Manchester City - 115 Charges Case for Alleged Financial Breaches Begins

[FloydianMag]

35 minutes ago, mighty__mag said:

Why isn't it transparent, how come they get to do things behind closed doors, our arbitration with the PL was shown live.

 

 

 

Ours was before a Competition Appeal Tribunal not PL arbitration process.

[Dr.Spaceman]

47 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

Wait, there are 115 charges including some very serious allegations against a club that has dominated the league in recent years to the point it's boring, for breaching regulations that apply to all the teams and have been extremely disruptive to them... and people want City to win this? 

 

 

 

 

Yes, because it may end with others being allowed to catch-up

[WilliamPS]

Don’t think it’s surprising that Newcastle fans aren’t keen on rules that allow Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs to spend double on squad costs than Newcastle 

 

Man City aren’t accused of actual crimes, they are accused of breaking rules plucked out of thin air to thwart Man City’s growth 

[Mahoneys Tache]

It there’s one certainty in this country it’s that the establishment gets protected. They will skate with some token sanctions that will make fuck all

difference to them and will not do us any favours whatsoever. 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, St. Maximin said:

Wait, there are 115 charges including some very serious allegations against a club that has dominated the league in recent years to the point it's boring, for breaching regulations that apply to all the teams and have been extremely disruptive to them... and people want City to win this? 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Because the only teams it's really disrupting is the cartel clubs, and if City can avoid serious repercussions for spending their money, hopefully we won't be prevented in the future.

[Wolfcastle]

They've dominated the league no more than Man United did from 92 until Abramovic and no more than Liverpool in the 70s and 80s.

I'd have been all for a rule change that made things more competitive then. Instead the only rule changes, like now, only enhanced them.

[TRC]

If the allegations are true or proven, then this is more than just financial breaches. There will be football bans put in place - There is no way City winning this is good for us unless you want us to commit fraud and pay people off the books.

[Wolfcastle]

 

3 hours ago, mighty__mag said:

 

When was the last time a Scottish club won the league, other than Celtic or Rangers, because by that definition, that's what we'd end up with. For television purposes though, I don't think we'd want a league where its a two horse race every single season, something has to give, we need those unimaginable moments like Leicester 👍🏼 

Aye two teams is much worse than three teams (Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal) doing the same.

But for 'financial doping' you'd have to go back to Everton in 1987 for the last time anybody but those teams would have won the league. Like two years later than the last non-Rangers or Celtic team to win the league in Scotland.

 

[Erikse]

1 hour ago, WilliamPS said:

Don’t think it’s surprising that Newcastle fans aren’t keen on rules that allow Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs to spend double on squad costs than Newcastle 

 

Man City aren’t accused of actual crimes, they are accused of breaking rules plucked out of thin air to thwart Man City’s growth 

 

But there had to be rules in place to put some kind of breaks on them, or else they would have dominated way more than they have, and noone would be even close to competing with them until our Saudis takeover. After that we would have technically been able to buy just about every elite player there is out there in one window, if the Saudis wished to do so. Football would also be ridiculous at this point with no boundaries in place for spending, but unfortunately they saw their chance to make the rules in an anti competitive way, where they made sure that the elite would be as protected as possible from any other team with any sort of ambition.

 

 

Edited September 17 by Erikse

[TRon]

12 minutes ago, TRC said:

If the allegations are true or proven, then this is more than just financial breaches. There will be football bans put in place - There is no way City winning this is good for us unless you want us to commit fraud and pay people off the books.

 

Depends if the City lawyers can drag restriction of trade into the equation. I'm no lawyer so might be barking up the wrong tree, but there must be something the City legal team believes gives them some credible defence.

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, TRon said:

 

Depends if the City lawyers can drag restriction of trade into the equation. I'm no lawyer so might be barking up the wrong tree, but there must be something the City legal team believes gives them some credible defence.

I don’t think they can do that in this case. 
 

On appeals to higher courts - yes.  But this is a PL ruling on PL rules.  

[FloydianMag]

4 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Depends if the City lawyers can drag restriction of trade into the equation. I'm no lawyer so might be barking up the wrong tree, but there must be something the City legal team believes gives them some credible defence.

That’s the basis of City’s case re APT rules, that they are illegal and contravene UK Competition Law.

[madras]

9 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

That’s the basis of City’s case re APT rules, that they are illegal and contravene UK Competition Law.

There are so many sporting governance  rules which would appear to contravene competition law that I'd be surprised if there wasn't specific exemptions on certain laws.

[macphisto]

People are overestimating City's domination due to money. Obviously played a big part but Pep is the reason for their success. Interesting to see what happens when he leaves. 

[alexf]

35 minutes ago, macphisto said:

People are overestimating City's domination due to money. Obviously played a big part but Pep is the reason for their success. Interesting to see what happens when he leaves. 

The two go hand in hand. 

They spent absolute fortunes on first team, academy, infrastructure, managers etc. 

 

This allowed them to win a few league titles and cups with the likes of aguero, company, Silva etc. 

 

They had a dip just before Pep arrived but, the fact they were even able to attract Pep in the first place was down to money. 

 

He has been amazing but he has been well remunerated I'm sure. 

Not to mention he has been able to assemble a squad and pick up pretty much anyone he wants since he arrived. 

 

Everyone wanted Haaland but no one else was affording that Salary he's on. Etc.

 

 

Edited September 17 by alexf

[Miercoles]

33 minutes ago, macphisto said:

People are overestimating City's domination due to money. Obviously played a big part but Pep is the reason for their success. Interesting to see what happens when he leaves. 

 

Could be very interesting if they receive some heavy sanctions, i.e. relegation, embargo, etc. Suddenly they're a division or two down, Pep leaves, and some key players like KDB are aging out. It wouldn't be the simplest rebuild.

[andyc35i]

4 minutes ago, Miercoles said:

 

Could be very interesting if they receive some heavy sanctions, i.e. relegation, embargo, etc. Suddenly they're a division or two down, Pep leaves, and some key players like KDB are aging out. It wouldn't be the simplest rebuild.

I think I’d take a few demotions right now for us if it meant in 15 years time we’d have 8 league titles and a Champions League to our name 

[FloydianMag]

1 hour ago, madras said:

There are so many sporting governance  rules which would appear to contravene competition law that I'd be surprised if there wasn't specific exemptions on certain laws.

If there was an exemption to the new APT rule I’m sure City’s lawyers would have advised them not to bother.

 

https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/manchester-city-versus-premier-league-arbitration-proceedings-kick#:~:text=Osborne Clarke has a track,the UK and across Europe.

 

 

Edited September 17 by FloydianMag

[madras]

42 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

If there was an exemption to the new APT rule I’m sure City’s lawyers would have advised them not to bother.

 

https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/manchester-city-versus-premier-league-arbitration-proceedings-kick#:~:text=Osborne Clarke has a track,the UK and across Europe.

 

 

 

I'm not saying there was one. More that sports don't seem to be seen as businesses in the same way.  Ie wage caps, restrictions on employability etc.

[Tsunami]

City are too established for anything meaningful to happen to them. They have too many fans around the world and too many top players. The PL will not damage the brand. 
 

I can see an outcome where they get a fine, points deduction and put on the naughty step with the real losers being us as some new rules will be introduced that affect us more than any other club. 

[St. Maximin]

19 hours ago, Geogaddi said:

Man City winning the league every year is a far better alternative to Arsenal, Liverpool or Man United winning it .
 

Let's be honest due to FFP we aren't going to be able to challenge for the league anytime soon and have far less resources we can use compared to them clubs so City winning it every year is fine with me .

Not agreeing on that mate. I see no reason why that’s the case if they aren’t breaking rules. They aren’t our rivals and people don’t like Liverpool and Arsenal because of their managers or fans they’ve come across, but every team has dislikable things about them. At least they have history of being good PL sides prior to oil money and could fill their stadiums. 
 

I get the frustration with FFP rules, but as long as they’re here it’s only fair everyone is made accountable. 

[St. Maximin]

18 hours ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Yes, because it may end with others being allowed to catch-up

But it’s not about whether or not the rules should exist, but whether Man City have breached them. They apply to everyone and have already seen smaller clubs punished, so not prepared to see Man City get away with it (e.g. because of their size of quality of lawyer) if they are indeed guilty. Whether or not all these rules should be in place is a different argument. 

[Lush Vlad]

38 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

But it’s not about whether or not the rules should exist, but whether Man City have breached them. They apply to everyone and have already seen smaller clubs punished, so not prepared to see Man City get away with it (e.g. because of their size of quality of lawyer) if they are indeed guilty. Whether or not all these rules should be in place is a different argument. 

Agree with this. 
 

Do the rules seem massively unfair to clubs trying to now challenge? Yes, I think so. 
 

Have they been weighted in such a way. That teams now just sell or trade their youth/homegrown players for inflated fees? Yes. 
 

Are there loads of ridiculous loopholes that can be exploited via accountancy tricks or wide open doors that they forgot to close? Yes. 
 

If Man City are guilty. Should they get away with a lenient punishment because we don’t like the rules and want a shot at spending daft amounts? Absolutely fucking not. 
 

Just to be clear. I don’t think PSR/FFP should be abolished. You’d just get loads of teams like City, Chelsea and now ourselves. With ridiculous amounts of money. Just buying whoever they want. But they really do need to be heavily modified so that teams outside of the original Sky 6 actually have a chance of catching up and consistently challenging at the top end of the table. 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, St. Maximin said:

Not agreeing on that mate. I see no reason why that’s the case if they aren’t breaking rules. They aren’t our rivals and people don’t like Liverpool and Arsenal because of their managers or fans they’ve come across, but every team has dislikable things about them. At least they have history of being good PL sides prior to oil money and could fill their stadiums. 
 

I get the frustration with FFP rules, but as long as they’re here it’s only fair everyone is made accountable. 

 

Personally I don't give a shit if everyone's made accountable because the rules are changed/applied to prevent challenge to Arsenal and Liverpool in the first place. If I thought the PL didn't apply FFP/PSR rules to prevent us from challenging the cartel clubs I might have agreed. We can't do what Chelsea did because of these rules, and now they are so far ahead of us it becomes almost impossible to catch them without spending like they did.

[St. Maximin]

3 hours ago, TRon said:

 

Personally I don't give a shit if everyone's made accountable because the rules are changed/applied to prevent challenge to Arsenal and Liverpool in the first place. If I thought the PL didn't apply FFP/PSR rules to prevent us from challenging the cartel clubs I might have agreed. We can't do what Chelsea did because of these rules, and now they are so far ahead of us it becomes almost impossible to catch them without spending like they did.

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.