Would you want Liverpool awardees those 3 League Titles Man City “won”?

[Creator Supreme]

44 minutes ago, Ashberry said:

No way would Brendan Rodgers turn down a medal and the honour of going into every presser referring to himself as a premier league winning manager. 

In that case I'm out, keep your rotten titles!

[gkmacca]

33 minutes ago, manwiththestick said:

I suppose from a PL point of view it's a massive can of worms. If you award second place the title then what about 5th place who missed Champions League and the revenue or the team missing out on Europa by one place or the clubs that finished 18th and got relegated?

 

It's not so problematic as to make any punishment indefensible though. There's almost always a grey area in such matters. Otherwise you'd have to, say, not only pay compensation to someone but also to their family, their relations and friends, etc etc, on the grounds that any damage had all kinds of repercussions ('The  treatment I received gave me depression, which gave my partner depression, which damaged our jobs, which lost us money, which affected our kids, etc etc'). You have to draw a line, but acknowledging the lack of a definitive cut-off point is not an admission that nothing at all could be done. 

 

So, yes, one could go back and compensate every club who missed out on the prize money above them, and then all the way down the leagues, etc etc. But I don't think many would argue seriously that it was acceptable let alone workable.

 

The point remains, however: you need to punish the cheat, and those most directly affected by the cheating.

[Fallen Angel]

It’s been clear to everyone following sport they were taking the piss. PL shouldn’t have let it get to this point.
 

EUFA collapsed under their threats of litigation and allowed them back in, odds on the PL will shit the bed too. 
 

The remaining clubs themselves should all just refuse to play them, let them ‘win’ the title every season with all matches forfeited, a 100% record and not having to kick a ball. It’ll be as much of an achievement as the titles the did get. An alternative trophy can be given to the real champions who finish second. 
 

But then we’ll have Newcastle following suit.

 

Chelsea and City have completely destroyed football as a competitive sport.

 

[Original202]

If they’re stripped of the titles then there should just be no winner that year. 
 

Had they played within the rules we don’t actually know what would have happened, they probably wouldn’t have been as successful but we don’t know for certain how those seasons would have played out. What about the impact it might have had on other chasing teams (Chelsea weren’t far off either in 2014 for example)? I don’t think it’s as black and white as saying you award titles to the runners up.

 

In any case, the moments have gone, what benefit is there to us as fans or the players to be awarded something now? We’ve nothing to gain but City absolutely have to be punished if they’re found guilty and a fine or suspended sentence doesn’t cut it. There’s no deterrent to anyone in the future otherwise but retrospective punishments are never going to be ideal when they go back so far.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, manwiththestick said:

I suppose from a PL point of view it's a massive can of worms. If you award second place the title then what about 5th place who missed Champions League and the revenue or the team missing out on Europa by one place or the clubs that finished 18th and got relegated?

For the Premier League, probably the best way to do it would be retrospective points deductions for the seasons affected. Calculating an appropriate deduction would be the thing for lawyers to squabble over. There would have to be an estimate of how many points per season were achieved as a result of cheating. (That alone would wipe out their narrow wins against us and Man United, but probably not their 19-point win in 2017/28.) Then there should also be a punitive points deduction, to deter future cheats; if the scale of that deduction (after it's been appealed and finalised) drops City below fifth, then whichever club(s) missed out on the Champions League could have a case to sue City for lost earnings. 

 

This could throw a cloud over them for a very long time. And I love that.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

9 minutes ago, Original202 said:

What about the impact it might have had on other chasing teams (Chelsea weren’t far off either in 2014 for example)? I don’t think it’s as black and white as saying you award titles to the runners up.

Why not?

 

Whatever City did, it had fuck all to do with the relative standings of Liverpool, Chelsea or anyone else.

[dockers_strike]

10 minutes ago, Original202 said:

If they’re stripped of the titles then there should just be no winner that year. 
 

Had they played within the rules we don’t actually know what would have happened, they probably wouldn’t have been as successful but we don’t know for certain how those seasons would have played out. What about the impact it might have had on other chasing teams (Chelsea weren’t far off either in 2014 for example)? I don’t think it’s as black and white as saying you award titles to the runners up.

 

In any case, the moments have gone, what benefit is there to us as fans or the players to be awarded something now? We’ve nothing to gain but City absolutely have to be punished if they’re found guilty and a fine or suspended sentence doesn’t cut it. There’s no deterrent to anyone in the future otherwise but retrospective punishments are never going to be ideal when they go back so far.

 

So you think players like Ian Callaghan and others, who didnt make the match day squad on the day shouldnt have been presented with FIFA World Cup winners medals from 1966 about 10 years ago because the moment 'had gone'?

[gkmacca]

43 minutes ago, Original202 said:

retrospective punishments are never going to be ideal when they go back so far.

 

No, they won't be ideal (very few things are), but, once again, that's not a sound enough reason in itself for them not to happen.

[Mook]

I have no interest in winning retrospective titles, where is the joy in it?

 

Football was fucked in 1993 when The Premier League was formed & the Sky money took over, this is what we all asked for by participating.

[ZonkoVille77]

21 minutes ago, Mook said:

Football was fucked in 1993 when The Premier League was formed & the Sky money took over, this is what we all asked for by participating.

 

Ultimately this is what it comes down to. Sky ruined the game and Chelsea & City killed it. 

[Tenfolder]

I believe if City are found guilty to that extent(they won't be) then the titles should be retrospectively rewarded, personally though it would mean nothing, 3 hollow league wins rewarded off the back of a financially doped team finally getting caught out.

[Poor Scouser T]

I think the comparison to Chelsea is erroneous. They did not cheat as such. He was not hiding money and had a genuine affection for the club. Yes he is a twat but it was in the open and he was allowed to do it. Did he not buy the club for £1 and cleared the debt. Hoorah a hero. It was up to the authouraties to rain him in, they failed but he was not cooking the books.

[Barnesey]

They should be relegated to Div 2 and the titles declared none and void.

 

But I don't want to win titles like that; it would be so hollow. And we weren't the best team in those seasons. They may have acquired that team by cheating but the team on the pitch proved better than everyone else. 19 or 22 - its just a number.

[dockers_strike]

If the objective is to punish city and send a message to any current or future club owners that what city have done (if proven) is not allowed, then surely the punishment must fit the crime? That can only mean significant points deductions. If the points deducted are such that any PL titles won during that period would not have happened, so be it.

 

If the punishment recognises those points deductions means no title wins, then they must be awarded to the club who finished behind them, whether that includes the mancs or not or Rodger's team.

[J-V]

Deport the whole club to Qatar.

[Pete]

Personally I'd use this as a way of clearing house and starting again.  That means Divisions 1 - 4 for starters but I guess money now rules and folks are so used to having football on every day there's no going back.  

[dave u]

4 hours ago, Mook said:

I have no interest in winning retrospective titles, where is the joy in it?

 

Football was fucked in 1993 when The Premier League was formed & the Sky money took over, this is what we all asked for by participating.

 

It's not about whether there's joy in it. There obviously isn't, but that isn't the point. It's about what's right.

 

Ben Johnson got stripped of his gold medal, Lance Armstrong had his titles stripped, Juventus had theirs stripped. City should have theirs stripped, and if that means the second placed team is awarded it by default then so be it. Not saying it's cause for celebration but it's the right thing to do.

[Poor Scouser T]

I would pay my mortgage to be the one who knocks on Micah Richards door to collect his medal and sign a form. I'd tell him the best joke ever written to see if he laughs then.

[J-V]

6 minutes ago, dave u said:

 

It's not about whether there's joy in it. There obviously isn't, but that isn't the point. It's about what's right.

 

 

I don’t know I’d find plenty of joy out of being awarded the 3 titles we’ve been robbed.

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

People wanted us to not be awarded the title 25 points ahead with a dozen games remaining, call it all off they said, everyone carried on and the season concluded.

They have been cheating for 15 years and everybody knows it, their lawyers and backhanders have served them well.Enough is enough, the titles belong to the teams cheated. The problem will be relegated teams coming forward and teams who never qualified for Europe by a place etc etc. Fuck City and their cunt fans.

[Moo]

The idea of a points deduction seems most sensible, and if that means second place are awarded first place (and so on) then so be it. Hopefully a reasonable points deduction would mostly only affect first and second place. 

It's not that it would give me any particular joy, and we certainly shouldn't celebrate it, but the efforts in those seasons should be recognised and I think the players involved should be offered medals.

 

[KMD7]

34 minutes ago, J-V said:

I don’t know I’d find plenty of joy out of being awarded the 3 titles we’ve been robbed.

Fucking right 

[Rico1304]

Fucking dead right!  And I’d go and watch them having to change all the signs at the Eitiad and I’d never stop laughing. 
 

Ever. 

[TheHowieLama]

 

Ben Johnson got stripped of his gold medal, Lance Armstrong had his titles stripped, Juventus had theirs stripped. City should have theirs stripped, and if that means the second placed team is awarded it by default then so be it.

 

Ironically only Johnson's gold was then given to the second placed finisher - who happened to fail drug tests at the same time! The other instances there were no winners for those years. In the extremely unlikely case that City are found guilty that would be the most likely.

[KevieG]

33 minutes ago, Moo said:

The idea of a points deduction seems most sensible, and if that means second place are awarded first place (and so on) then so be it. Hopefully a reasonable points deduction would mostly only affect first and second place. 

It's not that it would give me any particular joy, and we certainly shouldn't celebrate it, but the efforts in those seasons should be recognised and I think the players involved should be offered medals.

 

10 point deductions would be fair. That would give us 3 titles and back to the top spot on the roll of honour, and Utd get 1 for the Aguero year.

 

That causes maximum fewm for all involved. Utd, City, Everton, Mourinho.