Man city

[Wolf316]

God, I hope you’re right but won’t get my hopes up that City will receive any significant punishment.
Would give anything to know how all other 19 PL clubs feel, ( the owners mostly), about City.

Are they somewhat indifferent , ( just business after all), or do they feel even a little be incensed?

I’d guess those that are hampered by FFP such as Newcastle will be incensed but unfortunately in think City’s very expensive lawyers will tie it up for years and they’ll get little to no punishment.

 

[Bondi Wolf]

I honestly don’t mind City getting away with it. It’s nothing more than the other ‘big’ clubs did.

It’s not even a sport anymore, and I’m happier with the big clubs complaining than them having it all their own way.

 

[Wolf316]

I honestly don’t mind City getting away with it. It’s nothing more than the other ‘big’ clubs did.

It’s not even a sport anymore, and I’m happier with the big clubs complaining than them having it all their own way.

I’m bothered. They are one of the richest clubs in the world who can spend more than the vast majority and they still decided to cheat. Hope they get the book thrown at them.

 

[Kennedy]

I've just been listening to a talk sport interview, dunno if it's just typical sensationalism but they were saying they will 100 % be relegated if found guilty..

Massive deception and collusion across multiple businesses..

 

[JonahWolf]

I've just been listening to a talk sport interview, dunno if it's just typical sensationalism but they were saying they will 100 % be relegated if found guilty..

Massive deception and collusion across multiple businesses..

They have to if they can actually prove anything.
It’s the deception element. Everton inflated all losses as much as humanly possible and still didn’t quite make it under the line, which is part of why they got such a kicking.
But city’s is, as you say, deception on a grand scale (allegedly).
The ‘inflated sponsorships’ are probably very hard to prove, UEFA apparently couldn’t get that through.
However, it’s the off-book payments to certain players and definitely Mancini they might have more joy with. These people at the club were somehow appointed board members or granted ambassadorial roles with various Abu Dhabi businesses, with payments of millions.

 

[bigwolf]

Sorry, but I think you are naive!

You asked for it!

The allegation is fraud. That is the money paid from sponsors was in effect funded from the owner Sheikh Mansour.

It's disguised equity. Not true equity. It's much more serious that just breaking FFP hence why it's taking a lot longer.

 

[Superted]

The question will be whether what City did actually contravened the rules as they were written.

This has happened in F1 for years, rules are written to achieve a specific outcome but someone working for one of the teams will identify a loophole which undoes the whole purpose of the regulation while not being technically "against the rules". Then you have the absurd situation of the regulatory body (the FIA) appealing against their own arbitrators of the rules (the stewards) who have deemed something legal when the FIA and other teams think it shouldn't be.

If City can produce a convincing argument that what they did may have been against the spirit of the regulations but not technically directly contravening them then they won't have a case to answer.

 

[Oldskooldayz]

Everton admitted to the breaches so got done straight away, City will fight it to the last breath so will take a long long time especially considering how many charges there are

 

[Sussex Wolf]

The question will be whether what City did actually contravened the rules as they were written.

This has happened in F1 for years, rules are written to achieve a specific outcome but someone working for one of the teams will identify a loophole which undoes the whole purpose of the regulation while not being technically "against the rules". Then you have the absurd situation of the regulatory body (the FIA) appealing against their own arbitrators of the rules (the stewards) who have deemed something legal when the FIA and other teams think it shouldn't be.

If City can produce a convincing argument that what they did may have been against the spirit of the regulations but not technically directly contravening them then they won't have a case to answer.

This is true. However some of the charges are the same as the ones UEFA found them guilty of, and they only got off those, because UEFA have a time bar on punishments. The PL don’t have a time limit. Now clearly the PL would have to prove they broke their rules, or UEFA’s, but I think some aspects of them are common. But your final argument is spot on, thats how they got off the UEFA charges.

 

[WickedWolfie]

This is true. However some of the charges are the same as the ones UEFA found them guilty of, and they only got off those, because UEFA have a time bar on punishments. The PL don’t have a time limit. Now clearly the PL would have to prove they broke their rules, or UEFA’s, but I think some aspects of them are common. But your final argument is spot on, thats how they got off the UEFA charges.

I wouldn't have thought that the PL can successfully charge Citeh with breaches of UEFA rules where UEFA couldn't do so. Doing so would cry out for further litigation.

 

[jrpb-3]

 

[Olivergoldblack]

I bet there punishment will be relegated from the Premier league and banned from Europe. Then they will appeal and get it reduced to starting the next season with a -30 point deduction. Then they'll appeal that and get it reduced to -12 points, which means they'll only finish 3rd that season. And they'll be reinstated in Europe but will have to start in the first qualifying round.

Although will be funny to see all those asterisks next to everything they won since 2009.

Always boggles my mind how they came from nowhere to somehow have more revenue than man u.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

I wouldn't have thought that the PL can successfully charge Citeh with breaches of UEFA rules where UEFA couldn't do so. Doing so would cry out for further litigation.

No, I agree. My point was that some aspects of their UEFA breach apply to PL rules too. My point was only that those aspects which were common were found guilty by UEFA have a high probability of being successful by the PL.

 

[WickedWolfie]

No, I agree. My point was that some aspects of their UEFA breach apply to PL rules too. My point was only that those aspects which were common were found guilty by UEFA have a high probability of being successful by the PL.

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Stafford]

The new FPL rules are only just coming into action, which Man city are well within?

They are guilty of FFP way before this, but the rules werent as specific?

 

[Sussex Wolf]

The new FPL rules are only just coming into action, which Man city are well within?

They are guilty of FFP way before this, but the rules werent as specific?

The current PL PSR rules were introduced in 2013/14. Even before them, the PL had rules around how finances should be reported and classified. The charges against Man City include misreporting going back to 2009, breaking PSR rules, and making payments to agents and intermediaries off book, which is a long standing rule with severe penalties. That’s why experts say, should they be found guilty, the punishment will be extreme.

 

[WW1963]

£500m fine, all honours stripped since 2009 and thrown out of the Premier League, EFL, all the way down to playing their regional equivalent to Bilbrook FC.

Then go after every other reportedly dodgy club across Europe - particularly Barcelona.

Won't happen, of course. There will be plea bargains, concessions, political threats.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

£500m fine, all honours stripped since 2009 and thrown out of the Premier League, EFL, all the way down to playing their regional equivalent to Bilbrook FC.

Then go after every other reportedly dodgy club across Europe - particularly Barcelona.

Won't happen, of course. There will be plea bargains, concessions, political threats.

Problem is half of the evidence doesn’t exist

 

[Stafford]

£500m fine, all honours stripped since 2009 and thrown out of the Premier League, EFL, all the way down to playing their regional equivalent to Bilbrook FC.

Then go after every other reportedly dodgy club across Europe - particularly Barcelona.

Won't happen, of course. There will be plea bargains, concessions, political threats.

Hmmm, not sure I'd fancy the risk.
With the early fosun years the 15 percent in gestifute and low salary Neves and Jota deals.

 

[Wolf316]

This doesn’t seem dodgy at all

https://twitter.com/x/status/1748830882511896769

 

[OLDGOLD]

This doesn’t seem dodgy at all

https://twitter.com/x/status/1748830882511896769

I would imagine that they claim it is not in the public interest as it pertains to a current ongoing investigation....

 

[SteveBullsKnee]

I personally believe they’ll get hammered with a European ban and having titles stripped. Not because any of the governing bodies want to “clean” the game up but moreso as a bit of a deflection of their own past indiscretions. Rightly the corruption at FIFA ended up as a criminal investigation by the FBI, UEFA have had their own issues and whilst the FA/EPL haven’t to that extent they have shown themselves to a be toothless tiger up to recently (it’s actually why I said all summer Everton would get the punishment they have). Right now all the footballing governing bodies are rightly under scrutiny, pots of money have meant individuals and clubs have been able to do what they want and I think a big City punishment will be used as a deterrent to other clubs.

I think there will be a minor reset in football the next 2 years, to try and put things on a slightly more even place. The big clubs will still be the big clubs but what’s happened at City, PSG can’t carry on. Similarly United and Barcelona carrying debts the size of a small country, it all has to be addressed

 

[Superted]

This doesn’t seem dodgy at all

https://twitter.com/x/status/1748830882511896769

I thought an FOI could only be refused if it was considered sensitive or against public interest or it would cost money to provide the information.

There's evidently something they don't want people to know but that doesn't necessarily mean they can refuse it.

 

[WickedWolfie]

I thought an FOI could only be refused if it was considered sensitive or against public interest or it would cost money to provide the information.

There's evidently something they don't want people to know but that doesn't necessarily mean they can refuse it.

Not entirely. There are a whole list of reasons for refusal, one of them relating to commercial interests and another to formulation of policy. There is also the "prejudice test".... Spot the person who had to draft rather too many responses to FOI requests over the last 20ish years....

When can we refuse a request for information?

A public authority is not always obliged to provide information to a Freedom of Information requester. This page states how and when you can refuse or are exempt.

ico.org.uk

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Did have a little look round and found out something I didn't know, apparently when the City Council let them have the ground, they also had 50% of the naming rights.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

Did have a little look round and found out something I didn't know, apparently when the City Council let them have the ground, they also had 50% of the naming rights.

I wonder if they received 50% of the actual amount paid for this, or just 50% of what was reporting as naming rights?

Some of the charges against City relate to alleged off book payments being made by their owners for the benefit of City.