in their own money they should be allowed to.  What they should not be allowed to do is load the club with debt.  Simply apply a gearing rule and be done with it.

[TJQuik]

29 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I am pretty ambivalent about whether they get busted or not.  FFP Rules are simply an attempt to retain the closed shop of the major clubs by stopping investment.  If owners want to put in their own money they should be allowed to.  What they should not be allowed to do is load the club with debt.  Simply apply a gearing rule and be done with it.

This sounds like a great way to ruin football as quickly as possible. You think Newcastle should be allowed to spend 10 billion on players next summer then?

[Dames]

4 hours ago, TJQuik said:

This sounds like a great way to ruin football as quickly as possible. You think Newcastle should be allowed to spend 10 billion on players next summer then?

Just like Man City and just like Chelsea they'll spend what they want to and use every loophole and accounting wizardry to get around it. 

 

Football is already ruined, this way we could just stop the pretense. I still think letting the 'money' clubs have their own league would have been for the best. 

[yorkie1999]

31 minutes ago, Dames said:

Just like Man City and just like Chelsea they'll spend what they want to and use every loophole and accounting wizardry to get around it. 

 

Football is already ruined, this way we could just stop the pretense. I still think letting the 'money' clubs have their own league would have been for the best. 

It would for the owners and the tv companies, but it would become pointless for the supporters in 2 or 3 seasons, and at the end of the day, it's supporters that make the difference between professional football and amateur. Sky etc. ain't selling us football, their selling us fans at football grounds.

[TJQuik]

1 hour ago, Dames said:

Just like Man City and just like Chelsea they'll spend what they want to and use every loophole and accounting wizardry to get around it. 

 

Football is already ruined, this way we could just stop the pretense. I still think letting the 'money' clubs have their own league would have been for the best. 

When you put it like that I completely agree with you.

[ian__marshall]

I expect they'll get a fine of £30-40m (chump change in the scheme of things) which will be sold by the media as a substantial fine, a transfer ban for a season or two which will be flagged well in advance so that they can go on a buying spree ahead of it commencing, and possibly a minor points penalty either retrospective covering a season where it'd have made no difference to the outcome or a forward planned one where it'll likely have no real implications anyway. 

 

I'd be amazed if they were relegated and as someone previously posted it wouldn't be fair on those competing to go up unless the season before they go down, the EFL automatically promote 3 sides, and the playoffs spots are played out between 4th to 7th in the same season. Alternatively, the EFL could potentially exclude them from automatic promotion the following season with the only route to promotion being via the playoffs. Would at least give the other sides a slim chance. 

 

[Will1981]

11 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

I expect they'll get a fine of £30-40m (chump change in the scheme of things) which will be sold by the media as a substantial fine, a transfer ban for a season or two which will be flagged well in advance so that they can go on a buying spree ahead of it commencing, and possibly a minor points penalty either retrospective covering a season where it'd have made no difference to the outcome or a forward planned one where it'll likely have no real implications anyway. 

 

I'd be amazed if they were relegated and as someone previously posted it wouldn't be fair on those competing to go up unless the season before they go down, the EFL automatically promote 3 sides, and the playoffs spots are played out between 4th to 7th in the same season. Alternatively, the EFL could potentially exclude them from automatic promotion the following season with the only route to promotion being via the playoffs. Would at least give the other sides a slim chance. 

 

They should relegate them and give them a 50 point penalty at the start of next season in the championship.

[Finnegan]

6 hours ago, TJQuik said:

This sounds like a great way to ruin football as quickly as possible. You think Newcastle should be allowed to spend 10 billion on players next summer then?

 

Hyperbole aside, United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal can all get away with it by virtue of having hundreds of millions of "fans" across the world buying merch. 

 

Why shouldn't Newcastle, Man City or - by extension - Leicester not be able to do the same if it helps them close the gap? 

 

Like I said a few pages ago, the only way "fair" play can be implemented is flat rate spending caps on the teams which should ABSOLUTELY be a thing. 

 

Jon isn't wrong about one thing though and that's that if owners want to pump their own money in, it absolutely shouldn't be dressed up as "loans" to riddle the club with debt to give the owner more security than the club. Fvck that noise. You want to piss your money on a vanity project you piss it away but don't make the club vulnerable to do it. 

[TiffToff88]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

It would for the owners and the tv companies, but it would become pointless for the supporters in 2 or 3 seasons, and at the end of the day, it's supporters that make the difference between professional football and amateur. Sky etc. ain't selling us football, their selling us fans at football grounds.

 

Which is exactly why we should have let it happen (provided they also have to leave their domestic leagues in order to do so). Let them find out the grass isn't always greener. Once the fans get bored of watching the same teams play eachother week in, week out and they stop watching, there will be no product.

 

Sure, our leagues will suffer financial losses for a couple of years but once the super League novelty wears off I'd imagine things would start to pick up again

Edited 8 February 2023 by TiffToff88

[st albans fox]

24 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Hyperbole aside, United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal can all get away with it by virtue of having hundreds of millions of "fans" across the world buying merch. 

 

Why shouldn't Newcastle, Man City or - by extension - Leicester not be able to do the same if it helps them close the gap? 

 

Like I said a few pages ago, the only way "fair" play can be implemented is flat rate spending caps on the teams which should ABSOLUTELY be a thing. 

 

Jon isn't wrong about one thing though and that's that if owners want to pump their own money in, it absolutely shouldn't be dressed up as "loans" to riddle the club with debt to give the owner more security than the club. Fvck that noise. You want to piss your money on a vanity project you piss it away but don't make the club vulnerable to do it. 

There is nothing to stop other clubs getting more fans but you need to spend to catch up with the ‘big six’ - people are only going to switch allegiance or come on board if you’re a winner. We all know why the big clubs have embraced FFP - on a basic level they should hate it. 

 

we  had a chance in 2016 to make inroads but we screwed up that summer window - we had no room for error at all, especially with NG leaving 

We still have a decent global profile outside of those six - but we aren’t ever going to get any closer than we were in 20/21 on t/over.   

 

[urban.spaceman]

9 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

There is nothing to stop other clubs getting more fans but you need to spend to catch up with the ‘big six’ - people are only going to switch allegiance or come on board if you’re a winner. We all know why the big clubs have embraced FFP - on a basic level they should hate it. 

 

we  had a chance in 2016 to make inroads but we screwed up that summer window - we had no room for error at all, especially with NG leaving 

We still have a decent global profile outside of those six - but we aren’t ever going to get any closer than we were in 20/21 on t/over.   

 

FFP literally held us back. “Short term cost control” meant that we couldn’t increase our wage budget by more than 7% per season. Because it was only our second season in the PL we still had a ‘survival’ budget. Despite being champions we literally couldn’t afford to go after better players or compete with Chelsea for Kante’s salary.

 

Of course, STCC ended in 2019, so now Newcastle are allowed to go from relegation candidates to Champions League contenders by spending almost £300m in the last year.

 

”fair play” is far from fair play. It ****ed us

for success. Winning on actual merit carries a punishment these days. 

[HighPeakFox]

I don't know if anyone has noticed this general trend, but if you have sufficient power and/or money, you can get away with almost everything. 

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

FFP literally held us back. “Short term cost control” meant that we couldn’t increase our wage budget by more than 7% per season. Because it was only our second season in the PL we still had a ‘survival’ budget. Despite being champions we literally couldn’t afford to go after better players or compete with Chelsea for Kante’s salary.

 

Of course, STCC ended in 2019, so now Newcastle are allowed to go from relegation candidates to Champions League contenders by spending almost £300m in the last year.

 

”fair play” is far from fair play. It ****ed us

for success. Winning on actual merit carries a punishment these days. 

100% I understand about 2016 STCC 

but we spent money that summer and if we could have found some more gems like NG and riyad then we could have qualified for the CL again - look at our form once Claudio had left and we’d dropped out of the CL. we just needed a little more squad depth and a couple of rough diamonds - I suppose your point is that as champions, we couldn’t bring even ‘cheap’ players in without them demanding ‘big’ salaries. 

 

it was a tall order that summer given everything that was going on - but it wasn’t impossible 

[Finnegan]

11 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

There is nothing to stop other clubs getting more fans

 

I know you didn't exactly mean it this way but I find the idea of the Big Six telling the other clubs "just get more fans, it's easy!" amusing. It's like a billionaire Nepo Baby telling everyone how easy it is to make enough money to not be poor. 

 

I think a lot of football fans grossly misunderstand so called "glory supporters." People don't really change their loyalties, even when those loyalties are doubted by "proper" fans. The so called glory supporters stay pretty passionately loyal to their teams even with years of no success. 

 

I mean just look at Man City, they're still "small" in terms of international fan base. It takes generations to build up the kind of support United and Liverpool have around the world. To say we didn't do enough to capitalise on 2016 is naive imo. What did people think we were going to do exactly? We were a temporary gimmick. A novelty. Even with sustained success it would have taken decades to really grow in that sense. 

[Frank Large's Black Book]

Don't know if this has been said but a transfer ban doesn't work - like Chelsea they would just stockpile the money and buy the whole world when it ends. Chelsea's was compounded by the Abramovitch sale which reset their whole finances, enabling to spend so much recently.

 

I hope it now doesn't come to a vote because the rich 6 are now 7 and they can out vote the others as 14 is required.

 

I hope they bugger off quite frankly, them and their media sycophants.

[Pliskin]

Man City have to be punished, and severely. Because if they don’t, then surely that gives Newcastle the green light to do what they want?

[Ric Flair]

18 minutes ago, Frank Large's Black Book said:

Don't know if this has been said but a transfer ban doesn't work - like Chelsea they would just stockpile the money and buy the whole world when it ends. Chelsea's was compounded by the Abramovitch sale which reset their whole finances, enabling to spend so much recently.

 

I hope it now doesn't come to a vote because the rich 6 are now 7 and they can out vote the others as 14 is required.

 

I hope they bugger off quite frankly, them and their media sycophants.

You could argue Chelsea's transfer ban helped them. They've made a pigs ear of it since.

[foxfanazer]

Can see this case just speeding up the formation of the Super league

[Rusko187]

I really hope that if they are found guilty (which, let's be honest.. they are), they are hit hard and it sends a message to the rest of the league. I'm losing love of this sport and it's because clubs like Man City do everything in their power to stop anyone else developing or competing.

[Finnegan]

13 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

Can see this case just speeding up the formation of the Super league

 

Mh, not necessarily. Its an example of the division in the Greedy Six. 

 

The idea of it being Islamophobia is obviously ridiculously juvenile, billionaires don't give a fvck about culture or religion. But Man City 100% definitely are being ganged up on by rivals that sniff blood and want to take them down a peg. 

 

The infighting is good for the rest of us. It'd be far more worrying if they were all united and on the same page. 

 

Divide and conquer is how the ruling class stay in power, provoking us to argue amongst ourselves over everything from vaccines to trans rights. It's good to see these willy pullers squabbling amongst themselves for a change. It's by far the best thing about the whole mess. 

 

Edited 8 February 2023 by Finnegan

[yorkie1999]

31 minutes ago, Frank Large's Black Book said:

Don't know if this has been said but a transfer ban doesn't work - like Chelsea they would just stockpile the money and buy the whole world when it ends. Chelsea's was compounded by the Abramovitch sale which reset their whole finances, enabling to spend so much recently.

 

I hope it now doesn't come to a vote because the rich 6 are now 7 and they can out vote the others as 14 is required.

 

I hope they bugger off quite frankly, them and their media sycophants.

i don't think Newcastle would be invited to a super league plus i think their owners would want to actually win something first. Seems little point joining a league that they probably won't win. I could never work out why spurs would want a super league, obviously the money is there, but it's all a bit pointless if you can't win it.

[Ric Flair]

My memory might be extremely hazy but wasn't it pretty much a free for all back at the start of when this period of misdemeanours is supposed to have happened? I.E Man City could have pumped whatever they wanted in to the club to pay for transfers and wages and not had restrictions imposed such as FFP? 

 

If so, I really don't get what they had to gain from this back then. Maybe not surprising in recent years when you can't just pay yourselves £300m in naff sponsorship but I swear it was easier back then?

[st albans fox]

41 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I know you didn't exactly mean it this way but I find the idea of the Big Six telling the other clubs "just get more fans, it's easy!" amusing. It's like a billionaire Nepo Baby telling everyone how easy it is to make enough money to not be poor. 

 

I think a lot of football fans grossly misunderstand so called "glory supporters." People don't really change their loyalties, even when those loyalties are doubted by "proper" fans. The so called glory supporters stay pretty passionately loyal to their teams even with years of no success. 

 

I mean just look at Man City, they're still "small" in terms of international fan base. It takes generations to build up the kind of support United and Liverpool have around the world. To say we didn't do enough to capitalise on 2016 is naive imo. What did people think we were going to do exactly? We were a temporary gimmick. A novelty. Even with sustained success it would have taken decades to really grow in that sense. 

There are plenty of fans in the USA, s e asia and the sub continent who just want to be winners. They will wear Man City shirts last season and likely be arsenal in the summer.   In addition, any new supporters come on board will choose their teams based on success. 
 

those who have taken their father’s allegiance (see liverpool support in the sub continent) will indeed most likely be loyal