Man City Charges

[Scott Harris]

Yeah they need ‘punishing’ but it’s a financial crime make it a financial punishment ie a transfer ban or fine.
People calling for points deductions or titles to be stripped are just weirdos.

Why? Everton got a points deduction for a single breach of the rules. City did it for 10 years.

I also think context needs to be applied. City's rule breaking wasn't a thing that turned into something inconsequential, it helped position themselves to dominate English football and grow the club into one of the biggest names in world football. I don't think it's a stretch to say that without it, they wouldn't be where they are today. This isn't like other financial breaches you see in football where a team doesn't really gain a lot from it, this amount of cheating gave City the maximum reward.

City's situation is unprecedented, a transfer ban or heavy fine doesn't cut it, unless the transfer ban covers 20 windows with the addition of a fine in the hundreds of millions.

 

[Clearlake Cartel]

The problem is it's a financial crime that resulted in a massive advantage over a very long time scale. City were able to build an unassailable team by breaking the rules.

The comparisson is Everton's 10 point reduction. That was a single breach that gave a negligable advantage. City were doing this over a very long period, at a bigger scale, they committed further offences trying to hide it, then they fought tooth and nail every step of this process.

It's completely unprecedented what they've done. A 15 point deduction and a fine would hurt the league more than it hurts city, the punishment has to be enough for it to be worth any damage done to the current season and be enough to satisfy both those who've lost and and those who had harsh punishments for similar infractions. City aren't the only ones who could sick their lawyers on the league.

Why? Everton got a points deduction for a single breach of the rules. City did it for 10 years.

I also think context needs to be applied. City's rule breaking wasn't a thing that turned into something inconsequential, it helped position themselves to dominate English football and grow the club into one of the biggest names in world football. I don't think it's a stretch to say that without it, they wouldn't be where they are today. This isn't like other financial breaches you see in football where a team doesn't really gain a lot from it, this amount of cheating gave City the maximum reward.

City's situation is unprecedented, a transfer ban or heavy fine doesn't cut it, unless the transfer ban covers 20 windows with the addition of a fine in the hundreds of millions.

Maybe it’s just my view of it but it’s only a breach of the self imposed stupid rules by governing bodies. City’s owners had the money to spend to make them better and that’s what they did.

It’s not like in Italy where it is genuine cheating and bribing of officials, it’s just moving some numbers around on spreadsheets. That’s all.

You punish City, let’s say a 15 point deduction this season, all you do is nullify the league this season and hand the title to Arsenal, essentially making the remaining 33 games pointless. No disrespect to Everton or Forest but the Premier League doesn’t need them, unfortunately it does City.

As I see it, it’s a financial crime not a sporting one. Pay a fine or something and move on. It all gets a little bit Scouse with the faux outrage and baying for blood, in my opinion.

It’s these same rules that have prevented Villa & Newcastle from actually competing, they’re restrictive. The best case outcome, for football in this country moving forward is that FFP/PSR is scrapped and clubs can go back to spending what they like to achieve their targets, like Sir Roman did when he first bought us.

 

[Scott Harris]

You punish City, let’s say a 15 point deduction this season, all you do is nullify the league this season and hand the title to Arsenal, essentially making the remaining 33 games pointless. No disrespect to Everton or Forest but the Premier League doesn’t need them, unfortunately it does City.

If it does nullify the league this season, so be it. Even more reason to come down hard on them. The Premier League should view them as damaging to the brand and they will cause more damage if they aren't dealt with properly. Also, the Premier League doesn't need City, just like it didn't need them before their money. There will be another team that replaces them.

As I see it, it’s a financial crime not a sporting one. Pay a fine or something and move on. It all gets a little bit Scouse with the faux outrage and baying for blood, in my opinion.

It's a financial crime that gave them maximum sporting success. I just don't see how it can't be viewed as both a financial crime and a sporting one. Without it, City are nothing.

 

[axman2526]

Past is past, I would not like the mess it makes to go back and strip titles.

Focus on punishments that affects moving forward. Not points deductions but impose a ban on city for transfer windows and not allowing them to play in Europe for x amount of seasons.

 

[Clearlake Cartel]

It's a financial crime that gave them maximum sporting success. I just don't see how it can't be viewed as both a financial crime and a sporting one. Without it, City are nothing.

I just don’t see how it’s any different to when Sir Roman took over and splashed the cash that’s all. Albeit governing bodies imposed rules to stop clubs becoming successful overnight? It’s the Sheikh’s money to do with as they please, and as they pleased was to make City a force, which they’ve done.

Everyone will have their own views but for me, it’s just numbers moving around spreadsheets.

Calciopoli, Totonero, Scousers literally killing people (twice). Hell, for me, even Tonali & Toney betting on games is worse. All of those bring the game into disrepute much more seriously.

Everyone’s entitled to their view on it, I just find the whole ‘strip them of titles’ ‘relegate them’ such overreactions.

 

[Scott Harris]

I just don’t see how it’s any different to when Sir Roman took over and splashed the cash that’s all. Albeit governing bodies imposed rules to stop clubs becoming successful overnight? It’s the Sheikh’s money to do with as they please, and as they pleased was to make City a force, which they’ve done.

Everyone will have their own views but for me, it’s just numbers moving around spreadsheets.

Calciopoli, Totonero, Scousers literally killing people (twice). Hell, for me, even Tonali & Toney betting on games is worse. All of those bring the game into disrepute much more seriously.

Everyone’s entitled to their view on it, I just find the whole ‘strip them of titles’ ‘relegate them’ such overreactions.

I don't like the rules either, I personally think that the current financial rules are unfair on clubs like Villa that have had success but still need to sell their players. Then there are clubs like Man Utd who have been a clown show for a decade but can still pull players away for big money. At the same time though, the rules are the rules, we can't just have clubs going against rules because they don't like them.

 

[PloKoon13]

While slave labour may have allowed you to build an abhorrent pretence at a civilisation, that which is actively killing the world is what enables you to sustain it. What it doesn't allow you to do is escape the judgement of genuine civilisation. Money may allow you to slip free of justice.

I [naïvely] hope this is the beginning of the end.

 

[PloKoon13]

Speaking of disgraces to civilisation, Sarah Elliott was on Any Questions tonight.

 

[19seventyone]

Even if they get half the charges overturned on appeal they are still f**ked.

Anything other than relegation will have the rest of the league up in arms I reckon.

If only they’d self reported……..

 

[Jezz]

Hope Maresca and Fernandez enjoy the lower leagues of England.

 

[Snedger]

I haven’t paid a lot of attention to this, but I always thought it was pretty common knowledge that City’s sponsorship deals for a club that had just popped back up form the lower divisions were getting sponsorship deals from businesses in the country that owned them that were clearly out of any scale given at that time they’d not won anything. Beyond that, what exactly have they been up to and I take it that it was very different from whatever we were getting up to with the Hazard payments and whatever else it was we were doing?

 

[Scott Harris]

Because of the different types of charges, I don't think the Premier League will just slap an all in one penalty on them, I don't think it can work like that. I think each type of charge they are found guilty of will face separate penalties.

For example, Everton were given a 10 point penalty (6 on appeal) for 1 breach of PSR, and 2 more points a few months later. City breached PSR 7 times over multiple seasons, but we don't know if those breaches were worse than Everton's 1. So it's hard to say how many points can be deducted from this alone. It could be any number, a low number or a high one.

I don't think the other charges will result in a straight up expulsion from the Premier League. I wouldn't rule it out, but I don't think it's likely. It will probably just be more points deductions, a big fine and transfer bans.

Even in a world where football has lost so much integrity, I will still be shocked if City came away with this with a minor punishment. But at the same time, I don't think it will be anything that hurts them for more than a couple of seasons. Even if they had a 100 points deduction in total and 2 year transfer ban, I still think they could get relegated, come straight back up and compete for titles again. They're not just going to sell their entire squad if they got demoted to the Championship. If that was to happen, City's owners and their fans would probably be saying it was all worth it.

 

[dermott]

I haven’t paid a lot of attention to this, but I always thought it was pretty common knowledge that City’s sponsorship deals for a club that had just popped back up form the lower divisions were getting sponsorship deals from businesses in the country that owned them that were clearly out of any scale given at that time they’d not won anything. Beyond that, what exactly have they been up to and I take it that it was very different from whatever we were getting up to with the Hazard payments and whatever else it was we were doing?

In short, the charges relate to (a) disguising owner financial input as "sponsorship" to avoid FFP rules; and (b) frustrating investigations into the matters.

Chelsea's problems, self-reported, related to payments off the books to secure signings.

 

[Clearlake Cartel]

In short, the charges relate to (a) disguising owner financial input as "sponsorship" to avoid FFP rules; and (b) frustrating investigations into the matters.

Chelsea's problems, self-reported, related to payments off the books to secure signings.

To play Devils advocate, leaving out the self reporting, doesn’t ours sound worse?

 

[Backbiter]

To play Devils advocate, leaving out the self reporting, doesn’t ours sound worse?

Our off-the-books payments were not so big that we'd have breached FFP if they'd been put through the books, so no.

 

[Sconnie Blue]

In short, the charges relate to (a) disguising owner financial input as "sponsorship" to avoid FFP rules; and (b) frustrating investigations into the matters.

Chelsea's problems, self-reported, related to payments off the books to secure signings.

To play Devils advocate, leaving out the self reporting, doesn’t ours sound worse?

All of Chelsea’s undisclosed payments were shown to have had not broken any PSR rules at the time. Any comparison people are trying to make now is simply irrelevant.

 

[Backbiter]

To play Devils advocate, leaving out the self reporting, doesn’t ours sound worse?

Our off-the-books payments were not so big that we'd have breached FFP if they'd been put through the books, so no.

I just don’t see how it’s any different to when Sir Roman took over and splashed the cash that’s all. Albeit governing bodies imposed rules to stop clubs becoming successful overnight? It’s the Sheikh’s money to do with as they please, and as they pleased was to make City a force, which they’ve done.

As long as you play by the rules of the competition you are playing in. They didn't, and refused to cooperate with the investigators. Pretty damn cynical and serious, and very different to what other clubs have done.
As for it being no different to what RA did, what FFP/ PSR rules did he break?
Clue: they weren't in existence back then.

 

[dermott]

To play Devils advocate, leaving out the self reporting, doesn’t ours sound worse?

In what universe? City's charges cover seasons 2009–10 to 2017–18. For eight seasons they had access to apparently legitimate hundreds of millions to spend on players. Add up what they spent and on who to become one of the best teams in the world. Only the funds weren't legitimate. More, they did their damndest to hide what they were up to.

Chelsea signed a couple of players.

 

[Sconnie Blue]

In what universe? City's charges cover seasons 2009–10 to 2017–18. For eight seasons they had access to apparently legitimate hundreds of millions to spend on players. Add up what they spent and on who to become one of the best teams in the world. Only the funds weren't legitimate. More, they did their damndest to hide what they were up to.

Chelsea signed a couple of players.

I'd argue that specific time period is moot.

Their treble and 4 in a row in recent years were because of the groundwork laid during that period.

 

[strider6004]

I would say a 3 year ban playing in Europe and World Club championship.
That would harm advertising revenues and might cause some players to leave yet does not tarnish past accomplishments.