Manchester City Found Guilty Of Almost All Charges

[AKCJ]

1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said:

35 of the charges were for non compliance between 2018-2023. 
 

So it’s more like 14 seasons. 17 if you include the 3 years it’s taken to get to this point. 
 

20 pts a season would be far too easy for them to overcome.

Not sure. It's 3 seasons without Europe and I suspect that a few of their best players won't want to hang around.

 

It'll be interesting to see how long it'll be until Florentino Perez gets his mitts on Haaland.

[Kitchandro]

12 minutes ago, DJW1 said:

One of Wayne Rooney´s suggestions is a 20-point deduction for EACH of the next 3 seasons.

Their cheating has been proven (subject to appeal!) to have taken place over 9 seasons, so a 20-point deduction for the same number of seasons would be appropriate

That’s fine if the points deductions are in League One, otherwise they just don’t get into Europe for a few seasons and then go back to the way things were.

 

The punishment shouldn’t just fit the amount of breaches and the amount of time. It should also reflect the extent of the advantage they have had, and mirror the sort of consequences that other (less rich) clubs have had to suffer. Clubs like ourselves, Wednesday, Luton back in the day, etc.
 

It will be meaningless if the football community can say, ‘well, (insert club) was ruined by this points deduction when they broke the rules and they still haven’t recovered, why are Man City still playing in the Champions League?’ For it to feel like justice, the punishment has to be something they won’t recover from. They can’t be competing for titles again in 5 or 10 years.

 

[turtmcfly]

4 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

100k a week for a 17 year old in the mid - 2000's?  Multiples above his worth. Whenever i went for a job anywhere i would always asked how the team i was joining was funded. 

 

The players are the biggest cost drain in all of this, and its their cost that teams have either cheated to fund, or have failed ffp for.

 

I don't expect Richards to have much intelligence in the matter, and of course its miles beyond his fault, but a bit of self reflective 'yeah, thinking about it, how did Man City afford to pay over the odds for absolutely everyone, including paying (or offering in his case) teenagers more than anyone else could' would add a lot to his credibility in the matter.  Instead we get a lot of self pity 'I would have died for that club' and 'i had no idea' etc. Surely, anyone there at the time, had to wonder 'how is this all being paid for'?

 

 

 

OK, but his deal signed was signed two owners and three years before the Abu Dhabi Group bought Man City (and four years before the first season to which the 115 charges relate)

 

[Rubbersoul]

Ferran Soriano greeting the players returning from international duty next week 

[urban.spaceman]

36 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Not sure. It's 3 seasons without Europe and I suspect that a few of their best players won't want to hang around.

 

It'll be interesting to see how long it'll be until Florentino Perez gets his mitts on Haaland.

Oh they'll get him very soon.

 

They cheated for the best part of 2 decades - the punishment needs to last at least as long. 

 

Expulsion from the Premier League, refused entry to the Football League and forced to start in the 10th tier would be a good start. 

[CL Fox]

The thing is, i bet its not just man city doing this.

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, Samilktray said:

The guff from the likes of Carragher, Neville etc is getting a bit tiresome now tbf almost makes me want Man City to beat the case just for the reactions 

 

Keane was maybe the worst "I'd throw my medals in the bin if I was a Man City player."

 

**** OFF. Every single trophy he won at Manchester United he won because they could spend more money than anyone else. He literally played for them in the era in which their corporate section essentially invented modern football. Man Utd TV channels, Man Utd credit cards, they took commercialism in the sport to whole new levels that nobody had ever seen before. That's why he's got about fifty five thousand medals.

 

Put them all the bin right now Keano you massive ****ing hypocrite.

 

[st albans fox]

53 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Not sure. It's 3 seasons without Europe and I suspect that a few of their best players won't want to hang around.

 

It'll be interesting to see how long it'll be until Florentino Perez gets his mitts on Haaland.

20 points 

they could easily get 90 points which would likely get CL qualification 

 

if they go down this route then has to be 30 points 

 

and don’t forget if they win the fa cup then they get europa league - Europa league winner gets CL 

 

So their CL wilderness may only be a couple of seasons at most. 

[Samilktray]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Keane was maybe the worst "I'd throw my medals in the bin if I was a Man City player."

 

**** OFF. Every single trophy he won at Manchester United he won because they could spend more money than anyone else. He literally played for them in the era in which their corporate section essentially invented modern football. Man Utd TV channels, Man Utd credit cards, they took commercialism in the sport to whole new levels that nobody had ever seen before. That's why he's got about fifty five thousand medals.

 

Put them all the bin right now Keano you massive ****ing hypocrite.

 

Agreed

[Les-TA-Jon]

5 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Keane was maybe the worst "I'd throw my medals in the bin if I was a Man City player."

 

**** OFF. Every single trophy he won at Manchester United he won because they could spend more money than anyone else. He literally played for them in the era in which their corporate section essentially invented modern football. Man Utd TV channels, Man Utd credit cards, they took commercialism in the sport to whole new levels that nobody had ever seen before. That's why he's got about fifty five thousand medals.

 

Put them all the bin right now Keano you massive ****ing hypocrite.

 

Wait, sorry how is

 

'Man Utd rode the wave of the commercialisation of the sport and were in the right place at the right time'

 

equivalent to

 

'Man City's state sponsored systematic and fraudulent scheme to circumvent spending rules over a 15+ year period' 

[AKCJ]

3 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Wait, sorry how is

 

'Man Utd rode the wave of the commercialisation of the sport and were in the right place at the right time'

 

equivalent to

 

'Man City's state sponsored systematic and fraudulent scheme to circumvent spending rules over a 15+ year period' 

What gives Man United a right to spend more than anyone else?

[Les-TA-Jon]

Just now, AKCJ said:

What gives Man United a right to spend more than anyone else?

What gives Chelsea? Or Arsenal? Or Liverpool? Or Barcelona? Or Bayern? Or Madrid? Or Athletico? Or, or, or. 

 

It's just a bit of a nonsense to treat both things as equivalents when they're obviously different. 

[urban.spaceman]

17 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

What gives Chelsea? Or Arsenal? Or Liverpool? Or Barcelona? Or Bayern? Or Madrid? Or Athletico? Or, or, or. 

 

It's just a bit of a nonsense to treat both things as equivalents when they're obviously different. 

They're not really equivalents but it's still cheating

[AKCJ]

Just now, Les-TA-Jon said:

What gives Chelsea? Or Arsenal? Or Liverpool? Or Barcelona? Or Bayern? Or Madrid? Or Athletico? Or, or, or. 

 

It's just a bit of a nonsense to treat both things as equivalents when they're obviously different. 

You're right though. Ultimately these rules are bought in to maintain a status quo. If they wanted fairness then there would be wage and spending caps but none of them want that.

 

Those big clubs want to keep spending stupid money whilst ensuring anyone they consider to be beneath them can't. Is that really upkeeping sporting integrity? When is sport truly fair? Where is the line and who are Jamie Carragher, Gary Neville or Roy Keane etc to decide?

[Finnegan]

17 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

What gives Chelsea? Or Arsenal? Or Liverpool? Or Barcelona? Or Bayern? Or Madrid? Or Athletico? Or, or, or. 

 

It's just a bit of a nonsense to treat both things as equivalents when they're obviously different. 

 

**** off are they different.

 

They're just different excuses for outspending everyone else.

 

If you think that Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool spending obscene amounts of money within a legal framework that they helped create to form a closed shop at the top of football is acceptable but that Man City spending obscene amounts of money whilst breaking those rules is unacceptable then, sorry, there's probably no point you and I continuing to debate the matter. We're just diametrically opposed in our fundamental view on the subject.

 

[Les-TA-Jon]

1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said:

They're not really equivalents but it's still cheating

It's an advantage for sure. And there's a whole debate to be had about how much historically 'big' clubs have benefitted from their historic dominance, and how various financial rules have protected a status quo that's to their benefit. 

But that and the Man City stuff is just a patently different thing. 

So all of the big clubs have been 'cheating' for the last 40+ years then, in your view? What specific rules have they been breaking? 

[tickler28]

[Les-TA-Jon]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

**** off are they different.

 

They're just different excuses for outspending everyone else.

 

If you think that Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool spending obscene amounts of money within a legal framework that they helped create to form a closed shop at the top of football is acceptable but that Man City spending obscene amounts of money whilst breaking those rules is unacceptable then, sorry, there's probably no point you and I continuing to debate the matter. We're just diametrically opposed in our fundamental view on the subject.

 

Can you point out where I said the historical dominance of the big clubs was acceptable? 

 

I merely saying they're different things and it's simply inaccurate and unhelpful to say they're the same thing. 

 

For clarity, I'm no fan of any of the 'big clubs', especially the way they dominate the league, tried to the Super League thing and their part in the commercialisation of the sport, the hollowing out of any sort of fan connection, their ongoing 'war' against 'legacy fans', their part in the lack of access to fairly costed televised matches for people here in the UK and how much they have helped the game to become a complete and utter moral vacuum and vehicle for sportswashing. 

 

But it's just a truism of the sport that clubs that happened to be 'big' and were well placed in the 90s, have used that position to dominate. It's not 'cheating' and it's not the same as Man City's 'sham contracts' scheme is it? 

 

You're not seriously saying Thierry Henry should throw all his medals in the bin, for the exact same reasons Aguero and Haaland should? 

[Leycestrian]

MCFC's crime has been financial. The deceipt, lies, evasion all the result of dishonesty by the clubs owners.
I don't think it's realistic to punish the players, this is pureley a financial malpractice. 
As a financial malpractice there should be a financial punishment, not a fine, that may suit the PL and MCFC, but
a punishment exactly the opposite of the crime. Impose a limit on their spending, reduce their limit under PSR to that which a PL club at the bottom end of the PL would face, for a number of years.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

[Reynaldo]

Man United didn’t really cheat to dominate the 90s and early 2000s did they. They just had more money than everyone else and spent it in an era where it was allowed.  An advantage yes, cheating no. It’s not even remotely the same. 

[AKCJ]

5 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Can you point out where I said the historical dominance of the big clubs was acceptable? 

 

I merely saying they're different things and it's simply inaccurate and unhelpful to say they're the same thing. 

 

For clarity, I'm no fan of any of the 'big clubs', especially the way they dominate the league, tried to the Super League thing and their part in the commercialisation of the sport, the hollowing out of any sort of fan connection, their ongoing 'war' against 'legacy fans', their part in the lack of access to fairly costed televised matches for people here in the UK and how much they have helped the game to become a complete and utter moral vacuum and vehicle for sportswashing. 

 

But it's just a truism of the sport that clubs that happened to be 'big' and were well placed in the 90s, have used that position to dominate. It's not 'cheating' and it's not the same as Man City's 'sham contracts' scheme is it? 

 

You're not seriously saying Thierry Henry should throw all his medals in the bin, for the exact same reasons Aguero and Haaland should? 

You're both overegging your arguments to get your points across.

 

There's no tangible reason as to why Arsenal, Man United and Liverpool should be the three biggest clubs in the league with access to money the rest of the pyramid can't get.

 

They navigated the late 80s to early 90s better than anyone else and it's put them in a position to kick on in the same way the likes of Leeds, Everton and Villa couldn't with the boom in television deals.

 

Man City absolutely should be punished for breaking sponsorship payment rules to keep money off of their books and overpay their players. I don't think even the most steadfast Man City fan would disagree with that. Where things become completely murky is where ex-players with a horse in the race are demanding ex-Man City players should be ashamed of their achievements. 

 

Give them a transfer ban, a monumental fine (and put the money through the pyramid or into grass roots football fairly) and give them enough of a points deduction to relegate them.

 

But claims that they should have titles stripped or given to other clubs is completely wrong. Man City players and coaching staff won those titles on the pitch. Their only crime is that they were paid handsomely to do it - but that doesn't wash because the likes of Arsenal, Man Utd or Liverpool would have happily paid those players and coaches the same for them to work for their clubs.

[Finnegan]

11 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

It's an advantage for sure. And there's a whole debate to be had about how much historically 'big' clubs have benefitted from their historic dominance, and how various financial rules have protected a status quo that's to their benefit. 

But that and the Man City stuff is just a patently different thing. 

So all of the big clubs have been 'cheating' for the last 40+ years then, in your view? What specific rules have they been breaking? 

 

You're missing the point. You're getting hung up on rule-breaking when I'm not.

 

My view is that I don't care that Man City broke the rules because I think the rules themselves are immoral. I'm not hand-wringing about the morality of Man City breaking rules and laws that were - if you'll pardon me being a little theatrical with my language - evil in intent in the first place.

 

I was angry when Saracens had a similar scandal in rugby union because rugby has a blanket salary cap that all of the clubs have to follow, it isn't relative, Leicester Tigers weren't allowed to spend more than Exeter because they had a bigger commercial footprint or a bigger match day revenue, the clubs all had a fixed cap they had to stick to. That's financial rules with in-built meritocracy, that's fairness.

 

In football, the rules Man City have broken are an absolute joke fabricated by the top clubs after they'd already cultivated their commercial footprint. They're rules specifically designed to pull the ladder up after themselves because "we don't want too many Leicester Citys."

 

And to bring it back to my earlier rant, Roy Keane thinks Manchester City's players should throw away their medals because in his view they don't deserve them. But his logic doesn't follow through. Man City's players nor their Head Coach were out there fudging the numbers themselves, they're not lawyers or accountants, they're just a collection of athletes and coaches who all came together to win something. No different to Keano and his cohort at United under SAF.

 

But if Roy Keane accepts patting himself on the back and all of the glory that comes with his victories at United, from the point of view of a footballer, he has to acknowledge that he won those things because he was playing for a squad that was more expensively assembled than anything anyone else in the league could put together. He won because the financial power of his club enabled them to assemble a team of stars to dominate the sport for decades.

 

How is that any different from Man City, their players and their coach? They were given a well assembled, well put together squad that cost a lot of money, sure. But how is that different?

 

If Man City had won by match fixing scandals, if Man City had won through chemical doping, performance enhancing drugs, if they'd won by corruption, if they'd paid off referees and officials and that was their legacy? Absolutely, I'd be right there with Roy Keane and everyone else. If we were looking at a Calciopoli situation I'd be right on board. Juventus were a great team, sure, but their players legitimately did not earn those trophies and they absolutely belong in the bin.

 

Bit Man City won on the same sporting merit that Liverpool, Arsenal and Manchester United do. There's no difference other than Man City's smaller stadium, smaller fan base, smaller commercial footprint and the fact they don't sell the same number of shirts in Asia, Africa and America was supposed to hold them back. 

 

Cry me a ****ing river, Big Six willy pullers.

 

[FoxesWalk]

IMO the hammer should come down most heavily on the owners, who are still acting in the arrogant manner of an overgrown kid whose never been caught and never been told no.

 

They should be forced to sell the club and barred from owning another. 

[Tommy G]

 

[Samilktray]

1 minute ago, FoxesWalk said:

IMO the hammer should come down most heavily on the owners, who are still acting in the arrogant manner of an overgrown kid whose never been caught and never been told no.

 

They should be forced to sell the club and barred from owning another. 

They could invest in us after they sell, in an ownership role perhaps?