|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Feb 10, 2023 10:41:05 GMT
Football is heavily dominated by finance has been ever since I can remember. Who signed the first million pound player little Notts Forest and oh he scored in one of their European Cup successes. Those who push the financial boundaries tend to win. Is it cheating I still see 11 vs 11 on the same pitch. So what is your objection? Seems to be linked with where the money comes from Arabs, Russian Mafia, Americans, billionaire bookmakers from Goldenhill. Just as always the status quo can be broken it just costs a hell of a lot more to do so. The elite will always try to come up with ways to prevent it, see Newcastle take over they tried to block. Our relatively successful period involved spending more than our peers, if our owners had continued outspending our peers we’d still be at the top table and their asset would be worth multiple times it’s current value. No use being sore about it our owners just didn’t have the ruthless determination to carry on what they’d started. Spot on though give me the Coates everyday ahead of those mentioned in your post. Not for me. I think that they’re fucking hopeless at running a football club. I just don’t get the warm fuzzy feeling about them being local. Those mentioned in my post have done successfully what the Coates went so far with then got cold feet. I will always maintain that selling Arnie followed by zero net spend the Summer prior to relegation was effectively handing in our Premier League resignation. They’ve thrown more money at the wall since but that one act was one that proved they just haven’t got the ruthless determination for this club to dine at the top table.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 10, 2023 10:48:55 GMT
They forced their way in by cheating and maintained their place in the elite by cheating. It's isn't jealousy it's anger - why should the clubs who stuck by the rules be stopped from being successful by cheats? While Man City cheated several clubs missed out on European football and the money and exposure that goes with it. Their chance of breaking into the elite was denied them by a now established member of the elite cheating. How on earth is that good for the game? What you are suggesting isn't some Robin Hood story of a little guy defeating the big boys - it's the story if how elites get to be elites and remain elites by keeping potential rivals at bay through fair means and foul. All it proves is that if you are funded by an oil rich state and are prepared to cheat you too can become part of the elite. Thing is oil rich states are in limited supply and (hopefully) cheats will get caught and thrown out. Or do you believe cheating is fine and we all should do it? And presumably if we all do it we all can become members of the elite? And if everybody can't become a member of the elite (which by definition you can't) how do you decide on who stays in the club? Football is heavily dominated by finance has been ever since I can remember. Who signed the first million pound player little Notts Forest and oh he scored in one of their European Cup successes. Those who push the financial boundaries tend to win. Is it cheating I still see 11 vs 11 on the same pitch. So what is your objection? Seems to be linked with where the money comes from Arabs, Russian Mafia, Americans, billionaire bookmakers from Goldenhill. Just as always the status quo can be broken it just costs a hell of a lot more to do so. The elite will always try to come up with ways to prevent it, see Newcastle take over they tried to block. Our relatively successful period involved spending more than our peers, if our owners had continued outspending our peers we’d still be at the top table and their asset would be worth multiple times it’s current value. No use being sore about it our owners just didn’t have the ruthless determination to carry on what they’d started. I did not say anything about finances not influencing the outcomes in football. I said Man City (allegedly) joined the elite by cheating and remained part of the elite by cheating. So answer the question - do you think it is ok to cheat, do you want others to cheat and should we cheat to get into the elite?
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Feb 10, 2023 11:00:21 GMT
Football is heavily dominated by finance has been ever since I can remember. Who signed the first million pound player little Notts Forest and oh he scored in one of their European Cup successes. Those who push the financial boundaries tend to win. Is it cheating I still see 11 vs 11 on the same pitch. So what is your objection? Seems to be linked with where the money comes from Arabs, Russian Mafia, Americans, billionaire bookmakers from Goldenhill. Just as always the status quo can be broken it just costs a hell of a lot more to do so. The elite will always try to come up with ways to prevent it, see Newcastle take over they tried to block. Our relatively successful period involved spending more than our peers, if our owners had continued outspending our peers we’d still be at the top table and their asset would be worth multiple times it’s current value. No use being sore about it our owners just didn’t have the ruthless determination to carry on what they’d started. I did not say anything about finances not influencing the outcomes in football. I said Man City (allegedly) joined the elite by cheating and remained part of the elite by cheating. So answer the question - do you think it is ok to cheat, do you want others to cheat and should we cheat to get into the elite? Spending more money isn’t cheating imo. Yes I’m happy for clubs with determined backers to bend the non sporting rules to break the status quo. Yes I think we should have done not that we ever even came close to the imposed limits anyway. I’ve no love of the Coates’ they have the resources and had the platform and they bottled it.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Feb 10, 2023 11:09:15 GMT
I did not say anything about finances not influencing the outcomes in football. I said Man City (allegedly) joined the elite by cheating and remained part of the elite by cheating. So answer the question - do you think it is ok to cheat, do you want others to cheat and should we cheat to get into the elite? Spending more money isn’t cheating imo. Yes I’m happy for clubs with determined backers to bend the non sporting rules to break the status quo. Yes I think we should have done not that we ever even came close to the imposed limits anyway. I’ve no love of the Coates’ they have the resources and had the platform and they bottled it. I agree in that I don’t believe that clubs should be restricted in their finances. It’s their decision at the end of the day. There’s not exactly a limit in the Olympics or with tennis coaching etc. However, Man City did (assuming this is correct) cheat. There were rules in place that other clubs obeyed. Man City deliberately ignored them and tried to hide doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2023 11:37:35 GMT
Fair enough mate, the situations are completely different but the outcome could be the same, but i doubt the Premier League have the bollocks to expel them from their league as they're worth to much to them to have them in there. I'd love it Kevin Keegan style if they did though I don’t get the sentiment. People moan about the elite dominating the league then want to see a club that has forced it’s way into the elite chucked out. Smacks of jealousy, why they’re proving it can be done. If its proved that they have done all what you say by unfair means, you are still happy for them crack on the Premier League? I have no axe to grind with Man City as a club or their fans, but I would find it funny if they got relegated to the bottom of the footballing ladder though, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2023 11:40:59 GMT
Fair enough mate, the situations are completely different but the outcome could be the same, but i doubt the Premier League have the bollocks to expel them from their league as they're worth to much to them to have them in there. I'd love it Kevin Keegan style if they did though Yes sorry - pedant alert . I agree it could have the same outcome (by a different route) and despite my cynicism about how football is run I think it might happen. And I think it should and although I feel sorry for Man City fans I think it would be a good thing. What the League are claiming is a big deal - systematic breaking of the League rules over a sustained period. If they want this to go away why would they continue pursuing it and put it in the public domain? It's the worse possible way of making something go away. If Man City are found guilty and the league go easy on the punishment the rest of the clubs will (rightly) go mad - they've been cheated out of trophies and prize money. In addition the League will effectively be saying we have got these rules but feel free to break them because we won't do much if you do - they would have zero credibility and the league will be decided on the basis of who is the best cheat. Some might like that idea but personally I think it would be a disaster - owners would take risks, clubs will go out of business and the same big six/seven will consolidate their position on the basis they have the biggest bank balance and nothing else matters. (Bonus points for the Metallica reference?) I didn't read your post as being pedantic mate, and I'm happy to be educated because as soon as I read your post it brought it back that Rangers'situation was completely different. I agree with pretty much everything you're saying I just don't see th being expelled from the Premier League, there will be sanctions and points deductions I'd imagine but that's where I reckon it will end. Oh and you're Metallica reference is completely lost on me mate, I hate heavy metal music and would struggle to name one single "song" of theirs
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Feb 10, 2023 12:23:05 GMT
I don’t get the sentiment. People moan about the elite dominating the league then want to see a club that has forced it’s way into the elite chucked out. Smacks of jealousy, why they’re proving it can be done. If its proved that they have done all what you say by unfair means, you are still happy for them crack on the Premier League?I have no axe to grind with Man City as a club or their fans, but I would find it funny if they got relegated to the bottom of the footballing ladder though, but that's just me. Yeah absolutely the financial rules are not meant to rig the market so we are told. Man City's owners haven't jeopardisised the future of the club absolutely the opposite therefore the rules would have had the effect of locking in the status quo which nobody agreed to. Everytime they've been challenged they've stepped up and defended themselves I hope they continue to do so successfully and Newcastle and Bournemouth or Bradford, even Stoke if the owners ever grew a set.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 10, 2023 12:28:00 GMT
Yes sorry - pedant alert . I agree it could have the same outcome (by a different route) and despite my cynicism about how football is run I think it might happen. And I think it should and although I feel sorry for Man City fans I think it would be a good thing. What the League are claiming is a big deal - systematic breaking of the League rules over a sustained period. If they want this to go away why would they continue pursuing it and put it in the public domain? It's the worse possible way of making something go away. If Man City are found guilty and the league go easy on the punishment the rest of the clubs will (rightly) go mad - they've been cheated out of trophies and prize money. In addition the League will effectively be saying we have got these rules but feel free to break them because we won't do much if you do - they would have zero credibility and the league will be decided on the basis of who is the best cheat. Some might like that idea but personally I think it would be a disaster - owners would take risks, clubs will go out of business and the same big six/seven will consolidate their position on the basis they have the biggest bank balance and nothing else matters. (Bonus points for the Metallica reference?) I didn't read your post as being pedantic mate, and I'm happy to be educated because as soon as I read your post it brought it back that Rangers'situation was completely different. I agree with pretty much everything you're saying I just don't see th being expelled from the Premier League, there will be sanctions and points deductions I'd imagine but that's where I reckon it will end. Oh and you're Metallica reference is completely lost on me mate, I hate heavy metal music and would struggle to name one single "song" of theirs You might be right about the outcome but it would be a bad day for football - it would be green light to ignore the rules and unscrupulous/incompetent owners will plough money into failed attempts to become part of the elite and go bust. The owners will simply walk away with much of their wealth in tact and the only people to suffer will be the fans. As to not liking heavyb metal...sorry but you are dead to me.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 10, 2023 13:10:01 GMT
If its proved that they have done all what you say by unfair means, you are still happy for them crack on the Premier League?I have no axe to grind with Man City as a club or their fans, but I would find it funny if they got relegated to the bottom of the footballing ladder though, but that's just me. Yeah absolutely the financial rules are not meant to rig the market so we are told. Man City's owners haven't jeopardisised the future of the club absolutely the opposite therefore the rules would have had the effect of locking in the status quo which nobody agreed to. Everytime they've been challenged they've stepped up and defended themselves I hope they continue to do so successfully and Newcastle and Bournemouth or Bradford, even Stoke if the owners ever grew a set. They (allegedly) cheated to become part of the elite and for years they (allegedly) cheated to keep the likes of Newcastle, Bournemouth, Bradford and Stoke out of any chance becoming part of the elite. It isn't the elite who want FFP - as in Man City's case the elite will do everything they can to eradicate or ignore FFP because without those constraints they have the deepest pockets and can ensure they remain untouchable. Your idea that Man City is some sort of plucky underdog that other clubs should emulate is just bizarre. Man City are the absolute epitomy of an elite club - ignoring the rules that don't suit them in order to maintain their position in the pecking order.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Feb 10, 2023 14:02:22 GMT
Yeah absolutely the financial rules are not meant to rig the market so we are told. Man City's owners haven't jeopardisised the future of the club absolutely the opposite therefore the rules would have had the effect of locking in the status quo which nobody agreed to. Everytime they've been challenged they've stepped up and defended themselves I hope they continue to do so successfully and Newcastle and Bournemouth or Bradford, even Stoke if the owners ever grew a set. They (allegedly) cheated to become part of the elite and for years they (allegedly) cheated to keep the likes of Newcastle, Bournemouth, Bradford and Stoke out of any chance becoming part of the elite. It isn't the elite who want FFP - as in Man City's case the elite will do everything they can to eradicate or ignore FFP because without those constraints they have the deepest pockets and can ensure they remain untouchable. Your idea that Man City is some sort of plucky underdog that other clubs should emulate is just bizarre. Man City are the absolute epitomy of an elite club - ignoring the rules that don't suit them in order to maintain their position in the pecking order. Nobody ever mentioned them as underdogs. They're a club that had ruthless determination to break into the elite group of clubs and have successfully done so. "Good on em" I say. I'd have been perfectly happy for the Coates' to do the same with Stoke but there was never that ruthless determination to improve or even maintain their acheivements shame on them. I'm not going to get sore about a club who had the guts not to know or accept their place. If the rules were having unintended consequences they should have been challenged and altered a long time ago, they're either there to protect clubs long term viability or they aren't and if they aren't then their purpose should be made clear.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 10, 2023 15:08:05 GMT
They (allegedly) cheated to become part of the elite and for years they (allegedly) cheated to keep the likes of Newcastle, Bournemouth, Bradford and Stoke out of any chance becoming part of the elite. It isn't the elite who want FFP - as in Man City's case the elite will do everything they can to eradicate or ignore FFP because without those constraints they have the deepest pockets and can ensure they remain untouchable. Your idea that Man City is some sort of plucky underdog that other clubs should emulate is just bizarre. Man City are the absolute epitomy of an elite club - ignoring the rules that don't suit them in order to maintain their position in the pecking order. Nobody ever mentioned them as underdogs. They're a club that had ruthless determination to break into the elite group of clubs and have successfully done so. "Good on em" I say. I'd have been perfectly happy for the Coates' to do the same with Stoke but there was never that ruthless determination to improve or even maintain their acheivements shame on them. I'm not going to get sore about a club who had the guts not to know or accept their place. If the rules were having unintended consequences they should have been challenged and altered a long time ago, they're either there to protect clubs long term viability or they aren't and if they aren't then their purpose should be made clear. The rules are there to protect the long term viability of clubs. What the hell has that got to do with Man City breaking them? Are you saying that Stoke City should have broken the rules i.e.cheated the system to achieve an unfair advantage? That "ruthless determination" didn't just knock one of the then established elite out of the elite - it prevented everyone else at that time from joining the elite. And once they were part of the elite their "ruthless determination" made sure they remained part of the elite and kept anyone else from breaking in. It's elite clubs breaking the rules that has stopped clubs joining the elite, not the rules themselves. Basically you are saying that if the rules don't suit a club it's ok to break them. A few pages back you were arguing against unfettered free market capitalisation running football. Now you are arguing for it. You are also completely ignoring the fact that the elite, by definition, is an elite - membership is limited. If every club in the Premier League spent beyond their means (and that is exactly what breaching FFP means) only about 6 clubs would be in the elite set of clubs playing European football (which is what gives them the TV money and exposure to become the elite) for that year. The club's whose financial gamble hadn't pay off will need their owners to shovel in money to pay the players they can't afford because they missed out and yet more money in a desperate attempt to break into the elite next year. After a couple of seasons the majority of clubs will be in massive debt - either the owners carry on behaving like complete fools and chuck more money in or they bail and let the club go bankrupt. I don't think you have the faintest idea of the consequences of what you are proposing.
|
|
|
Post by dirtclod on Feb 10, 2023 15:44:31 GMT
Here we go with years and years of legal-wrangling and subsequent watering down of any punishment as time passes. Like someone said you watch, they'll probably fine them! LOL And anyone suggesting that we should imitate them is recommending a course of action leading to the death of the club. Look at how many teams have tried and failed! ONE...made it for ONE year, that's it. Now they're in 14th and facing multiple years of trying to balance the books while avoiding relegation. This is about exclusion and cheating - Citeh aren't a role-model for anyone but the insane. Hopefully it's the start of that bubble-bursting process, but I doubt it.
Debt, Debt, Debt - you don't run a successful enterprise by jumping deep into debt. And the levels of debt it would require to sustain a top 4 place - think it's starting to become obvious that even the Top 4 can't manage it without breaking rules. And the way leagues treat Stoke - they'd throw the book at us first chance they get. The damned league is broken and it's the likes of Citeh contributing to that.
And Citeh isn't building anything positive going forward - the club's net debt rose from £419.5m in 2021 to £514.9m this year, an increase of more than 22 per cent. Even they aren't going to sustain that forever.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Feb 10, 2023 15:44:49 GMT
Nobody ever mentioned them as underdogs. They're a club that had ruthless determination to break into the elite group of clubs and have successfully done so. "Good on em" I say. I'd have been perfectly happy for the Coates' to do the same with Stoke but there was never that ruthless determination to improve or even maintain their acheivements shame on them. I'm not going to get sore about a club who had the guts not to know or accept their place. If the rules were having unintended consequences they should have been challenged and altered a long time ago, they're either there to protect clubs long term viability or they aren't and if they aren't then their purpose should be made clear. The rules are there to protect the long term viability of clubs. What the hell has that got to do with Man City breaking them? Are you saying that Stoke City should have broken the rules i.e.cheated the system to achieve an unfair advantage? That "ruthless determination" didn't just knock one of the then established elite out of the elite - it prevented everyone else at that time from joining the elite. And once they were part of the elite their "ruthless determination" made sure they remained part of the elite and kept anyone else from breaking in. It's elite clubs breaking the rules that has stopped clubs joining the elite, not the rules themselves. Basically you are saying that if the rules don't suit a club it's ok to break them. A few pages back you were arguing against unfettered free market capitalisation running football. Now you are arguing for it. You are also completely ignoring the fact that the elite, by definition, is an elite - membership is limited. If every club in the Premier League spent beyond their means (and that is exactly what breaching FFP means) only about 6 clubs would be in the elite set of clubs playing European football (which is what gives them the TV money and exposure to become the elite) for that year. The club's whose financial gamble hadn't pay off will need their owners to shovel in money to pay the players they can't afford because they missed out and yet more money in a desperate attempt to break into the elite next year. After a couple of seasons the majority of clubs will be in massive debt - either the owners carry on behaving like complete fools and chuck more money in or they bail and let the club go bankrupt. I don't think you have the faintest idea of the consequences of what you are proposing. It's not a matter of the rules not suiting a club. It's the hopefully unintended consequences of the rules that stifle aspiration. If owners want to behave like complete fools that should be fine, as discussed there are ways and means of letting them do that without putting the future of the club in jeopardy (only allowing owner investment beyond a certain level if forward funded) there is nothing unfettered or free market about that. I can't see any reason why the game would want to deny itself their investment providing such safeguards are in place. The owners of Man City haven't jeopardised the future of the club, they've invested massively in the club not just on the playing side but the infrastructure and the area. Again, I'm not proposing anything people of influence within the game can see these issues and might eventually get around to doing something about them, meanwhile those that are determined to smash their way to the top table will seek to circumvent these restrictions. You on the otherhand seem to want to take things back decades to when a club can challenge in the top league like Wimbledon without massive investment from a wealthy benefactor and it just isn't ever going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 11, 2023 9:01:43 GMT
The rules are there to protect the long term viability of clubs. What the hell has that got to do with Man City breaking them? Are you saying that Stoke City should have broken the rules i.e.cheated the system to achieve an unfair advantage? That "ruthless determination" didn't just knock one of the then established elite out of the elite - it prevented everyone else at that time from joining the elite. And once they were part of the elite their "ruthless determination" made sure they remained part of the elite and kept anyone else from breaking in. It's elite clubs breaking the rules that has stopped clubs joining the elite, not the rules themselves. Basically you are saying that if the rules don't suit a club it's ok to break them. A few pages back you were arguing against unfettered free market capitalisation running football. Now you are arguing for it. You are also completely ignoring the fact that the elite, by definition, is an elite - membership is limited. If every club in the Premier League spent beyond their means (and that is exactly what breaching FFP means) only about 6 clubs would be in the elite set of clubs playing European football (which is what gives them the TV money and exposure to become the elite) for that year. The club's whose financial gamble hadn't pay off will need their owners to shovel in money to pay the players they can't afford because they missed out and yet more money in a desperate attempt to break into the elite next year. After a couple of seasons the majority of clubs will be in massive debt - either the owners carry on behaving like complete fools and chuck more money in or they bail and let the club go bankrupt. I don't think you have the faintest idea of the consequences of what you are proposing. It's not a matter of the rules not suiting a club. It's the hopefully unintended consequences of the rules that stifle aspiration. If owners want to behave like complete fools that should be fine, as discussed there are ways and means of letting them do that without putting the future of the club in jeopardy (only allowing owner investment beyond a certain level if forward funded) there is nothing unfettered or free market about that. I can't see any reason why the game would want to deny itself their investment providing such safeguards are in place. The owners of Man City haven't jeopardised the future of the club, they've invested massively in the club not just on the playing side but the infrastructure and the area. Again, I'm not proposing anything people of influence within the game can see these issues and might eventually get around to doing something about them, meanwhile those that are determined to smash their way to the top table will seek to circumvent these restrictions. You on the otherhand seem to want to take things back decades to when a club can challenge in the top league like Wimbledon without massive investment from a wealthy benefactor and it just isn't ever going to happen. Is breaking the rules of a competition cheating? If it isn't cheating what is it? If Man City are found guilty of breaking the rules should they be punished? If they aren't punished should all the other clubs who lost out on trophies and prize money just shut up and accept that it is ok for Man City to have achieved success by breaking the rules they abided by and it was they who were stupid for following the rules? Or do they take Man City's lead and ignore the rules as well? Which means if the league introduces your "future funding" rules they will be worthless because you have now established that it's ok for clubs to break the rules. And if no one is following any rules how is that different to completely unfetttered capitalism? If Man City do get thrown out the league how have their owners not put the clubs future in danger? And just to help the answer to none of these questions is "future funding".
|
|
|
Post by st3mark on Feb 11, 2023 9:04:53 GMT
Makes me sick when I think how many injuries we had for that FA Cup final.
Them cheating bastards had an embarrassment of riches to choose from and due to their cheating could have fielding 2 starting 11s capable of winning.
We stuck to the rules and didn't stand a chance.
It should be awarded to us.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Feb 11, 2023 9:49:56 GMT
It's not a matter of the rules not suiting a club. It's the hopefully unintended consequences of the rules that stifle aspiration. If owners want to behave like complete fools that should be fine, as discussed there are ways and means of letting them do that without putting the future of the club in jeopardy (only allowing owner investment beyond a certain level if forward funded) there is nothing unfettered or free market about that. I can't see any reason why the game would want to deny itself their investment providing such safeguards are in place. The owners of Man City haven't jeopardised the future of the club, they've invested massively in the club not just on the playing side but the infrastructure and the area. Again, I'm not proposing anything people of influence within the game can see these issues and might eventually get around to doing something about them, meanwhile those that are determined to smash their way to the top table will seek to circumvent these restrictions. You on the otherhand seem to want to take things back decades to when a club can challenge in the top league like Wimbledon without massive investment from a wealthy benefactor and it just isn't ever going to happen. Is breaking the rules of a competition cheating? If it isn't cheating what is it? If Man City are found guilty of breaking the rules should they be punished? If they aren't punished should all the other clubs who lost out on trophies and prize money just shut up and accept that it is ok for Man City to have achieved success by breaking the rules they abided by and it was they who were stupid for following the rules? Or do they take Man City's lead and ignore the rules as well? Which means if the league introduces your "future funding" rules they will be worthless because you have now established that it's ok for clubs to break the rules. And if no one is following any rules how is that different to completely unfetttered capitalism? If Man City do get thrown out the league how have their owners not put the clubs future in danger? And just to help the answer to none of these questions is "future funding". Hysterical nonsense as per usual, Man City are not going to get thrown out of the league. The rules are having unintended consequences and will be modified. Everybody won’t break the rules because everybody isn’t willing to pour money into a bottomless pit. Rules are expected to be broken that’s why they have penalties. I’m sure when everything is eventually looked at if Man City are found guilty of anything at all they will receive a proportionate sanction which I’m sure you’ll be extremely unhappy with and you’ll be able to go visit Peter Fox in prison, I mean at home and complain bitterly about it. FFS man get a grip you’re like a fucking old woman.
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Feb 11, 2023 9:58:13 GMT
Have we won the cup by default yet. I've got the open top bus ready and a shit ton of rotten eggs for the tour via hamil road.
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Feb 11, 2023 10:00:06 GMT
Im sure it didnt take this long to relegate Juventus when they got caught cheating. 😉
|
|
|
Post by bolders on Feb 11, 2023 12:23:40 GMT
Im sure it didnt take this long to relegate Juventus when they got caught cheating. 😉 And rightly so they were but the problem here is there are 2 officiating bodies in this country. I think the worst that will happen to Man City will be enough points to be relegated out of the prem a massive fine and a short transfer embargo. That will tell everyone not to cheat the system 🙄
|
|
|
Post by iamstokie on Feb 11, 2023 12:25:18 GMT
Im sure it didnt take this long to relegate Juventus when they got caught cheating. 😉 And rightly so they were but the problem here is there are 2 officiating bodies in this country. I think the worst that will happen to Man City will be enough points to be relegated out of the prem a massive fine and a short transfer embargo. That will tell everyone not to cheat the system 🙄 I really doubt they will be found guilty, it will drag on for years then just dropped
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Feb 11, 2023 13:04:49 GMT
And rightly so they were but the problem here is there are 2 officiating bodies in this country. I think the worst that will happen to Man City will be enough points to be relegated out of the prem a massive fine and a short transfer embargo. That will tell everyone not to cheat the system 🙄 I really doubt they will be found guilty, it will drag on for years then just dropped What Pep said in the Press Conference tells you all you need to know. 'We have very good lawyers' End of story. (though that end will be a few years down the line)
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 11, 2023 13:17:59 GMT
Is breaking the rules of a competition cheating? If it isn't cheating what is it? If Man City are found guilty of breaking the rules should they be punished? If they aren't punished should all the other clubs who lost out on trophies and prize money just shut up and accept that it is ok for Man City to have achieved success by breaking the rules they abided by and it was they who were stupid for following the rules? Or do they take Man City's lead and ignore the rules as well? Which means if the league introduces your "future funding" rules they will be worthless because you have now established that it's ok for clubs to break the rules. And if no one is following any rules how is that different to completely unfetttered capitalism? If Man City do get thrown out the league how have their owners not put the clubs future in danger? And just to help the answer to none of these questions is "future funding". Hysterical nonsense as per usual, Man City are not going to get thrown out of the league. The rules are having unintended consequences and will be modified. Everybody won’t break the rules because everybody isn’t willing to pour money into a bottomless pit. Rules are expected to be broken that’s why they have penalties. I’m sure when everything is eventually looked at if Man City are found guilty of anything at all they will receive a proportionate sanction which I’m sure you’ll be extremely unhappy with and you’ll be able to go visit Peter Fox in prison, I mean at home and complain bitterly about it. FFS man get a grip you’re like a fucking old woman. Are you really that insecure?
|
|
|
Post by boothenender on Feb 11, 2023 13:21:52 GMT
Why doesnt someone ask SKY tv etc about their view on all of this ?. I am also very sure that the English FA will soon be receiving a very large and well stuffed brown envelope. The only winner here is the parasitic lawyers who dont give sweet FA about footy fans, sportsmanship and fair play.
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Feb 11, 2023 14:02:45 GMT
I'm reading that our "Owners" didn't have the balls to break the rules and spend even more money than what they actually did and that Sheik Whatever was more than willing to do just that ----- Bend the rules and cheat, if that's what they have done.
Brown envelopes, Back Handers, Bungs, BnB's, Jobs for the Family... Whatever form the financial rules and the sidestepping of them have taken over the years. There is only one suitable punishment. As some of us are aware that corruption and bribery is more common place in certain countries, just as the sentences for certain "misdemeanors" can be "fatal" the power" that certain people wield in certain countries is often measured in ☠💰 Relegation Relegation Relegation But also put FFP in the dustbin and give the minnows a chance Limit the squad size do away with loans ket the players play, can we have a salary cap????
|
|
|
Post by ab61 on Feb 12, 2023 21:32:54 GMT
If Man City were to be stripped of their titles:
Man United and Liverpool would get 3 titles each.
Stoke and Watford would be FA Cup winners.
Arsenal, Villa, Chelsea, Sunderland and Liverpool would be League Cup winners.
But Spurs still wouldn't win anything. 😂
|
|
|
Post by FbrgVaStkFan on Feb 12, 2023 21:54:50 GMT
If Man City were to be stripped of their titles: Man United and Liverpool would get 3 titles each. Stoke and Watford would be FA Cup winners. Arsenal, Villa, Chelsea, Sunderland and Liverpool would be League Cup winners. But Spurs still wouldn't win anything. 😂 Isn't there bonus money plus any expected profits that would have come with winning those titles? How would those clubs with their reassigned titles get that money now? How would the amount of expected profits be determined? Lawyers and legal firms would love it, but I can't see titles moving because the money mess that would result.
|
|