Manchester City - 115 Charges Case for Alleged Financial Breaches Begins

[TRon]

32 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

Yet City are one of the cartel clubs and are alleged to have breached rules that could be helping them out. The allegations are not recent and relate to rules from way before we could have posed a threat too. Not saying the allegations are all the same, but it's not really fair if the big dogs can get away with it but smaller PL teams can't, especially if that might be due to other factors such as the skill of a lawyer or status (not saying that will happen mind).

 

Of course, there are arguments about whether the rules should exist in the first place, but that appears to be a separate case. Not that I wouldn't want changes also, but I don't like the idea of us being able to spend like crazy and ultimately we've still managed to spend a decent amount post-takeover and not made a significant amount from sales.

 

I've already said in a previous post that I don't consider City as a cartel club, they are viewed as nouveau riche gatecrashers by the established big clubs such as Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal. The FFP/PSR rules are designed to stop them as much as anyone from challenging the cartel.

 

Big spending is the only way to challenge the cartel clubs. You say we've spent a decent amount, but we would need to spend that again to get anywhere close to challenging for the title. That's how City and Chelsea did it. Even if City have their titles stripped from them, you still have Chelsea living it large on dirty money. I can't get behind any structure which allows the cartel clubs to maintain their locked in advantage. If the PL is implementing rules which aid and abet the status quo, they won't have my support in this matter either.

[RS]

Are we expecting real updates on the case from anywhere?

[ohmelads]

2 hours ago, TRon said:

 

I've already said in a previous post that I don't consider City as a cartel club, they are viewed as nouveau riche gatecrashers by the established big clubs such as Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal. The FFP/PSR rules are designed to stop them as much as anyone from challenging the cartel.

 

Big spending is the only way to challenge the cartel clubs. You say we've spent a decent amount, but we would need to spend that again to get anywhere close to challenging for the title. That's how City and Chelsea did it. Even if City have their titles stripped from them, you still have Chelsea living it large on dirty money. I can't get behind any structure which allows the cartel clubs to maintain their locked in advantage. If the PL is implementing rules which aid and abet the status quo, they won't have my support in this matter either.

 

I get what you're saying but I'd still say City are part of the cartel seeing as they were part of the European Super League conspiracy. They were one of the six PL clubs that conspired to join a breakaway league that had financing arrangements already set up from Wall Street. Even though the idea collapsed, the message was and remains loud and clear that this could potentially happen and they can get the financial backing and all the richest clubs on board. These clubs now have leverage against the PL/UEFA and we are seeing rules that are designed to placate them and enable them to more or less indefinitely outspend everyone else by a safe margin.

 

Even if City get away with all charges, the league and UEFA will continue finding ways to ensure the drawbridge is pulled up. The outcome of this won't change that.

[TRon]

6 minutes ago, ohmelads said:

 

I get what you're saying but I'd still say City are part of the cartel seeing as they were part of the European Super League conspiracy. They were one of the six PL clubs that conspired to join a breakaway league that had financing arrangements already set up from Wall Street. Even though the idea collapsed, the message was and remains loud and clear that this could potentially happen and they can get the financial backing and all the richest clubs on board. These clubs now have leverage against the PL/UEFA and we are seeing rules that are designed to placate them and enable them to more or less indefinitely outspend everyone else by a safe margin.

 

Even if City get away with all charges, the league and UEFA will continue finding ways to ensure the drawbridge is pulled up. The outcome of this won't change that.

 

Well that is my point. If UEFA and the PL are looking to pull up the drawbridge and exclude us from the top echelons, we need the authorities to fear this going to the highest courts which would hopefully involve restriction of trade. There has to be a reason why Man City are probably the only club which hasn't tried to put obstacles in our way. Why would I back a cartel-driven PL over them?

 

 

[St. Maximin]

10 hours ago, TRon said:

 

I've already said in a previous post that I don't consider City as a cartel club, they are viewed as nouveau riche gatecrashers by the established big clubs such as Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal. The FFP/PSR rules are designed to stop them as much as anyone from challenging the cartel.

 

Big spending is the only way to challenge the cartel clubs. You say we've spent a decent amount, but we would need to spend that again to get anywhere close to challenging for the title. That's how City and Chelsea did it. Even if City have their titles stripped from them, you still have Chelsea living it large on dirty money. I can't get behind any structure which allows the cartel clubs to maintain their locked in advantage. If the PL is implementing rules which aid and abet the status quo, they won't have my support in this matter either.

I appreciate they are also targets of these rules, but so are everyone really. We’ve already had Forest and Everton punished, so it’s not fair that the big dogs that are winning everything get away with it, just because the rules are not appropriate. They have launched a separate lawsuit against the PL for that - I think it’s okay to support that while expecting them to comply with rules that everyone else has been required to and already seen smaller clubs punished. 
 

If they are not guilty and have successfully found ways around the rules legitimately, then of course they should not be punished and maybe we can take after them, but any breaches should be punished accordingly. As ohmelads said, they were still part of said conspiracy and looked to break away, so they’re no separate entity from the rest of the ‘big 6’. Interestingly it wasn’t even that big before the rules came into force, so the PL hardly became even less competitive. They had some fun with their crazy spending after the takeover anyway that wasn’t deemed illegal - they aren’t victims from what I’ve understood so far!

[Cronky]

The underlying question is - should there be any spending restrictions at all? I’d say yes, because otherwise you end up with one team dominating, as we are gradually seeing with Man City. A cartel of five is being replaced by a cartel of one.

 

Whilst it’s a nice thought that we could be that one club, personally I’d much rather achieve another way. 
 

I don’t understand this support in some quarters for Man City. Apart from the moral issues of spending enormous amounts in a game that is already awash with money, it does look like they’ve broken the rules that the other clubs have had to adhere to, and it’s happened by organised subterfuge rather than accident or error.

[The Prophet]

15 hours ago, RS said:

Are we expecting real updates on the case from anywhere?

 

Not until it's finished.

[r0cafella]

Athletic mentioning won't be done until the end of the season. 

[Heron]

Hasn't that been said for like 4 years now

[The Prophet]

Sounds about right though. There will be a horrific amount of evidence to go through.

[TRon]

2 hours ago, Cronky said:

The underlying question is - should there be any spending restrictions at all? I’d say yes, because otherwise you end up with one team dominating, as we are gradually seeing with Man City. A cartel of five is being replaced by a cartel of one.

 

Whilst it’s a nice thought that we could be that one club, personally I’d much rather achieve another way. 
 

I don’t understand this support in some quarters for Man City. Apart from the moral issues of spending enormous amounts in a game that is already awash with money, it does look like they’ve broken the rules that the other clubs have had to adhere to, and it’s happened by organised subterfuge rather than accident or error.

 

I think it's the other way round, it's a nice thought success can be achieved another way, reality would suggest otherwise. FFP/PSR rules are only going to favour the clubs already established in the cartel. What would be a realistic alternative way of achieving success in your view?

 

 

[LFEE]

20 hours ago, RS said:

Are we expecting real updates on the case from anywhere?

Nope. So tune back in March. Maybe Lawton and Zeigler at best.

 

As for the associated parties case hopefully next week according to Matt Lawton on Talksport.

 

 

Edited September 19 by LFEE

[ohmelads]

5 hours ago, Cronky said:

The underlying question is - should there be any spending restrictions at all? I’d say yes, because otherwise you end up with one team dominating, as we are gradually seeing with Man City. A cartel of five is being replaced by a cartel of one.

 

Whilst it’s a nice thought that we could be that one club, personally I’d much rather achieve another way. 
 

I don’t understand this support in some quarters for Man City. Apart from the moral issues of spending enormous amounts in a game that is already awash with money, it does look like they’ve broken the rules that the other clubs have had to adhere to, and it’s happened by organised subterfuge rather than accident or error.

 

Some of those rules have come about through organised subterfuge mind. The cartel clubs have major leverage over the PL and UEFA thanks to the legitimate super league threats which effectively blackmail them. 

 

Ideally, I'd like to see something like a flat spending limit for all clubs as that would make for a very competitive and much fairer league. Of course, the same clubs accusing Man City of cheating will fight tooth and nail to prevent any form of a fairer Premier League. Even if, say, an independent regulator had the power to make that happen, they'd have to set the limit very high to stop the top players going overseas to unrestricted leagues.

 

Best we can hope for is that City challenge the protectionist rules themselves and win, forcing concessions to be made. Liverpool and Man U fans are rubbing their hands baying for blood, but I suppose there are scenarios where a City win could loosen their rivals' decades-long grip on power. There are legitimate reasons for wanting City to stick it to the corrupt organisations running the game at the top levels. Like you, I also don't want to see unrestricted spending but a compromise that isn't purely aimed at protecting specific clubs.

[ohmelads]

20 hours ago, TRon said:

 

Well that is my point. If UEFA and the PL are looking to pull up the drawbridge and exclude us from the top echelons, we need the authorities to fear this going to the highest courts which would hopefully involve restriction of trade. There has to be a reason why Man City are probably the only club which hasn't tried to put obstacles in our way. Why would I back a cartel-driven PL over them?

 

 

 

Sorry, I posted in a hurry but I did mean to acknowledge your overall point as I agree with the crux of your argument.

 

I just mean that the situation is complex as they are part of a group of teams that have already conspired together and so in some contexts, they are very much part of that group.

[nufcjb]

22 hours ago, RS said:

Are we expecting real updates on the case from anywhere?

Got memories of when the Toon broke the internet watching our case against the PL on a stream!

[TRon]

1 hour ago, ohmelads said:

 

Some of those rules have come about through organised subterfuge mind. The cartel clubs have major leverage over the PL and UEFA thanks to the legitimate super league threats which effectively blackmail them. 

 

Ideally, I'd like to see something like a flat spending limit for all clubs as that would make for a very competitive and much fairer league. Of course, the same clubs accusing Man City of cheating will fight tooth and nail to prevent any form of a fairer Premier League. Even if, say, an independent regulator had the power to make that happen, they'd have to set the limit very high to stop the top players going overseas to unrestricted leagues.

 

Best we can hope for is that City challenge the protectionist rules themselves and win, forcing concessions to be made. Liverpool and Man U fans are rubbing their hands baying for blood, but I suppose there are scenarios where a City win could loosen their rivals' decades-long grip on power. There are legitimate reasons for wanting City to stick it to the corrupt organisations running the game at the top levels. Like you, I also don't want to see unrestricted spending but a compromise that isn't purely aimed at protecting specific clubs.

 

 

This is my view as well.

[madras]

59 minutes ago, nufcjb said:

Got memories of when the Toon broke the internet watching our case against the PL on a stream!

I remember that. There was a behind closed doors session and everything seemed to change after that.

[FloydianMag]

2 hours ago, nufcjb said:

Got memories of when the Toon broke the internet watching our case against the PL on a stream!

Yes, but that was a CAT that the public can watch, City’s case is before an Independent Panel constituted under PL rules and is confidential. CAT’s are judicial hearings and the public have a right to view if streamed and they can be reported on by the media.

[Cronky]

7 hours ago, TRon said:

 

I think it's the other way round, it's a nice thought success can be achieved another way, reality would suggest otherwise. FFP/PSR rules are only going to favour the clubs already established in the cartel. What would be a realistic alternative way of achieving success in your view?

 

 

I think the current regs are outdated. I don’t have the financial nous to judge whether the new regs will allow more flexibility. Personally I’d have increased the three year allowance but perhaps that’s a reflection of my limited financial knowledge. 
 

But either way, I don’t think a free for all is the answer. Apart from the risk of establishing a one club monopoly, it’s not fair on the smaller clubs.

[FloydianMag]

18 minutes ago, Cronky said:

I think the current regs are outdated. I don’t have the financial nous to judge whether the new regs will allow more flexibility. Personally I’d have increased the three year allowance but perhaps that’s a reflection of my limited financial knowledge. 
 

But either way, I don’t think a free for all is the answer. Apart from the risk of establishing a one club monopoly, it’s not fair on the smaller clubs.

Allow all clubs to spend up to the club with the highest revenue streams as long as the owners can afford to and are willing to do so.

[Hudson]

On 18/09/2024 at 15:24, RS said:

Are we expecting real updates on the case from anywhere?

Nope

[astraguy]

hope they get the Juve/Rangers act of justice 

[Mahoneys Tache]

If another super league proposal happens our current owners would be all over it like a cheap suit.