City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches

tomaldinho1 said:
I'm all for contrasting opinions but I feel you're jumbling everything into one and also not really understanding the issue here.

Net spend is calculated on what comes in versus what goes out, so if a club is inflating what comes in (there isn't a grey area here, in 2011 they effectively valued themselves as the most valuable football club in the world with their £400m deal) so surely you see the issue with pointing out net spend as any kind of metric. That doesn't mean City have not sold academy players well, or reaped huge amount of money from winning things but then, again, that income is gained via cheating. So you have two huge factors, both under investigation, of building a successful team via cheating and also financing a team dishonestly.

That doesn't mean United should not have done better, we've been run appallingly but you can point to the very easy example of klopp/Pool of a club working well, finding a good manager and still having success with about a quarter, maybe even less, spend as City.

I get a lot of people have grown up hating United, I really don't get the idea of a cartel though as you can literally see our decline before your own eyes and we are the historical behemoths of the division. If you look through the facade of City trying to make this about 'us vs them' it's a country trying to buy a league, not a team, the UAE want to buy the league which is good for no one.

Re sponsors and terrorism/child labour, the PL has a duty to investigate all sponsors and maybe a bi-product of all this will be increased scrutiny and when things are found, they should be dealt with accordingly.

I don't get the point on FFP, it really doesn't stop other teams growing (I'd argue it handicaps the richer/bigger teams more), I don't understand your sentence on salary cap.
Click to expand...

Financial Fair Play, that stops spending and growing whilst keeping the turnover for the top 6 artificially high. My sentence on a wage cap and salary cap would be true FFP. For example, all teams can spend the same, or spend the turnover of the largest club turnover.

If you think FFP stops the bigger clubs, that’s madness, it locks their turnover in at 2/3 times the competition hence the one sided top 4 positions(only Everton Leicester Newcastle Villa been in sparingly) and the trophy wins of the last 30 years. FA Cup winners old top 4 clubs repeatedly + Everton(points deduction) Wigan(relegated) Portsmouth(relegated + points deduction) + Leicester(relegated+ 2 point deductions incoming + prior FFP fine) and City(huge investment 115 charges) see a pattern here!? pure protectionism.

Everton have had to sell their best players below market value, lost their position from 5th to 8th in and around Europe to fighting relegation. And then deducted 8 points to boot and now you want Branthwaite on the cheap to meet FFP. When the new stadium comes with increased turnover and with a rich benefactor we could be right up there, hence the coming after us.

I look at City’s case like this, if the current FFP rules protect position and turnover the only way round that is a rich owner which is not allowed. So the only way anyone can progress is a rich owner(based on last 30 years) if City win the case rich owners become a possibility. Hence support for them, unless a more equitable solution is put forward.

People saying Arsenal, Liverpool and United will protect the football pyramid whilst they are cancelling cup replays etc are frankly deluded. I don’t want a league where Nike sponsor determines the winner any more than a state owner club ploughing money in.

Also Net spend is just a measure of players brought in and out, however much City have “cheated” if they have, they still spent 4th on players in the last 8 years or so. Also factor in wages. In the end, net player spend + wages = final position and trophies, almost with a 1-1 correlation over time so it is very relevant. You could also argue rigging the rules in your favour via threats to leave is “cheating”
 
Last edited:
Traub said:
They'll get a few boos for half a season and it will die down. What can the fans actually do? It has to be a mass revolt like the Super League, otherwise nothing will happen. I just don't see it.
Click to expand...
But that's exactly what needs to happen. Or like another poster wrote, do like they did in the Bundesliga were fans threw tennis balls (or teddy bears or whatever soft non threatening device you can think of) on pitch and impeded games starting on time. Make it so embarrassing and notable that no one can ignore it and make a travesty of the competition
 
NotThatSoph said:
Net spend is the metric if you want to compare how well clubs are investing their money on transfers, and there is no evidence of anything being wrong with those numbers from City.
Click to expand...

What absolute tosh! Transfer fees aren't just lump sums, they don't take into account agents fees and wages, not to mention a whole host of other things only accountants care about. Do you really think Haaland only cost City £50m? Because that's what it'll say on their accounts. Easily covered by selling two reserve GKs to championship clubs, which isn't suspicious at all.

All that really matters is revenue, and clubs can spend every penny of that if they want to. That's the whole point of this 115 farce. City didn't, and still don't, make enough money to match the ambitions of their nation state owners, so they've been inflating that through fake sponsorships.

Honestly, if all you care about is a clubs net spend and how well they do in the 'transfer balance book league', then you might as well support any old business. Go and support IKEA when they next have a match against B&Q or DFS.
 
redNATION said:
We’ve outspent the likes of Barca and Real since Fergie retired, those two have had near galactico 11s at one point in the last decade, we’ve pissed away over £1bn in transfers even with the debt repayments, we could easily have built a super team without Qatari money but the debt is never getting repaid or the stadium properly remade without an owner like that, that’s why many people were pro Qatar, I’m not sure what they’re money could do that we already can’t without the debt, we can afford almost any player in the world even now.
Click to expand...

I agree - United didn't need the Qatari's money to build a competitive team - indeed that was one of the strongest arguments against Qatari ownership. But the Qataris weren't coming in to build a competitive team - they were coming in to blow everyone else out of the water, which would have been achieved via state sponsorship. Everyone knew exactly what they would do - the people that supported their bid cannot now hope to condemn City (or their fans) with a straight face.
 
Hal9000 said:
Surely this lawsuit is them getting scared about these charges? Will they argue the charges are more mute or is this too do with current APT? Rather than the historic rules there are charged under.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this

Knowing that the day (s) of Judgment are getting ever nearer . I suspect that this latest action was planned and deliberately timed to make the PL re deploy resources from the 115 issue. If that’s right you have to wonder if they, City , having now having had sight of the papers and evidence if you like upon which the PL are basing their case , are spooked .
 
DarkLord1984 said:
I really hope that Lord Guardiola's reputation finally starts to go down the shitter after all this.

He's a slimy, corrupt and scheming little prick. As soon as I saw him dancing around with glee after UEFALona robbed Chelsea of their place in the '09 CL final I knew there was something really off about him, and I've hated watching his "success" ever since. The endless media love-in for him has made it even worse.

He just wants to win at any cost and doesn't care if he does it illegally. There's no way he "didn't know" about any of this stuff. He's just as involved as what the owners are.
Click to expand...
16 years of hate. What a sad life. Hopefully you will get some closure soon. Stay strong amigo
 
Greyfog said:
16 years of hate. What a sad life. Hopefully you will get some closure soon. Stay strong amigo
Click to expand...
To be fair he's been a cheater for longer than 16 years. Doping king during his playing days.
 
Adisa said:
Was always going to happen. The football regulator could possibly nuke the case.
Click to expand...

From everything I read conducte of internal disciplinary matters weren’t within the remit of the regulator
 
The media should be all over this as this could impact British football forever. Nothing on the BBC yesterday. The journalist on Talksport this morning was suggesting that City wouldn't suddenly make their sponsorship unrealistic if they win the case. They are already inflating their sponsorship revenue now, and saying they have the largest revenue in the Premier League. What exactly does he think they'll do with FFP removed? So sick and tired of media being bought by these scumbags. At this point their owners should be forced to sell the club just like Abramovich had to. Remove all state ownership from football.
 
Josep Dowling said:
The media should be all over this as this could impact British football forever. Nothing on the BBC yesterday. The journalist on Talksport this morning was suggesting that City wouldn't suddenly make their sponsorship unrealistic if they win the case. They are already inflating their sponsorship revenue now, and saying they have the largest revenue in the Premier League. What exactly does he think they'll do with FFP removed? So sick and tired of media being bought by these scumbags. At this point their owners should be forced to sell the club just like Abramovich had to. Remove all state ownership from football.
Click to expand...
yeah it's pathetic there is one small section on the bbc,you just know if this was united there would be uproar and constant media attention just shows you who's been bought off over the years imo.
 
Dean60 said:
City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th. At the end of the day given United’s net spend they should have done better.

Arsenal, Liverpool and United have all wrangled the FFP rules to their own advantage(amongst other things, e.g. cup rules) , whilst hiding behind sponsors from unethical companies with sweat shops / funding terrorists etc. Then cry foul because City have spent less(but more than you’d like) and dared to get into the self appointed elite. The only thing you lot care about is your position.

The teams in the league who are supporting City make sense to me. If you want the rest of the league on side introduce a wage cap and salary cap that is obtainable for everyone! or why shouldn’t we want to burn it down? the rest are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Crying about your own position being taken whilst trying to pull up the draw bridge on everyone else is hilarious. Also Liverpool’s sponsor being linked to terrorism is a big deal, people cry about betting companies yet turn a blind eye to this it seems. Frankly, it’s all disgusting.

https://www.givemesport.com/every-p...et-spend-since-pep-guardiola-joined-man-city/
Click to expand...
It's incredibly shortsighted to make that point without factoring in how in the 8 years between City's takeover and Pep's arrival, they spent at least £660m net (£870m gross) on transfer fees. The sales of those stockpiled players balanced out the books considerably from 2016/17, although the true figures are obviously unlikely to be reflected in the headline amounts alone.

In those same seasons, United spent around a third of the amount City were spending - £236m net (£522m gross - with almost half of that figure being spent in 2014/15 and 2015/16).

To think those seasons had no bearing on what followed is ludicrous. Saying United spent badly and achieved poor results with their transfers is less likely to find complaint, although the context is clearly that the increased spending on a lower quality of players was a direct result of City's transfer strategy and massive distortion of the market.

The only way you can say they "spent less" is by totally ignoring the seasons when - out of absolutely nowhere - they outspent every other team by hundreds of millions per season.
 
Last edited:
Infra-red said:
There won't be many Tories left by this time next month.
Click to expand...

People never learn with this. Everyone prepares for them to lose, and then they go out and vote for different random parties, while all the rich people consistently vote Conservative, therefore ensuring that they win because everyone else can't vote for one party.
 
Von Mistelroum said:
People never learn with this. Everyone prepares for them to lose, and then they go out and vote for different random parties, while all the rich people consistently vote Conservative, therefore ensuring that they win because everyone else can't vote for one party.
Click to expand...

I agree that a danger for Labour is that people who think the election result is a forgone conclusion don't bother to go out to vote for them. However, this is not the thread for that discussion!
 
It's funny seeing people trying to diminish the East German Manchester side's blatant cheating over many years when I remember it being discussed openly on Sunday Supplement before it was cancelled, indeed even as far back as Yaya Toure getting a bumper deal it was reported his wages were underreported.

@vonmistelroum I suspect this will be our equivalent of Canada 1993.
 
V.O. said:
Why do people keep posting this guy in the thread?

It's literally just a City fan account.
Click to expand...
I was just about to post this, look through his posts and it's obviously a City fan, no reason to keep posting his stuff.
 
Crimson King said:
What absolute tosh! Transfer fees aren't just lump sums, they don't take into account agents fees and wages, not to mention a whole host of other things only accountants care about. Do you really think Haaland only cost City £50m? Because that's what it'll say on their accounts. Easily covered by selling two reserve GKs to championship clubs, which isn't suspicious at all.

All that really matters is revenue, and clubs can spend every penny of that if they want to. That's the whole point of this 115 farce. City didn't, and still don't, make enough money to match the ambitions of their nation state owners, so they've been inflating that through fake sponsorships.

Honestly, if all you care about is a clubs net spend and how well they do in the 'transfer balance book league', then you might as well support any old business. Go and support IKEA when they next have a match against B&Q or DFS.
Click to expand...

Net spend not being the only metric that matters does not make it "tosh". It is an extremely informative metric which tells us how a club's transfer dealings impact their finances.

City's accounts will not say that Haaland cost them £50m. They will include the transfer payments to Dortmund, the fees to Raiola's company, and the fees to Haaland's dad.

The 115 charges are about inflating income from sponsors, deflating wage expenditure, not cooperating, and failing FFP/PSR based on what the adjusted accounts say. Nothing to do with transfer fees in or out.
 
Dean60 said:
City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th. At the end of the day given United’s net spend they should have done better.

Arsenal, Liverpool and United have all wrangled the FFP rules to their own advantage(amongst other things, e.g. cup rules) , whilst hiding behind sponsors from unethical companies with sweat shops / funding terrorists etc. Then cry foul because City have spent less(but more than you’d like) and dared to get into the self appointed elite. The only thing you lot care about is your position.

The teams in the league who are supporting City make sense to me. If you want the rest of the league on side introduce a wage cap and salary cap that is obtainable for everyone! or why shouldn’t we want to burn it down? the rest are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Crying about your own position being taken whilst trying to pull up the draw bridge on everyone else is hilarious. Also Liverpool’s sponsor being linked to terrorism is a big deal, people cry about betting companies yet turn a blind eye to this it seems. Frankly, it’s all disgusting.

https://www.givemesport.com/every-p...et-spend-since-pep-guardiola-joined-man-city/
Click to expand...
Firstly, City haven't spent less. Since City were taken over they've spent almost a billion pounds more than any other team (though Todd is doing his bestest to reduce that gap). And that's just on gross transfers, they've also been at the top of the (declared) wages for 15 odd seasons. Now, City have had great success in that time, so you can argue it's 'worth' it. But it doesn't change the amount nor the fact that they're charged with breaking rules that they signed up for.

As to the rest of the league, well look at it without City there. Spurs, United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool - all have had periods not just outside the top 4, but outside the top 6. None of them have been consistent in challenging. When squads have ebbed and flowed, as their fortunes. When generational managers have left, as has success. In that time teams like Brighton, Villa, Leicester, Everton, West Ham have all been up in the top 6 and top 4. There was a title race between Spurs and Leicester not so long ago.

Now, can Ipswitch challenge this year? No. Will Crystal Palace likely sell off some key players, rather than make a top 4 run? Yes. Does that mean the league is broken? I don't think so.

What City lack is risk. When Pep leaves, they will be able to spend anything necessary to get the next manager exactly what they want. And if it doesn't work out, they'll try, try again until it does. You don't get Maguires at City. And how can they be so ruthless, throwing away sunk costs like that? Well because their sponsors are so much bigger than everyone elses. And why is that? Their, erm, global appeal and fanbase.
 
So it looks like Villa are also proposing an increase the amount you can lose under PSR rules.

I feel like Villa may just be trying to ensure they can maintain and improve on their current league position which will obviously be difficult with limitations. Maybe they will back away from supporting City if the PSR issue is resolved.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Net spend not being the only metric that matters does not make it "tosh". It is an extremely informative metric which tells us how a club's transfer dealings impact their finances.

City's accounts will not say that Haaland cost them £50m. They will include the transfer payments to Dortmund, the fees to Raiola's company, and the fees to Haaland's dad.

The 115 charges are about inflating income from sponsors, deflating wage expenditure, not cooperating, and failing FFP/PSR based on what the adjusted accounts say. Nothing to do with transfer fees in or out.
Click to expand...
The last time I tried to 'read' City's accounts it was almost impossible due to the way that they bury costs across entities. Maybe that has changed and in the notes they release things like what you mention, but it's certainly not clear purely from the statements.
 
Seems to be a universally accepted truth in here that they have bought FA, the media, and whatever faction in the government?
 
Sir Erik ten Hag said:
Seems to be a universally accepted truth in here that they have bought FA, the media, and whatever faction in the government?
Click to expand...

You'd have to be a bit dense at this point not to see the vast political sticky mess this is. The British government are firmly in bed with UAE, and thus in bed with City. Same with the Saudi takeover of Newcastle. It's sadly a lot more convoluted and complicated than simply just football.
 
Woodzy said:
So it looks like Villa are also proposing an increase the amount you can lose under PSR rules.

I feel like Villa may just be trying to ensure they can maintain and improve on their current league position which will obviously be difficult with limitations. Maybe they will back away from supporting City if the PSR issue is resolved.
Click to expand...
Maybe if these clubs try to buy from the others they should just charge minimum of 100m for a player.
 
Dean60 said:
City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th. At the end of the day given United’s net spend they should have done better.
Click to expand...

Net Spend is a nonsencical figure though that means nothing as it doesnt account fot the agents fees they pay, wages and bonusses they pay, the massive fees paid to players parents, and the fees they pay to intermeadarys all of which are alledgedly a lot higher than other clubs pay.

City also paid out a world ammount of wages last year.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Net Spend is a nonsencical figure though that means nothing as it doesnt account fot the agents fees they pay, wages and bonusses they pay, the massive fees paid to players parents, and the fees they pay to intermeadarys all of which are alledgedly a lot higher than other clubs pay.

City also paid out a world ammount of wages last year.
Click to expand...
Also only based on declared expenses, not the parallel salary in the UAE or to offshore accounts.
 
One of the biggest red herrings in this whole conversation has been the spotlight on Uniteds spending. Which has been awful. Nobody is ever saying city haven't spent well or implemented an excellent management and off pitch football operation. Of course they have and they can get all the praise they like for it, but it will still come caveated by the fact that none of it was possible without cheating. Pivoting to 'but United have spent a fortune' has nothing to do with anything, we're making our mess all by ourselves. United are proof that even with money, any team will go through sporting black holes. City are proof that with STATE money and cheating, you'll win it all - robbing other clubs of the chance to take Uniteds spot
 
Dean60 said:
City’s net spend since pep took over is 4th.

https://www.givemesport.com/every-p...et-spend-since-pep-guardiola-joined-man-city/
Click to expand...

You've definitely fallen for the City project hook line and sinker.

They've managed to get into a position of high strength by their initial huge spending, fuelled by dodgy sponsorships and manipulation of funds.

This has meant they've won loads and are in a position of strength where they can sell players for high fees whilst picking 1 or 2 signings to add each summer making it appear that recently they're not spending much.
 
SER19 said:
One of the biggest red herrings in this whole conversation has been the spotlight on Uniteds spending. Which has been awful. Nobody is ever saying city haven't spent well or implemented an excellent management and off pitch football operation. Of course they have and they can get all the praise they like for it, but it will still come caveated by the fact that none of it was possible without cheating. Pivoting to 'but United have spent a fortune' has nothing to do with anything, we're making our mess all by ourselves. United are proof that even with money, any team will go through sporting black holes. City are proof that with STATE money and cheating, you'll win it all - robbing other clubs of the chance to take Uniteds spot
Click to expand...

This is it.
It has to be said that City have managed their signings brilliantly in the main, unlike United who have barely made a wise one in a decade.
But City have hyped the market up, meaning even fullbacks can be 50m now, so teams well behind have to lash out wildly and put the wages in to match. But unlike City, other clubs can't just write off relative failures, and have 100m England wingers on the bench for example.
 
Sandikan said:
This is it.
It has to be said that City have managed their signings brilliantly in the main, unlike United who have barely made a wise one in a decade.
But City have hyped the market up, meaning even fullbacks can be 50m now, so teams well behind have to lash out wildly and put the wages in to match. But unlike City, other clubs can't just write off relative failures, and have 100m England wingers on the bench for example.
Click to expand...


Yeah as much as i can praise their business, people forget at how easily they've been able to move on from flops
 
SER19 said:
Yeah as much as i can praise their business, people forget at how easily they've been able to move on from flops
Click to expand...

And let’s not forget throwing lots of cash at youth players parents to monopolise the market and weaken other clubs ability to develop their own from within.
 
SER19 said:
One of the biggest red herrings in this whole conversation has been the spotlight on Uniteds spending. Which has been awful. Nobody is ever saying city haven't spent well or implemented an excellent management and off pitch football operation. Of course they have and they can get all the praise they like for it, but it will still come caveated by the fact that none of it was possible without cheating. Pivoting to 'but United have spent a fortune' has nothing to do with anything, we're making our mess all by ourselves. United are proof that even with money, any team will go through sporting black holes. City are proof that with STATE money and cheating, you'll win it all - robbing other clubs of the chance to take Uniteds spot
Click to expand...
It really doesn't, I agree, and I find it weird that it's used as an argument by fans and pundits alike - it's incredibly lazy and doesn't stand the test of scrutiny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.