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

Sakura said:
Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.

Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.

Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.

Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.

Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?

If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
Click to expand...

Found the alt account of @adexkola
 
115 charges is absolutley ridiculous and any club that is allowed to operate that way should be penalized on the largest scale. You cant take points from Everton (twice) and Forrest, yet ignore City's 115.
 
Sakura said:
Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.

Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.

Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.

Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.

Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?

If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
Click to expand...
My personal favorites...

"What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club?"

You've hit the nail on the head, there's no real difference between the two - that's why both are against rules.

"Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books..."

Once again, 100% accurate. Quite how this squares with, "They aren't corrupt... They certainly didn't cheat" is never explained.

Truly irrefutable logic.
 
Expulsion from the football league with the right to reapply withheld until a change of ownership.

It’s the only punishment that matches the scale of the cheating. Relegation, fines, deductions or anything else won’t undo the damage done to the sport.
 
They need to be punished for doping. Financial or otherwise...

Something tells me Dr. Ramon Segura's most famous client will step down as manager before any sanctions hit.
 
Daydreamer said:
My personal favorites...

"What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club?"

You've hit the nail on the head, there's no real difference between the two - that's why both are against rules.

"Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books..."

Once again, 100% accurate. Quite how this squares with, "They aren't corrupt... They certainly didn't cheat" is never explained.

Truly irrefutable logic.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Last edited:
MegadrivePerson said:
They are the biggest cheats in the history of English football.

If Man City were a person they'd be some sort of Lance Armstrong/Donald Trump Hybrid.

There's a monumental difference between 'buying the league' and cheating to the extent that they have.

I'm guessing you don't know much about the actual charges against them?
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody does apart from Man City and the Premier League, the rest of us are just guessing.
 
Sakura said:
If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports.
Click to expand...
And had we had that, City would have skirted it too… as evidenced by how 14 of the charges are from inaccuracies in reporting player and manager salaries.
Sakura said:
The issue here is that you are assuming that owners giving money to other businesses, which in term uses it to sponsor the club, is cheating. However, doing this breaks no laws and no rules so you can't charge them for it. It is perfectly legal and also not morally wrong.
Click to expand...
Those are absolutely breaches of UEFA FFP and Premier League PSR.
 
Daydreamer said:
My personal favorites...

"What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club?"
Click to expand...

this is money laundering. :lol:
 
ROFLUTION said:
Cheers! Good thing at least is that lawyers can see what went wrong in the CAS case now, so the same mistakes wont be done twice. Should be a more resilient case this time around and out of 115 charges, I’d be amazed if not many of them sticks.
Click to expand...
It’s unprecedented cheating over a decade in the making. The rules are there for all to abide by and they systematically ignored them thus having a huge, unfair advantage over everyone else.
The level of brainwashing and manipulation they have achieved over the media and the half interested fan is impressive.

Lets just hope for the good of the sport that they are properly found out and punished.
 
The Irish Connection said:
It’s unprecedented cheating over a decade in the making. The rules are there for all to abide by and they systematically ignored them thus having a huge, unfair advantage over everyone else.
The level of brainwashing and manipulation they have achieved over the media and the half interested fan is impressive.

Lets just hope for the good of the sport that they are properly found out and punished.
Click to expand...

Yeah they need punishing for the good of the game
 
The Irish Connection said:
It’s unprecedented cheating over a decade in the making. The rules are there for all to abide by and they systematically ignored them thus having a huge, unfair advantage over everyone else.
The level of brainwashing and manipulation they have achieved over the media and the half interested fan is impressive.

Lets just hope for the good of the sport that they are properly found out and punished.
Click to expand...

It really is. And we've barely scratched the surface with the evidence in this case. Who knows how many journos have had a holiday, a Rolex, crypto, overseas accounts or a painting from one of these state-owned clubs.
 
croadyman said:
Yeah they need punishing for the good of the game
Click to expand...
It will be a sad day if they get away with it. The opposite of course if they are found guilty and properly punished, apart from for the City fans.
And while a lot of them are lunatics, there are sound fans who have been supporting since before 2009.
A friend of mine is a City fan all his life, basically because he wanted to be the black sheep as all his family were United fans. I’d have sympathy for him, but you’d like to hope that even the city fans will feel ashamed of what was done with their club in the hands of cheating owners.
We’ve been vehemently against our ownership for two decades, even when winning.
 
Sakura said:
Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.

Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.

Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.

Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.

Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?

If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
Click to expand...

Read more

Here you go
 
Sakura said:
Yeah this is starting to get sad now. City are now the most successful club in English football and the fans of the "traditional" successful teams are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves this is not right.

Do you know why City are getting away with all this? Because they have not done anything illegal. They aren't corrupt, they didn't steal money from the game. They certainly didn't cheat in the game unfairly. Their "crime" is to throw in tonnes of their own money into the game. If you want to make it illegal for owners and investors to put in money in their businesses, you are crazy. This is the kind of behaviour goverments encourage for the good of the economy.

Next is the mental gymnastics in claiming City is cheating by not complying with FFP. This is blatant misunderstanding of what FFP is meant to do. FFP prevents clubs from overspending beyond their means to keep the league in good financial health. This makes it a moot point to charge City with it as we all know they are good for the cash they spend. They will never go bankrupt.

Why do you want to punish teams for having too much money to spend anyway? Can you really stop rich people from generating income if that is what you want to use to measure financial health? What's the difference between having the owner directly infuse the club with a billion dollars vs the owners giving their subsidiary businesses billions who then in turn use the money to sponsor the club? City's crime here is that they were too lazy to do the latter cleanly and just went for the former as a shortcut and did not get their books right for FFP requirements. Now they just want to buy some time to cook the books to show that money is indeed routed as sponsorships instead of undertable directly. While this is super shady, I don't think any judge is going to punish them for it as they aren't stealing money but instead giving it away.

Those who try to make FFP as if it is a means of ensuring financial equality are just utterly deluded. There are no financial equality laws in English football. Rich teams are allowed to spend more than poor teams. How is fair that big clubs with huge incomes are allowed to spend more than small clubs with lower revenues and crush them? Since this is allowed, how is it unfair that City just have the owners generate income for the club directly instead to compete?

If we want a truly fair league, we need to start integrating salary caps like in US sports. This is the only way for small clubs in smaller cities to have a chance to compete against the big boys. But no, no one here actually wants that. They are just unhappy about no longer being top dogs.
Click to expand...

Ramblings of a desperate bitter blue wanting be validated; shameful and embarrassing.
 
Sakura said:
And if the royal family owns the club, is it wrong for them to spend their money the way they want?
Click to expand...
Yes, because it is fundamentally against the spirit of sporting competition. Normal football teams are now expected to compete against the endless wealth of a super-rich nation. One that knows it needs to hide the source of that money in order to stay within the rules everyone else has to abide by.

I've said it before in this thread, but back when United's benefactor JH Davies attempted to use his own wealth to purchase Old Trafford, the FA insisted it was against the rules of fair competition to do so, as it increased the ticket sales without risk to the club, potentially giving them a unfair advantage over other clubs who did not have the financial backing. They forced United to take out a mortgage and pay for the stadium out of the money naturally generated by the club.

Those ideals of fairness in the sport need to be maintained otherwise we're going to be looking at our local sporting institutions being taken over by rival states and royal families and our leagues turned into nothing more than history's most expensive pissing contests.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
A quick Google search will find sites with a full list of the charges they are facing and what they relate to.
Click to expand...
Ah right.
Just had a look and two of the charges was for the grass being a certain length and playing at 3pm on a Saturday? Surely that's a wind up?
 
b20times said:
Ah right.
Just had a look and two of the charges was for the grass being a certain length and playing at 3pm on a Saturday? Surely that's a wind up?
Click to expand...

Yeah thats nonsence City fans made up, a quick Google search will lead you to the facts.

From ESPN

"City are accused of 50 breaches of providing inaccurate financial information, eight breaches in relation to manager remuneration from 2009 to 2013, 12 breaches in relation to player remuneration from 2010 to 2015, five breaches linked to UEFA financial regulations, 25 profitability and sustainability breaches and 30 breaches of assisting the Premier League investigation, which dates back to March 2019. "
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Yeah thats nonsence City fans made up, a quick Google search will lead you to the facts.

From ESPN

"City are accused of 50 breaches of providing inaccurate financial information, eight breaches in relation to manager remuneration from 2009 to 2013, 12 breaches in relation to player remuneration from 2010 to 2015, five breaches linked to UEFA financial regulations, 25 profitability and sustainability breaches and 30 breaches of assisting the Premier League investigation, which dates back to March 2019. "
Click to expand...
Ah right OK.
But I have to ask, what has what happened almost 10 to 15 years ago got to do with what happens in 2024?
It's almost like Gnev blaming the glazers for a defeat on the pitch, don't you think? Nothing seems to add up about breaches years ago and the titles they are winning in today's games!
 
b20times said:
Ah right OK.
But I have to ask, what has what happened almost 10 to 15 years ago got to do with what happens in 2024?
It's almost like Gnev blaming the glazers for a defeat on the pitch, don't you think? Nothing seems to add up about breaches years ago and the titles they are winning in today's games!
Click to expand...
Surely you're on a wind up?
 
b20times said:
Ah right OK.
But I have to ask, what has what happened almost 10 to 15 years ago got to do with what happens in 2024?
It's almost like Gnev blaming the glazers for a defeat on the pitch, don't you think? Nothing seems to add up about breaches years ago and the titles they are winning in today's games!
Click to expand...
Gee whiz, I dunno. How could consistent cheating over a decade of time lead to an accumulation of ill-gotten advantages over the competition?

The mind boggles
 
b20times said:
Ah right OK.
But I have to ask, what has what happened almost 10 to 15 years ago got to do with what happens in 2024?
It's almost like Gnev blaming the glazers for a defeat on the pitch, don't you think? Nothing seems to add up about breaches years ago and the titles they are winning in today's games!
Click to expand...
Well because what happens 10 to 15 years ago builds up to what we have today. If I robbed a bank 10-15 years ago I'd be better off today because of the crime I committed 10-15 years ago....
 
b20times said:
Ah right OK.
But I have to ask, what has what happened almost 10 to 15 years ago got to do with what happens in 2024?
It's almost like Gnev blaming the glazers for a defeat on the pitch, don't you think? Nothing seems to add up about breaches years ago and the titles they are winning in today's games!
Click to expand...

Wind up. No-one can be that dense.
 
b20times said:
Ah right OK.
But I have to ask, what has what happened almost 10 to 15 years ago got to do with what happens in 2024?
It's almost like Gnev blaming the glazers for a defeat on the pitch, don't you think? Nothing seems to add up about breaches years ago and the titles they are winning in today's games!
Click to expand...
Some of the charges are about allegations of wrongdoing from long ago becuase City are accused of systematic corruption over many years. Some of the charges are about hiding that alleged cheating and not cooperating with the investigation. If they're guilty, they literally are continuing that fraud to this day.

Imagine a man (let's call him Charlie) breaks into a house, imprisons the reclusive owner in the basement, assumes his identity and starts several successful businesses using his stolen wealth. The family of the reclusive owner keep trying to visit him, but the Charlie skillfully keeps the authorities at arms length. For 15 years.

Charlie's businesses become legitimately successful and self-sustaining. They're well run and have tens of thousands of satisfied customers. Eventually the police hit Charlie with 115 criminal charges.

Charlie hires a lawyer to represent him. The lawyers defense is that "Charlie's crimes started 15 years ago".

Would you view that as a winning argument?
 
b20times said:
Ah right OK.
But I have to ask, what has what happened almost 10 to 15 years ago got to do with what happens in 2024?
It's almost like Gnev blaming the glazers for a defeat on the pitch, don't you think? Nothing seems to add up about breaches years ago and the titles they are winning in today's games!
Click to expand...
No way you wrote this with a straight face
 
b20times said:
Ah right OK.
But I have to ask, what has what happened almost 10 to 15 years ago got to do with what happens in 2024?
It's almost like Gnev blaming the glazers for a defeat on the pitch, don't you think? Nothing seems to add up about breaches years ago and the titles they are winning in today's games!
Click to expand...

Enjoy your limited time left on here.
 
The absolute mental ineptitude it takes for someone to say 'football would be unfair without teams like City, how are smaller clubs supposed to grow' is actually mindboggling. One of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.