Man City - the new bitters?

[manwiththestick]

19 hours ago, johnsusername said:

The club paying players' family members off the books, no tax involved. ALLEGEDLY. 

They're cheats  for sure

[Lee909]

Can i shock you

Another team thats part of the City group under investigation

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Lee909 said:

Can i shock you

Another team thats part of the City group under investigation

 

 

 

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

On 30/04/2024 at 09:08, Megadrive Man said:

 

They're not even singing it as a joke..fucking dicks..

[Bruce Spanner]

13 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

They're not even singing it as a joke..fucking dicks..

 

They only have that other one song though, so cut 'em some slack...

 

'City, city, the greatest team in the land'

 

Sang in integers of eight on a parabolic shift, or it just has no rhythm and doesn't even scan, I'm not sure, but it is fucking annoying.

[Reckoner]

9 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

They only have that other one song though, so cut 'em some slack...

 

'City, city, the greatest team in the land'

 

Sang in integers of eight on a parabolic shift, or it just has no rhythm and doesn't even scan, I'm not sure, but it is fucking annoying.

Wooaaah we’re the boys in blue

[Bruce Spanner]

2 minutes ago, Reckoner said:

Wooaaah we’re the boys in blue

 

You're right, gotta respect history like that.

 

I'll stand down.

[luxury_scruff]

?

 

 

[luxury_scruff]

Earlier in the day:

 

 

[Lee909]

First step of the new regulator

City cry to the government and they get involved and it all gets swept away. 

 

Premier league will be happy and claim the last 10 years have all been above board

[Bobby Hundreds]

If city get away with it. I'm done with the "sport"

[Byrnie]

7 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

If city get away with it. I'm done with the "sport"

Aye, the tiny part of it that is left to cling on to will be gone.

[Reckoner]

8 hours ago, luxury_scruff said:

?

 

 

This would be huge. I’d start supporting the purples.

[Barrington Womble]

10 hours ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

They only have that other one song though, so cut 'em some slack...

 

'City, city, the greatest team in the land'

 

Sang in integers of eight on a parabolic shift, or it just has no rhythm and doesn't even scan, I'm not sure, but it is fucking annoying.

The best in all the land and all the world, I think it goes. Terrible song. Well it's not even a song. They do also have something about you'll never be European champions, which so far they've sung to red star, villa and forest. They're absolute dickheads. 

 

8 hours ago, Lee909 said:

First step of the new regulator

City cry to the government and they get involved and it all gets swept away. 

 

Premier league will be happy and claim the last 10 years have all been above board

 

The premier league is only the clubs within it. It's not in the interests of 1 club for city to get away with this. They may not want to wipe away the aguero moment, so I'm sure there'll be a way out of this that ensures city hold their titles, but there's no way they'll be not punished..and as for the post from the city fan, the idea there's no evidence is fanciful..it's in the public domain from the hacked emails. If there is a way out of this for city, like with uefa, it'll be a technicality and not a declaration of innocence. 

[Rushies tash]

4 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

The best in all the land and all the world, I think it goes. Terrible song. Well it's not even a song. They do also have something about you'll never be European champions, which so far they've sung to red star, villa and forest. They're absolutely dickheads.

 

It sounds like they're singing it to the tune of the Kirk Douglas film 'The Vikings'. But yeah, it still sounds shit.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Opposition fans shouldnt turn up and watch City games. That's a protest. City every game with only their handful of fans, put that on TV let the world see. It would never happen because these things never do.

[Tenfolder]

4 hours ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Opposition fans shouldnt turn up and watch City games. That's a protest. City every game with only their handful of fans, put that on TV let the world see. It would never happen because these things never do.

 

Should really be a step further, opposition teams shouldn't turn up, let them have their default 3-0 win or whatever it is, let them win a league without having played a match if it gets that far.... Of course again it would never happen because people/money.

[Aventus]

 

https://x.com/Londonblue_2/status/1787213710655680610

 

The cheating scumbags have started sending cease and desist letters out to anybody mentioning the 115 charges. Hopefully Goldbridge doesn't fold. 

 

 

[Anubis]

Guaranteed to get it trending on social media.

[Pete]

6 hours ago, Aventus said:

 

https://x.com/Londonblue_2/status/1787213710655680610

 

The cheating scumbags have started sending cease and desist letters out to anybody mentioning the 115 charges. Hopefully Goldbridge doesn't fold. 

 

 

The act of an innocent party.

[Barrington Womble]

9 hours ago, Aventus said:

 

https://x.com/Londonblue_2/status/1787213710655680610

 

The cheating scumbags have started sending cease and desist letters out to anybody mentioning the 115 charges. Hopefully Goldbridge doesn't fold. 

 

 

 

They've been doing it for ages, it's been hinted at many times in the media, certainly on that sport unlocked podcast. The mainstream media I'm sure just buckle, which is why we rarely see it mentioned outside of individuals mentioning it and the mainstream reporting on those comments. Their whole defence is how they can out lawyer someone. They're fucking supreme rulers and believe rule of law does not apply to them. 

[Aventus]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

They've been doing it for ages, it's been hinted at many times in the media, certainly on that sport unlocked podcast. The mainstream media I'm sure just buckle, which is why we rarely see it mentioned outside of individuals mentioning it and the mainstream reporting on those comments. Their whole defence is how they can out lawyer someone. They're fucking supreme rulers and believe rule of law does not apply to them. 

Yeah it's definitely been obvious they've had the media in their pockets, first time I've heard about a confirmed threat of legal action though.

 

The difference between the pundits on sky avoiding the subject compared to the exact same people when they're presenting on the American channels is huge. 

[Vincent Vega]

I read this article on The Times website last week and found one part of it very interesting on City's wage bill and how it appears a large proportion of it appears to have been passed off onto the wider City Group of football clubs they own. I can't believe the ruling bodies haven't had something to say on this practice. Anyway I found the whole article interesting and well worth a read.

 

The fight for Premier League’s future – and how it will be decided

Legal challenges, the end of the ‘big six’, 115 charges facing its champions, new financial rules and a looming regulator place English football’s top flight at a crossroads

 

Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports ReporterThursday May 02 2024, 8.30pm BST, The Times

 

The Premier League is at a critical juncture in its history. It is facing the first legal action against its rules from a member club; the old “big six” bloc is no more; the biggest shake-up in its financial rules for more than a decade is on the horizon; investigations and hearings into alleged rule breaches have caused huge disruption and spiralling legal fees; domestic TV rights have flatlined; looming on the horizon is the hearing into serial champions Manchester City’s 115 charges for breaching rules. And then there is the uncertain effect of an independent football regulator on the most popular and financially successful league in the world.

 

Associated party transactions – the legal challenge

 

A legal challenge by a club — believed to be Manchester City — against the Premier League rules for associated party transactions (APT) strikes at the heart of its financial rules. It is also believed that the legal action — which would mean taking the league to arbitration over the APT rules — includes a potential claim by the club for damages.

 

The APT rules cover sponsorship and commercial deals with companies connected to the clubs, and any player transfers between clubs in the same ownership group, to ensure they are of “fair market value”. One example is Chelsea’s sale of two hotels to a sister company for £76.5 million, which has still not been signed off by the Premier League after ten months.

 

A legal defeat would mean any constraints over inflated sponsorship deals — the most blatant example in football being the Qatar Tourist Authority’s €200million-a-year deal (about £171million) with Paris Saint-Germain announced in 2014 but backdated to 2012 — would be removed.

 

There are already concerns among City’s rivals that their multi-club ownership model provides them with big financial advantages, with large salary costs farmed out to the City Football Group while the club enjoys the financial profits.

 

The most recent accounts show City had 520 employees and a wage bill of £423million. Liverpool, with a smaller turnover and wage bill (£373million) had 1,005 employees. Last season, City made a profit of £80.4million, while the City Football Group made a loss of £112million.

 

***By my calculations City are paying 520 employees £423m, an average of £813,461.00 each per year, whilst Liverpool (a bigger club and direct rival) are paying 1005  employees (almost twice the amount City are paying) £373m, an average of £371,144.00 each per year. And this still won't include their off the books payments made to back accounts set up in Abu Dhabi. They are set up in such a way that no other club apart from an unrestrained  Newcastle can ever compete with them.***

 

End of the ‘big six’ and new alliances

 

The bloc of Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham Hotspur and the two Manchester clubs began having separate discussions in 2016, aimed at securing a larger chunk of overseas TV rights — something they achieved in 2018.

 

The ill-fated launch and collapse of the European Super League in 2021 was effectively the end of that alliance. That may be a good thing for English football but it means the Premier League is now a shifting pattern of different allegiances around different issues. Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs are now more likely to vote with West Ham United and Crystal Palace than City and Chelsea.

 

But the new alliances are not fixed. For example, Newcastle voted with City against APT rules, but the two state-connected clubs were on different sides of the divide when it came to this week’s vote on a spending cap called “anchoring”, which would restrict the top teams to spending a proportion of the amount the bottom club receive in television and prize money on transfers, wages and agents.

 

There is also the influence of “soft power” on votes. Sheffield United, owned by Saudi prince Abdullah bin Musaid Al Saud, voted against tougher APT rules and alongside Newcastle, who are owned by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF), which is headed by the kingdom’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

 

“It appeared to us the little prince was just doing what the big prince told him,” one club chief said.

 

The rise of private equity companies owning or investing in Premier League clubs is also a potential issue, given the huge economic influence wielded by sovereign wealth funds in the Gulf. The Saudi PIF has investments in Clearlake Capital, the majority owner of Chelsea, and the Premier League had to obtain written assurances that the PIF has no involvement in the running of the club.

 

A new financial world

 

There is a philosophy that there should be no restrictions on spending at all — as was the case up until 2013 — but it is clear that the majority of top-flight clubs believe constraints are necessary to keep it as the most competitive major league in the world — they believe that is the reason it is the most popular.

 

The Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR), limiting losses to £105million over three years, will be no more from the 2025-26 season and instead there will be the squad cost rule (SCR): no Premier League club can spend more than 85 per cent of their turnover on wages, transfers and agents fees.

 

There have been concerns that SCR will mean those clubs with the biggest revenues and scope to grow them, such as City and United, will maintain and grow their advantage — and especially if City’s legal challenge succeeds and sponsorship deals with associated parties do not have to be of fair market value. Given domestic TV rights have flatlined — though still performing better than their European rivals — commercial deals will increase in importance.

 

That has led to the idea of anchoring: a proposal that club sources said was agreed “in principle” at a meeting this week, which would restrict the top teams to spending a proportion — perhaps five times — of the amount the bottom club receives. That means that no matter how high your revenues go, there is a limit to what you can spend.

 

The Manchester clubs as well as Aston Villa — who for some reason have sided with City in recent votes on financial issues — opposed it, while Chelsea abstained. Could anchoring too be subject to a legal challenge by City, or even by the PFA? The Premier League will now carry out extensive legal analysis of the idea with that possibility in mind, with the aim of it going to a full vote in June.

 

Alleged rule breaches and reputational damage

 

Even clubs who believe that the points deductions imposed on Everton and Nottingham Forest for PSR breaches were entirely justified accept that it has not been a good look for the Premier League.

 

The lack of a fixed tariff, the changing rules over when charges should be dealt with, the uncertainty over points deductions then being changed on appeal, and now legal action from Leicester City, who will be back in the top flight next season and immediately facing sanctions, have all been testing issues for the Premier League’s reputation.

 

That will all be small potatoes when the hearing into City’s 115 alleged rule breaches takes place — expected to be October with an outcome next year. If most of those are proved — and City deny any wrongdoing — then most clubs believe the most successful English club of the past decade would have to be demoted.

 

The Premier League is also wrestling with an investigation into Chelsea over apparently undeclared payments relating to football transfers made during the Roman Abramovich era and self-reported by the new owners.

All this is time-consuming and costly for the Premier League — with its legal bill now understood to be more than £20million a year. Should either the City or Chelsea cases lead to sanctions, then a dozen or more of their rival clubs could consider compensation claims.

 

Regulator is uncharted territory

 

The incoming independent football regulator is a voyage into the unknown. There is nothing like it in any other major European country and the government says it will ensure suitable owners and financially sustainable clubs.

 

Yet its powers will go significantly further. The Premier League has always had the whip hand when it comes to the money it hands out to the rest of football: take it or leave it, effectively. The EFL opposes parachute payments for relegated clubs, saying they distort the Championship and provoke the crazy spending there, but there is little they can do other than accept them.

 

The regulator will have the “backstop” power to impose a financial settlement on the Premier League. Some may view that as a good thing, but it certainly represents another challenge for the Premier League.

 

The greatest concern is around the regulator’s future powers. Not only did the government rule out giving the regulator power to prevent more English clubs being bought by foreign states — despite suggesting that such a ban should apply to newspapers — but the Football Governance Bill states explicitly that decisions on future or incumbent owners “must also have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom”.

 

Does that mean the UK’s important trading partner Saudi Arabia, which owns a club, should be given special treatment? Will the Foreign Office have to approve any action by the regulator against a state connected club?

 

“The Government appears to have written a stronger role than anticipated for itself into this regime,” the Premier League’s chief executive Richard Masters wrote to the DCMS select committee this week. “This may lead to pressure in the future for the Secretary of State to further expand the scope and powers of the IFR beyond financial sustainability. If this goes too far it may conceivably present issues with Fifa and Uefa, whose statutes ban state interference in football.

 

The greatest concern is around the regulator’s future powers. Not only did the government rule out giving the regulator power to prevent more English clubs being bought by foreign states — despite suggesting that such a ban should apply to newspapers — but the Football Governance Bill states explicitly that decisions on future or incumbent owners “must also have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom”.

 

Does that mean the UK’s important trading partner Saudi Arabia, which owns a club, should be given special treatment? Will the Foreign Office have to approve any action by the regulator against a state connected club?

 

“The Government appears to have written a stronger role than anticipated for itself into this regime,” the Premier League’s chief executive Richard Masters wrote to the DCMS select committee this week. “This may lead to pressure in the future for the Secretary of State to further expand the scope and powers of the IFR beyond financial sustainability. If this goes too far it may conceivably present issues with Fifa and Uefa, whose statutes ban state interference in football.”

[Megadrive Man]

Worth a reminder 

 

 

[manwiththestick]

24 minutes ago, Megadrive Man said:

Worth a reminder 

 

 

I remember watching that in my local, back in the days when pubs would show games on some Norwegian channel so you couldn't understand the commentary.

 

We were all wondering what the hell City were doing wasting time when they needed to win the game. Comical.