What's new

Man City Charges

Okay so maybe from an alternate dimension, but who knows.

  • City, in a fit of pique at what they perceive as disproportionate punishment actually withdraw from the PL entirely.
  • The UAE and/or Saudi States follow through on bankrolling a new Super League.
  • The Saudi Pro League has not realised the expectations so this offers the Saudis a greater opportunity of exposure abd growth, and a collaboration with FIFA allows that body to wash its face with a fresh challenge and diversion.
  • The top European clubs, desperate for a slice of the money on offer immediately sign up for the league.
  • Meanwhile Chelsea's partnership with Damac moves to another level as the Saudi property developer fund the majority of a property deal in moving Chelsea to Earls Court.
  • The Top 6 clubs in the PL follow suit and opt out of the PL and move to the Super League.
  • In a twist, rather than the Saudis trying to develop their sides into the Super League they work with Damac and increase their partnership with Chelsea, ultimately buying the club from Clearlake.
  • The PL, basking in the glory of their victory and the PSR framework that has been established are left with the equivalent of the Scottish Premiership with the big two of Brighton and Brentford battling it out year on year.
Nah, surely not.
 
yaz said:
There's a lot of "what about Chelsea" being floated about but there are two major differences here.

Our breaches did not, according to the regulators, give us a sporting advantage. There's not ground to bring up cheating or revisiting the titles we've won.

The person responsible for the breaches was stripped of his ownership and essentially fined £4B. I may be wrong but I believe this is the harshest punishment any club owner has ever received.
I think City fans would take a year in the Championship over having their UAE owners taken away from them.
Click to expand...
That was nothing to do with financial rule-breaking, even though it went on while he was the owner. He was forced to sell purely because of UK sanctions on Russia and Russians and his supposed ties to Putin, because of the Ukraine invasion.
There's been speculation that the City owners will be declared unfit to be owners of a football club, which would be entirely appropriate given the way they have carried on. But does the Premier league have the teeth to make them sell up?
(Knowing them they'd sell the club to themselves).
 
Last edited:
WhiteWall said:
Okay so maybe from an alternate dimension, but who knows.

  • City, in a fit of pique at what they perceive as disproportionate punishment actually withdraw from the PL entirely.
  • The UAE and/or Saudi States follow through on bankrolling a new Super League.
  • The Saudi Pro League has not realised the expectations so this offers the Saudis a greater opportunity of exposure abd growth, and a collaboration with FIFA allows that body to wash its face with a fresh challenge and diversion.
  • The top European clubs, desperate for a slice of the money on offer immediately sign up for the league.
  • Meanwhile Chelsea's partnership with Damac moves to another level as the Saudi property developer fund the majority of a property deal in moving Chelsea to Earls Court.
  • The Top 6 clubs in the PL follow suit and opt out of the PL and move to the Super League.
  • In a twist, rather than the Saudis trying to develop their sides into the Super League they work with Damac and increase their partnership with Chelsea, ultimately buying the club from Clearlake.
  • The PL, basking in the glory of their victory and the PSR framework that has been established are left with the equivalent of the Scottish Premiership with the big two of Brighton and Brentford battling it out year on year.
Nah, surely not.
Click to expand...
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The Premier League will not want to inflict too damaging a punishment on City or their whole empire is at risk of collapse. In fact if it isnt reinvigorated at this point there will be other instances in the near future. The Super League isnt if, its when.
 
Backbiter said:
That was nothing to do with financial rule-breaking, even though it went on while he was the owner. He was forced to sell purely because of UK sanctions on Russia and Russians and his supposed ties to Putin, because of the Ukraine invasion.
There's been speculation that the City owners will be declared unfit to be owners of a football club, which would be entirely appropriate given the way they have carried on. But does the Premier league have the teeth to make them sell up?
(Knowing them they'd sell the club to themselves).
Click to expand...
I understand that, but it's sort of like executing someone for murder and then finding out he had also stolen money.
Not much more you can do.
Of all the potential punishments for City, no one is mentioning stripping the Emiratis of their ownership.
 
I think a 2 year transfer ban is sufficient.

You start ‘stripping titles’ and you just open up a never ending sh*tstorm.
Relegated teams could argue, teams who missed out on Europe could argue, Players who were sent off and suspended for the City game/for games after playing City etc could argue. It would literally never end.

Nice clean cut. 2 years, no signings, that allows the teams to ‘catch up’ that have perceived to be wronged by City’s owners spending money they had illegally paid to themselves (?)

I just cross my fingers that the outcome of this is the scrapping entirely of PSR/FFP and we can go back to the good old days of spending what you want.
 
yaz said:
I understand that, but it's sort of like executing someone for murder and then finding out he had also stolen money.
Not much more you can do.
Of all the potential punishments for City, no one is mentioning stripping the Emiratis of their ownership.
Click to expand...
It was mentioned on Talksh!te.

A more respectable source is the Independent, which wrote this:
www.independent.co.uk

Man City face a new world of uncertainty and the Abu Dhabi ownership is at risk

City’s unprecedented case has finally produced a verdict, writes Lawrence Ostlere. Now the club could face points deductions, compensation claims and questions about the people in charge of their success
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
But the real scrutiny should be directed at the people who run the football club. Sheikh Mansour’s Abu Dhabi United Group was directly implicated in the alleged accountancy gymnastics. Simon Pearce was a director at City throughout the period in question, and still is. How involved were chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak and chief executive Ferran Soriano?

It is worth considering the new Independent Football Regulator’s (IFR) rules on owners and directors, published in May. Individuals must prove their “honesty, integrity and financial soundness” in order to run a football club, and the IFR has the power to investigate existing owners and directors where there are fresh grounds for concern over dishonesty, corruption or regulatory misconduct. If the Premier League’s charges are upheld, by definition, the club’s entire ownership is at risk.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaz
City should face a 50 point deduction immediately, their titles vacated (but not awarded to the 2nd place team), possible expulsion from PL and EFL and force their owners to sell but having no chance of buying back through intermediaries or whatnot

Their actions have affected plenty of clubs that got relegated in between that time.
 
Clearlake Cartel said:
I think a 2 year transfer ban is sufficient.

You start ‘stripping titles’ and you just open up a never ending sh*tstorm.
Relegated teams could argue, teams who missed out on Europe could argue, Players who were sent off and suspended for the City game/for games after playing City etc could argue. It would literally never end.

Nice clean cut. 2 years, no signings, that allows the teams to ‘catch up’ that have perceived to be wronged by City’s owners spending money they had illegally paid to themselves (?)

I just cross my fingers that the outcome of this is the scrapping entirely of PSR/FFP and we can go back to the good old days of spending what you want.
Click to expand...
I agree that there shouldn't be an attempt to stripping titles and resetting league positions. I could see an argument for nullifying their wins without then rebuilding what the league outcome might have been (for the very reasons you mention).

However I think just a two year transfer ban would be insufficient. They have a squad which can cope with that with, at best, minor detriment.

For me it has to be a transfer ban plus eitjer league demotion or a points penalty so substantial that demotion naturally follows.

This is financial doping on a scale never seen in football and while I think we got off lightly with our agent payments this one can't be brushed aside with something so minor the club can laugh it off.
 
Sconnie Blue said:
Huh? What are you on about? We got a 12-month transfer ban for simply signing U18-year-olds, FFS.

Based on your posts, you are failing to really grasp the scale of City's crimes here.
Click to expand...

I think I must be. The 35 charges of ‘failing to comply with an investigation’ aside because that’s just essentially ‘No Commenting’ an interview.

The 80 remaining charges are mainly paying themselves inflated sponsorship money? Which we all knew from the second their owners who own Etihad, sponsored the stadium and the shirts.

Aside from the introduction of PSR/FFP since, I really fail to see what they’re doing so ‘wrong’ as opposed to when Sir Roman bought us and splashed the cash?
 
Sconnie Blue said:
Huh? What are you on about? We got a 12-month transfer ban for simply signing U18-year-olds, FFS.

Based on your posts, you are failing to really grasp the scale of City's crimes here.
Click to expand...
no one died
 
Will be interesting to see whether the new regulator gets involved re fit and proper ownership.
 
To complex to even begin guessing punishments that are appropriate and actually implementable without more legal stuff and opening more cans of worms.

Officially asterisking their domestic titles in that period would be a simple and effective punishment for starters. No point awarding stuff to other clubs, but an asterisk denoting unfair play will always leave those titles tarnished and dismissed in the eyes of all but their own fans.
 
Remember, City have always voted in favour of the rules they broke. I hate how unfair the likes of FFP and PSR are, but if the likes of City also hate it so much, they should have voted against it and become a voice against how anti competitive the Premier League is trying to be. They agreed to the rules, so they should adhere to them, but they thought they could cheat whilst everybody else was being hamstrung by them which allowed them to build the entire foundation of their success. They get whatever is coming to them.

I don't feel sorry for their fans either. I haven't forgotten what they were like when Abramovich had the club stolen from him, they were right alongside the mob looking to bury us and push for the clubs liquidation.
 
Last edited:
On stripping of titles and trophies and awarding them to runners up in those spesific competition, I don't see how you can do that fairly.

In the case of any domestic cup, and the CL, City won, they will say it is fair to award it to the finalist City beat right? But what about the semi finalist they beat, or the quarter finalist, etc. Who knows how the draw would have gone with City basically expelled with this punishment.

Same with the league, sure we had a runners up but who is to say the league ends up with the same runner up with Cities games null and void? Some sides in second place gave up and dropped down to 3rd or lower cause the title was not happening. They would not have done so if city were not there.

You make those competitions meaningless if you award them out like United, Liverpool and Arsenal fans are calling for, Imo.
 
Now am I right in remembering that, both FFP style rules at home and in Europe, were bought in to place to "solve the Roman Abramovic" problem? That's how I believe this all started.

The media, the football authority and the established darling clubs did not like a billionaire coming in at one of the unfavourable clubs and making them one of the biggest competitors for top prizes?

Had the rules been in place before he came in Roman would not have been able to do what he did for us the way he did it, and we would have been robbed of some of the greatest moments of our lives because it upset the establishment.

As it is they got what they wanted later on, and eventually used a war to strip Roman of the club, years after handicapping him, denying him visas, stopping him coming to his club, and robbing him of billions of pounds illegally, though making it legal because they decide what is legal or illegal.

There is no way that the darling United, Arsenal and Liverpool have not broken rules like City and we have. Their hands are not clean, they are simply protected by the powers that be as the favoured sons.

So whike City now need to be punished for their rule breaking I have little respect for the law makers who made such rules to protect their favoured clubs, and because they hate what was allowed to happen with us because of Roman.
 
City should have been allowed to spend the owners money.
We did it and broke into the elite.
City could only do the same by breaking regulations that were introduced to prevent anyone else challenging the then top powerful clubs. The rules are there to protect Arsenal, United and Liverpool. Wenger banged on about "financial doping" when we started winning trophies. FFP?? It's never been fair, the usual suspects have a financial advantage and they'll do anything to protect it.
Without that City spending we would probably be looking at Arsenal going for their 4th title in a row this season . City also prevented a few Liverpool titles.

Before we spent Roman's millions, United Arsenal were the only Premier League title winners in the previous 9 seasons

2004-05Chelsea
2003-04Arsenal
2002-03Manchester United
2001-02Arsenal
2000-01Manchester United
1999-00Manchester United
1998-99Manchester United
1997-98Arsenal
1996-97Manchester United
1995-96Manchester United
 
The Rising Sun said:
City should have been allowed to spend the owners money.
We did it and broke into the elite.
City could only do the same by breaking regulations that were introduced to prevent anyone else challenging the then top powerful clubs. The rules are there to protect Arsenal, United and Liverpool. Wenger banged on about "financial doping" when we started winning trophies. FFP?? It's never been fair, the usual suspects have a financial advantage and they'll do anything to protect it.
Without that City spending we would probably be looking at Arsenal going for their 4th title in a row this season . City also prevented a few Liverpool titles.

Before we spent Roman's millions, United Arsenal were the only Premier League title winners in the previous 9 seasons

2004-05Chelsea
2003-04Arsenal
2002-03Manchester United
2001-02Arsenal
2000-01Manchester United
1999-00Manchester United
1998-99Manchester United
1997-98Arsenal
1996-97Manchester United
1995-96Manchester United
Click to expand...
Old West Yes GIF by GritTV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top