What's new

Man City Charges

Re; Sham City.
The club may want to consider how they would vote if the The Premier league do as the Scottish Premier league did when Rangers collapsed and hold a vote on allowing them to remain in the SPL.
This whole drama raises so many potential questions that you wonder how Liverpool fans will react on 12th October when the clubs meet at Anfield. The Enzos will surely be sporting smacked ar*e faces.
 
Nibs said:
This whole Man City 115 charges thing is a complete f**king mess. You honestly have to question how the FA, with all of their resources could not have found something AT THE TIME, rather than wait for some hacker to unearth details years later (too late?). Surely all clubs have to be audited annually (or are the auditors on back-handers too?).
Click to expand...

There is an answer to this, and we won't like it.

The PSR procedures did not allow the PL to actively verify sponsorship agreements or ratify them before they were completed. This means everything could only been explained after the fact, where any offending club could simply hide the evidence.

This was by design of the same PL clubs engaged in moral panic, who agreed to these rules knowing full well it would hamstring any practical regulatory effort by the PL. That attitude only changed in 2021 when the clubs changed the rules again to require pre-approval, in response to the Saudi takeover of Newcastle.

The rules have always existed to ensure a closed shop, and Chelsea and even City themselves were happy to pull the ladder up behind them.
 
I think there's a legitimate discussion to be had about the broader rules and whether they benefit a select few English clubs at the expense of the rest, but what Manchester City did here was egregious.

Having read some of the Independent Commission's decision, I think City should expect severe sanctions.

I've seen comments from uneducated morons saying "Chelsea next". If FFP and PSR existed in the mid-2000s, Chelsea would have faced sanctions of course but we were in a different climate at the time. Even the recent 74 charges against us pales in comparison to what City have done here.
 
As City will fight this to the bitter end (maybe years away) and with the scale of the rule breaking and ramifications for many clubs over the years, is there a scenario where teams refuse to play them? I'm guessing not, but until this is fully and properly concluded, City's participation almost feels untenable.

Oddly, I think this makes them more likely to win the league this year (which I already thought they would) as it'll increase the old siege mentality that often works well.
 
Jezz said:
I've seen comments from uneducated morons saying "Chelsea next". If FFP and PSR existed in the mid-2000s, Chelsea would have faced sanctions of course but we were in a different climate at the time. Even the recent 74 charges against us pales in comparison to what City have done here.
Click to expand...
This whole thing does make me nervous. At what point do the PL investigate the obviously dubious inflated sponsorships from the non-existent AI companies and Infinite Athlete etc. we've had on our shirts under the current owners.

The moans about what we did in the past are pointless, but i can't imagine we're squeaky clean now.
 
dkw said:
Am I the only one who hopes they take this through the courts and the sham of PPS and FFP and WTF all get shown to be mechanism to keep the top clubs out of reach?
Click to expand...
No not at all

Firstly, yes that's exactly what PSR is.
The whole point is if you are not a big club, you are not allowed to spend a f**k tonne of money you don't have. It's a feature, not a scam.

PSR is the reason Palace, Brentford, Brighton etc have become premier league stable clubs. Roll those clubs back 20 years and they'd have gambled that they would keep growing and ended up falling apart. It's why if the Saudis leave Newcastle, which feels inevitable at some point, it won't be a death sentence.

Sure if you have an oligarch or an oil state take you over and is allowed to spend loads of money it has a high chance of being great. But only if they don't walk away. Only if they get it right.
 
We also beat them in 2016 to the PL, during the period of investigation, and we beat them on that CL final in Porto, even though outside the period being investigated, they surely were still under the doping influence. When it mattered, and when we were good enough, we beat them. The other teams can cry all they want, but they are bottlers by nature unlike what we were before this board was forced on to the Club. Is aArsenal going to complainto UEFA about PSG so they can get hold of their hands on to the CL trophy? f**k them, they were not good enough on the pitch.
 
bisright1 said:
No not at all

Firstly, yes that's exactly what PSR is.
The whole point is if you are not a big club, you are not allowed to spend a f**k tonne of money you don't have. It's a feature, not a scam.

PSR is the reason Palace, Brentford, Brighton etc have become premier league stable clubs. Roll those clubs back 20 years and they'd have gambled that they would keep growing and ended up falling apart. It's why if the Saudis leave Newcastle, which feels inevitable at some point, it won't be a death sentence.

Sure if you have an oligarch or an oil state take you over and is allowed to spend loads of money it has a high chance of being great. But only if they don't walk away. Only if they get it right.
Click to expand...
But surely City and Chelsea under Roman had that money to spend, why stop them spending it unless you want to prevent them from challenging at the top? It's good enough to have stable teams in the PL, but the whole point of a league is to be competitive, and for that, you need to be allowed to challenge the top teams for the best players. I'd agree that to save the smaller teams from debt, the ideal would be that they don't overspend, so to keep it fair, we need to cap the expenditure of the bigger teams to the same level as the Villa's or the Palace's of the PL. Would they want that?
 
This is basically the premier league reputation on the line because of the sanctions don’t fit the crime then the PL can never clam to be the best league in the world.
The last 16 years of Man City involvement in the league has been a fraud and massively puts into question every single season they have been involved in matches that decides trophies.
Industrial scale scammers.
 
RMH said:
But surely City and Chelsea under Roman had that money to spend, why stop them spending it unless you want to prevent them from challenging at the top? It's good enough to have stable teams in the PL, but the whole point of a league is to be competitive, and for that, you need to be allowed to challenge the top teams for the best players. I'd agree that to save the smaller teams from debt, the ideal would be that they don't overspend, so to keep it fair, we need to cap the expenditure of the bigger teams to the same level as the Villa's or the Palace's of the PL. Would they want that?
Click to expand...
You have the right idea but missed the point. The point of installing PSR is to keep the clubs sustainable, there's no problem having rich owners so long as they keep the club sustainable

The problem with City but not Chelsea is that City used bogus sponsor contracts to secretly fund £830M to manipulate finances. Most rich owners of that took control of smaller clubs went straight to splashing cash on players instead of improving the foundations of said club first like stadium upgrades, logistics, marketing, legit sponsorship, coaching upgrades etc., Chelsea FC is the only good example of this, every other club that tried this failed, which is why it was installed to begin with. Sure, Wenger and the bigger club pushed their own agendas but it's not a bad rule to implement
 
bisright1 said:
No not at all

Firstly, yes that's exactly what PSR is.
The whole point is if you are not a big club, you are not allowed to spend a f**k tonne of money you don't have. It's a feature, not a scam.

PSR is the reason Palace, Brentford, Brighton etc have become premier league stable clubs. Roll those clubs back 20 years and they'd have gambled that they would keep growing and ended up falling apart. It's why if the Saudis leave Newcastle, which feels inevitable at some point, it won't be a death sentence.

Sure if you have an oligarch or an oil state take you over and is allowed to spend loads of money it has a high chance of being great. But only if they don't walk away. Only if they get it right.
Click to expand...
If you're not allowed to spend a f**k tonne of money you don't have, why has the debt against premier league clubs more than doubled in the last decade? If our owners walk tomorrow, we're f**ked.
Its a load of nonsense that only benefits a few clubs.
1790761573113.png
 
Scott Harris said:
Just as I was thinking the Prem would sit on this. Inflated financial records by over £900m, that is a crazy number.

Reading that statement, you can tell that the Premier League are viewing this as about as severe a breach as you can get. I would be shocked if the punishment is something they can quickly bounce back from.
Click to expand...
If they don’t hand out a ground shattering punishment then the Premier League reputation and ability to draw increased license revenue isn’t risk.

The wild card here is 🇦🇪 government. They can step in and pressure UK government to step in and help or they pull their investment plans in the UK.
 
Deino said:
You have the right idea but missed the point. The point of installing PSR is to keep the clubs sustainable, there's no problem having rich owners so long as they keep the club sustainable

The problem with City but not Chelsea is that City used bogus sponsor contracts to secretly fund £830M to manipulate finances. Most rich owners of that took control of smaller clubs went straight to splashing cash on players instead of improving the foundations of said club first like stadium upgrades, logistics, marketing, legit sponsorship, coaching upgrades etc., Chelsea FC is the only good example of this, every other club that tried this failed, which is why it was installed to begin with. Sure, Wenger and the bigger club pushed their own agendas but it's not a bad rule to implement
Click to expand...
The problem of City is that their owners tried to finance directly their football club but the rules in place meant that they couldn't directly give the money to the club (I know this is a very simple and possibly wrong take, but that's how I understand it). If they'd been allowed to syphon in money without having to disguise it as commercial growth, they wouldn't be in this situation. The examples you give also contradict what you're saying, they grew the City brand worldwide because of their success and they built a new stadium, they have also got a good academy, overall they improved the foundations of their club, and all this because they financed it and ran it well from a football perspective (in comparison to what our current owners are doing). They just had to disguise how they were funding their "company". The whole set up prevents smaller clubs from being successful and therefore growing commercially and in support.
As I say, cap the expenditure of the top teams to the mid table financial capacity to level the playing field. No more Haalands to City but also no more Rices leaving WH for Arsenal.
 
RMH said:
But surely City and Chelsea under Roman had that money to spend, why stop them spending it unless you want to prevent them from challenging at the top? It's good enough to have stable teams in the PL, but the whole point of a league is to be competitive, and for that, you need to be allowed to challenge the top teams for the best players. I'd agree that to save the smaller teams from debt, the ideal would be that they don't overspend, so to keep it fair, we need to cap the expenditure of the bigger teams to the same level as the Villa's or the Palace's of the PL. Would they want that?
Click to expand...
1. Billionaire takes over club
2. Billionaire pumps £500m in to buy players. Cash leaves club and goes to other clubs.
3. Club signs these players on 5 year contracts on £150k per week.
4. Club gives everyone else in the club a 25% increase on their wages.
5. Club costs go up by £150m a year. Club does not increase revenue. Players don't work out, they fail to make Champions League.

Billionaire stops pumping money into the club. Debts increase year on year.

Club can't afford to pay debts. Billionaire leaves the club to administrators to manage.

Billionaire stays billionaire. Club gets f**ked.
 
All Barco no bite said:
If you're not allowed to spend a f**k tonne of money you don't have, why has the debt against premier league clubs more than doubled in the last decade? If our owners walk tomorrow, we're f**ked.
Its a load of nonsense that only benefits a few clubs.
View attachment 42969
Click to expand...

Yeah, our ownership has bent every single rule possible and I'm genuinely worried about our future.

I'd argue for tighter rules, not more lenient ones. That graph does not make me think we should deregulate and allow more debt to accrue.

If we had a tough PSR in 2003 and Roman took us over, I would wager that we would still have won the league but probably not until 2010. And importantly we'd have a new stadium today. He would have prioritised revenue higher than instant success.

Because he prioritised short term success on the field and revenue was second fiddle we are now only the 6th biggest club in England (probably soon to be the 5th if City do get f**ked).
 
bisright1 said:
The rules were there for a reason, because clubs like Leeds almost went out of business. We almost went out of business ourselves but were fortunate Roman bought us. If he had decided to go for Tottenham, or we hadn't beaten Liverpool on the final day of the season, I am pretty certain we would have gone the way of Leeds.

But regardless of whether the rules are fair or not, they are the rules. And City committed fraud in breaking them.
Click to expand...
Clubs were going into administration for decades before FFP and no rules were ever considered to limit spending.
A wealthy owner spending his wealth on a club with no expectation or desire for it to be repaid doesn't put the club in financial jepordy anyway.
It's not a coincidence that it was only after Roman's Chelsea emerged that spending restrictions were seriously considered
 
bisright1 said:
No not at all

Firstly, yes that's exactly what PSR is.
The whole point is if you are not a big club, you are not allowed to spend a f**k tonne of money you don't have. It's a feature, not a scam.

PSR is the reason Palace, Brentford, Brighton etc have become premier league stable clubs. Roll those clubs back 20 years and they'd have gambled that they would keep growing and ended up falling apart. It's why if the Saudis leave Newcastle, which feels inevitable at some point, it won't be a death sentence.

Sure if you have an oligarch or an oil state take you over and is allowed to spend loads of money it has a high chance of being great. But only if they don't walk away. Only if they get it right.
Click to expand...
So not the £150m+ a year they get from Broadcast rights, plus more from sponsorship etc? It may have levelled things out mid table but all it has created is a glass ceiling for every club other than the big 3 or 4, who can keep spending as much as they want while getting deeper and deeper into debt.
If these amazing altruistic people really wanted to level the playing field and save clubs from themselves there would be a salary cap along with a spending cap, strangely there isnt.
 
bisright1 said:
1. Billionaire takes over club
2. Billionaire pumps £500m in to buy players. Cash leaves club and goes to other clubs.
3. Club signs these players on 5 year contracts on £150k per week.
4. Club gives everyone else in the club a 25% increase on their wages.
5. Club costs go up by £150m a year. Club does not increase revenue. Players don't work out, they fail to make Champions League.

Billionaire stops pumping money into the club. Debts increase year on year.

Club can't afford to pay debts. Billionaire leaves the club to administrators to manage.

Billionaire stays billionaire. Club gets f**ked.
Click to expand...
Roman buys Chelsea
Roman pumps millions in to buy players.
We see some of the best in Chelsea Blue
And us Chelsea fans have the best 20 years ever winning trophy after trophy .
 
  • Like
Reactions: RMH
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top