Man City - the new bitters?

[Moo]

9 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

But isn't that just because through many of those years they can't prove they breached profit and sustainability rules because city haven't supplied the required information? My understanding is the PL know they can't use the hacked emails as evidence themselves. So they ask questions which city them refused to answer. 

 

It seems to me it's about the equivalent of getting done for murdering someone but there's a couple of assault charges you refuse to cooperate on despite there being CCTV. 

 

No doubt it is but if I'm reading that information right and it is correct, it still stands that it's only 2015-18 where City have been charged with breaches of FFP spending.  

The book should be thrown at them of course for all of it but it wouldn't surprise me if those charges are the only ones that receive "proper" punishment (i.e. points deductions for those seasons where, incidentally, they only won one PL) and the rest are punished with a slap on the wrist. 

[Barrington Womble]

Just now, Moo said:

 

No doubt it is but if I'm reading that information right and it is correct, it still stands that it's only 2015-18 where City have been charged with breaches of FFP spending.  

The book should be thrown at them of course for all of it but it wouldn't surprise me if those charges are the only ones that receive "proper" punishment (i.e. points deductions for those seasons where, incidentally, they only won one PL) and the rest are punished with a slap on the wrist. 

 

I think the book has been thrown at them (it's 115 charges!), but the premier league are trying to ensure there's no easy wins for city to block on particular charges and just use spiking tactics to hold the whole thing up. They're doing it anyway, but the PL have to make it as rough as possible. 

 

How that'll end up, well there's more to it than just the premier league rules. Abu Dhabi will have the best lawyers and if that doesn't work, will try to leverage geopolitical pressure. 

[Harry Squatter]

[Scott_M]

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

16 hours ago, Harry Squatter said:

Why the fuck are they still allowed to participate and parade trophies. Its like watching the winner of the 100 metres take drugs before the race and allowing his win, talking about how great he is but really we should look at those drugs he took as they may of helped him win. Commiserations to the runners up.

[Burgess]

1 hour ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Why the fuck are they still allowed to participate and parade trophies. Its like watching the winner of the 100 metres take drugs before the race and allowing his win, talking about how great he is but really we should look at those drugs he took as they may of helped him win. Commiserations to the runners up.

I’ve never understood why they are going for all 115 charges at once. Surely it would be an easier to break them down. 
Say the 35 for not cooperating- failure to comply is easy to prove. Deal with these and then pick another set or period. 
that would have been better than allowing this vast amount to build up. 

[Harry Squatter]

2 hours ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Why the fuck are they still allowed to participate and parade trophies. Its like watching the winner of the 100 metres take drugs before the race and allowing his win, talking about how great he is but really we should look at those drugs he took as they may of helped him win. Commiserations to the runners up.

The fact that they won't cooperate with the processes shows they have something to hide. They will be even less likely to provide information now knowing Everton complied and got hammered with a points deduction. 

 

They should be charged with the non compliance already because its a clear cut case of yes or no. Don't see what is so difficult legally with the other charges as its up to them to prove their innocence and if they don't produce it then off you fuck. 

 

Never heard of a murder trial where the accused has refused to attend court or give evidence to prove their innocence then everyone waits around until they change their mind. 

[Scott_M]

1 hour ago, Burgess said:

I’ve never understood why they are going for all 115 charges at once. Surely it would be an easier to break them down. 
Say the 35 for not cooperating- failure to comply is easy to prove. Deal with these and then pick another set or period. 
that would have been better than allowing this vast amount to build up. 

While I agree in principle, what would be the punishment for 35 proven failure to comply cases? 
 

As I posted earlier today, the political issues that accompany this makes it a potential minefield - in 2021, the UAE committed to invest £10bn in the UK economy, what if they don’t pledge for future investments? The UK has a free trade agreement with the Gulf Council (which the UAE is part of) what if UAE pulls out or become increasingly difficult to deal with? What if they refuse to sell oil to us? They’ve invested in our wind farms, what if they try to tank them? It could go on and on.

[Burgess]

29 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

While I agree in principle, what would be the punishment for 35 proven failure to comply cases? 
 

As I posted earlier today, the political issues that accompany this makes it a potential minefield - in 2021, the UAE committed to invest £10bn in the UK economy, what if they don’t pledge for future investments? The UK has a free trade agreement with the Gulf Council (which the UAE is part of) what if UAE pulls out or become increasingly difficult to deal with? What if they refuse to sell oil to us? They’ve invested in our wind farms, what if they try to tank them? It could go on and on.

And this I think is the sad reality if it wasn’t so completely linked to dealing with the states it would  have been resolved in logical steps. 
The fact that it has dragged on has made the whole thing a farce.

For me if you don’t comply you don’t take part - but that doesn’t seem like something they are contemplating as an outcome so we end up where we are.

If you want to punish, to actually do it properly, you take each opportunity especially if it’s indisputable as the failure to cooperate should be. 

[Reckoner]

19 hours ago, Harry Squatter said:

Why the fuck do I waste my time on this ‘sport?’  Sickening.

[manwiththestick]

One of the first rules of the PL is open book policy on a clubs accounting.

 

As soon as a club refuses to hand the books over they should be in breach of the PL rules and kicked out of the league.

 

As someone said, if your refusing to hand over it's as good as admitting that you've got something to hide.

 

 

[A_S]

2 hours ago, manwiththestick said:

One of the first rules of the PL is open book policy on a clubs accounting.

 

As soon as a club refuses to hand the books over they should be in breach of the PL rules and kicked out of the league.

 

As someone said, if your refusing to hand over it's as good as admitting that you've got something to hide.

 

 

It's crazy- more media would kick up a fuss about a player skipping a drug test, as he might've taken a hit on a bong at a party the night before a game and panicked when the testers came knocking. 

 

Yet this shit rolls on year after year and fuck all is said. 

[Funkasy]

Uae gain nothing by cutting relations with the uk, they have bought your silence for a number of years now and they will not throw that away over a football club.

[Barrington Womble]

In our sport we have some precedent with failure to comply with testing. When Rio Ferdinand dodged his drug tests, he was banned from football for 8 months. It was seen that avoiding testing is the equivalent of a failure. I don't see what the issue is with city. If they have failed to cooperate, they should be punished to the maximum extent of the PL powers. The rest is just a smokescreen. 

 

Of course we also have some precedent with a balding cheat failing his drug test who then lawyered up and kept going and going until he could have his guilt removed on a technicality. 

 

This is what we're facing here. City are trying to find the avenue to get off without having to be innocent, just try and find some loophole to escape.

[kemskem]

6 hours ago, Scott_M said:

While I agree in principle, what would be the punishment for 35 proven failure to comply cases? 
 

As I posted earlier today, the political issues that accompany this makes it a potential minefield - in 2021, the UAE committed to invest £10bn in the UK economy, what if they don’t pledge for future investments? The UK has a free trade agreement with the Gulf Council (which the UAE is part of) what if UAE pulls out or become increasingly difficult to deal with? What if they refuse to sell oil to us? They’ve invested in our wind farms, what if they try to tank them? It could go on and on.

The government could quite rightly stay out of it. Especially if it’s a new one.

[lifetime fan]

7 hours ago, Burgess said:

And this I think is the sad reality if it wasn’t so completely linked to dealing with the states it would  have been resolved in logical steps. 
The fact that it has dragged on has made the whole thing a farce.

For me if you don’t comply you don’t take part - but that doesn’t seem like something they are contemplating as an outcome so we end up where we are.

If you want to punish, to actually do it properly, you take each opportunity especially if it’s indisputable as the failure to cooperate should be. 

It why states should be banned from owning football clubs. 

[Fallen Angel]

This is the new reality - Citeh only got the UEFA ban reversed with threats of legal action- highlighting the fact they are sufficiently rich to bankrupt EUFA if they tried to uphold the ban. 
 

100% the PL will fold in exactly the same way. 
 

Football in 2024 is all about money - The PL / EUFA / FIFA have zero interest in the sport , beyond the money it can generate. 
 

The only way Citeh’s position changes is if the 19 remaining clubs refuse to play them. Forfeit every game and let them be awarded the title every season, with a 100% record and no goals conceded, without kicking a ball. It would be no more hollow and meaningless than their ‘victories’ (broadest sense of the definition) since 2008, when the PL and the British government were too weak, cowardly and greedy to prevent the pure scum that is Sheikh Mansour getting anywhere near football. Wouldn’t harm their attendances any either…

[Scott_M]

2 hours ago, Fallen Angel said:

This is the new reality - Citeh only got the UEFA ban reversed with threats of legal action- highlighting the fact they are sufficiently rich to bankrupt EUFA if they tried to uphold the ban. 
 

That isn’t true. They got out of the UEFA ban because CAS ruled the evidence was time barred and the new evidence was outside that period. They got away with it on a technicality. 

[Freddo]

That Stefan Borson fella who was on talksport yesterday saying he thinks they'll clear their name is a right defensive little cunt. 

Goes under the name of sblsn on twitter. Posts on blue moon.  Also used to work for city between 01 and 07. Finance expert and all the city wetwipes hang their hat on him.

He told me to fuck off once, I'd snap the cunt in two. 

If the PL don't punish them heavily it's basically Abu Dhabi running this league and then it's time for a breakaway. 

 

[A_S]

11 minutes ago, Freddo said:

That Stefan Borson fella who was on talksport yesterday saying he thinks they'll clear their name is a right defensive little cunt. 

Goes under the name of sblsn on twitter. Posts on blue moon.  Also used to work for city between 01 and 07. Finance expert and all the city wetwipes hang their hat on him.

He told me to fuck off once, I'd snap the cunt in two. 

If the PL don't punish them heavily it's basically Abu Dhabi running this league and then it's time for a breakaway. 

 

You make an interesting point at the end...if City were found not guilty and/or only given the proverbial slap on the wrist, the announcement of a breakaway Super League minus City would get a lot more backing than the original proposal. 

[Captain Turdseye]

On 17/01/2024 at 12:40, Babb'sBurstNad said:

It may take time, but in years to come there'll be Ken Burns style documentary series about City and Guardiola, both of whom will be known as cheats no different to Lance Armstrong. And just like with Armstrong, people will be amazed that the open secret remained concealed in plain sight.

 

Who’s doing the narration?

[Fallen Angel]

2 hours ago, Scott_M said:

That isn’t true. They got out of the UEFA ban because CAS ruled the evidence was time barred and the new evidence was outside that period. They got away with it on a technicality. 

They were using threats - the ‘technicality’ just meant EUFA could save face. I thought the ‘technicality’ was more to do with how EUFA got the information to initiate action in the first place? 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

47 minutes ago, Captain Turdseye said:

 

Who’s doing the narration?

 

David Olusoga for gravitas, or perhaps Harry Hill doing it like an episode of You've Been Framed. "Bad Guardiola, dirty Guardiola, in your bed!"

[Barrington Womble]

Latest rumour I heard, city are willing to accept lesser guilty plea, massive fine, small points deduction to kick in at a time of City's choosing. They keep all their trophies. 

[aws]

2 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Latest rumour I heard, city are willing to accept lesser guilty plea, massive fine, small points deduction to kick in at a time of City's choosing. They keep all their trophies. 

Maybe they could spread the points over a number of seasons with city deciding how many points to tick off at the end of each season. You really wouldn’t be surprised.