| Man City - GUILTY 14:45 - Sep 25 with 13725 views | Northernr |
On all charges. Punishment? Errrrr, haven't decided yet.
|  | | |  |
| Man City - GUILTY on 18:14 - Sep 26 with 1960 views | NorthantsHoop |
| Man City - GUILTY on 09:23 - Sep 26 by stevec |
Seems like they can’t banish them to the EFL as it’s a separate body, and they’re not going to throw them out altogether.
Given our £42m fine has essentially hobbled and condemned us to 10 years of bottom half of the Championship, perhaps something that eats away at them in a similar slow fashion should be carried out. Total up how many seasons indiscretions and give them a 12 point deduction for that many seasons going forward.
Will stop them winning the title and over time, top players won’t want to go there. |
Yes a decently large fine with the procceeds getting passed down the football pyramid and a significant points deduction that is spread over a number of seasons that makes them really work to get back to be competitive, the points deduction should roll over and applied for say 5 seasons, so if they get a 100 point deduction then they lose 20 points per season for 5 years. Starting with the Prem or if they fail to stay up then the next league down. I sort of feel automatic demotion down the EFL is unfair to the other teams fighting to be competiive and just makes a bit of mockery of it all. |  | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 19:28 - Sep 26 with 1749 views | CamberleyR |
 |  |
| |
| Man City - GUILTY on 20:06 - Sep 26 with 1681 views | Mick_S |
I know it’s a bit tired, but could the lot of them just piss off to big Europe league and leave us all alone? Ok, given what’s going on, maybe not M City, or come to think of it, Spurs, but the rest of them can do one asap. |  |
| Did I ever mention that I was in Minder? |
| |
| Man City - GUILTY on 21:16 - Sep 26 with 1566 views | Wegerles_Stairs |
| Man City - GUILTY on 16:33 - Sep 26 by SK_hoops |
Imagine if we weren't safe by the time that Agueralo goal went in and we went down... |
Quite a lot of conspiracy theories on Twitter about us throwing the game. Clearly, they've never seen us play. |  | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 21:49 - Sep 26 with 1501 views | Boston |
| Man City - GUILTY on 21:16 - Sep 26 by Wegerles_Stairs |
Quite a lot of conspiracy theories on Twitter about us throwing the game. Clearly, they've never seen us play. |
They were being put forward as soon as the final whistle blew. | |
| |
| Man City - GUILTY on 22:32 - Sep 26 with 1421 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Man City - GUILTY on 21:49 - Sep 26 by Boston |
They were being put forward as soon as the final whistle blew. |
And they were all crap!
For it to have been a conspiracy, you'd have also needed Bolton, Stoke, and the officials of both games in on it as well. Very risky strategy to leave it until a few minutes after the Bolton, Stoke game had finished for QPR to throw it away.
That knob Rooney has constantly trolled a conspiracy. Odd seeing he played for a club who similarly scored two very late goals to win a Champions League final, to think such wouldn't happen again. |  |
| |
| Man City - GUILTY on 00:05 - Sep 27 with 1307 views | CLAREMAN1995 |
Roy Keane said on the post match coverage that all the City players played poorly today and its effecting them .Guehi , O Reilly for England and Rodri causing the penalty that HK missed
Does anybody else think they give a crap about City's financies. Rodri is gone (altough he was asked about it ) and the other 2 joines after the crimes were comitted I think |  | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 07:16 - Sep 27 with 1129 views | Gus_iom |
| Man City - GUILTY on 00:05 - Sep 27 by CLAREMAN1995 |
Roy Keane said on the post match coverage that all the City players played poorly today and its effecting them .Guehi , O Reilly for England and Rodri causing the penalty that HK missed
Does anybody else think they give a crap about City's financies. Rodri is gone (altough he was asked about it ) and the other 2 joines after the crimes were comitted I think |
I think it's fair to imagine that it affected the two current city players, albeit I'm not overly impressed with either of them. They potentially face relegation and are going to get dogs abuse from football supporters around the land. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Man City - GUILTY on 07:49 - Sep 27 with 1067 views | Clive_Anderson |
So for someone not really following this properly, what is it they actually did? Loads of payments off the books?
If so how is this different to what Chelsea got caught doing and got almost no punishment? | | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 07:50 - Sep 27 with 1064 views | lassel |
| Man City - GUILTY on 00:05 - Sep 27 by CLAREMAN1995 |
Roy Keane said on the post match coverage that all the City players played poorly today and its effecting them .Guehi , O Reilly for England and Rodri causing the penalty that HK missed
Does anybody else think they give a crap about City's financies. Rodri is gone (altough he was asked about it ) and the other 2 joines after the crimes were comitted I think |
Presumably O’Reilly had forgotten about it when he setup the second goal. | | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 07:53 - Sep 27 with 1049 views | lassel |
| Man City - GUILTY on 15:55 - Sep 26 by DWQPR |
Interesting article on the BBC. Looks like potentially our little team could be one of those who may entitled to compensation from Citeh.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo |
Nobody is entitled to compensation unless they specifically filed with the tribunal for consideration in the event of a guilty verdict, and we ‘know’ from leaks before the initial hearing that only Utd, Arsenal & Liverpool were accepted. | | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 08:07 - Sep 27 with 1026 views | lassel |
| Man City - GUILTY on 17:46 - Sep 25 by lassel |
It will be another 12-18 months minimum before any punishment is announced if they appeal so it could/would be easily manageable timing wise.
More likely they’ll come to an agreed settlement with the PL where they refute any guilt but “agree to draw a line under everything” in return for a huge fine and a small points penalty. |
The chairman’s statement yesterday was pretty openly twerking for a settlement between the lines and Ornstein tweeted that the clubs (aka Arsenal) have no interest in a huge penalty, so it’ll be a settlement. A decent enough points deduction to cost them European football for a season and a big fine. | | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 08:42 - Sep 27 with 956 views | TK1 |
| Man City - GUILTY on 08:07 - Sep 27 by lassel |
The chairman’s statement yesterday was pretty openly twerking for a settlement between the lines and Ornstein tweeted that the clubs (aka Arsenal) have no interest in a huge penalty, so it’ll be a settlement. A decent enough points deduction to cost them European football for a season and a big fine. |
Man City are guilty of 114 charges plus a failure to comply fully with the investigation properly, perhaps as been suggested even an obstruction to the process.
This tells us that the punishment will be far, far heavier than a deduction that affects just European football for a single season and a big fine.
Nottingham Forest were found guilty of a single charge and given a four point deduction "after factoring club's exceptional cooperation and early admission."
Everton were given an eight point deduction for two charges.
Eight points for two charges.
Four points for one charge.
Both clubs co-operated. City obstructed (understandably as they were aggrieved that they'd been hacked).
How many point for 114 charges by that metric? Enough to relegate them twice over, Harland scoring 100 goals or not.
Big, big test of Richard Masters - a smug man who did not sign up for anything beyond the gravy train - and the PL. The whole league is on the line here. We'll see if they can hold it together. [Post edited 27 Sep 8:52]
| | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 08:51 - Sep 27 with 918 views | Wegerles_Stairs |
| Man City - GUILTY on 07:49 - Sep 27 by Clive_Anderson |
So for someone not really following this properly, what is it they actually did? Loads of payments off the books?
If so how is this different to what Chelsea got caught doing and got almost no punishment? |
This is the thing. Someone said Chelsea got a light punishment because they admitted it but the whole thing is a joke. The integrity of the competition is completely gone - we have rules but you can break them and win multiple titles.
Unless City receive a serious punishment, it's a busted flush. | | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 10:12 - Sep 27 with 812 views | R_from_afar |
I reckon the Premier League will ban them from the Community Shield and make them write "We must never be naughty again" 114 times.
#Draconian. |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Man City - GUILTY on 10:30 - Sep 27 with 768 views | lassel |
| Man City - GUILTY on 08:42 - Sep 27 by TK1 |
Man City are guilty of 114 charges plus a failure to comply fully with the investigation properly, perhaps as been suggested even an obstruction to the process.
This tells us that the punishment will be far, far heavier than a deduction that affects just European football for a single season and a big fine.
Nottingham Forest were found guilty of a single charge and given a four point deduction "after factoring club's exceptional cooperation and early admission."
Everton were given an eight point deduction for two charges.
Eight points for two charges.
Four points for one charge.
Both clubs co-operated. City obstructed (understandably as they were aggrieved that they'd been hacked).
How many point for 114 charges by that metric? Enough to relegate them twice over, Harland scoring 100 goals or not.
Big, big test of Richard Masters - a smug man who did not sign up for anything beyond the gravy train - and the PL. The whole league is on the line here. We'll see if they can hold it together. [Post edited 27 Sep 8:52]
|
Other cases are completely irrelevant. As was “115/130” which was always just tabloid fodder, it’s always been 4 offences, plus non-cooperation which holds a non-sporting penalty.
You literally have one of the country’s most respected sports journalists, with impeccable sources within the hallways of Arsenal saying it’s not going to be anything to write home about penalty wise and that the clubs wouldn’t want that anyway.
Which of course, makes sense. Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea can all now say ‘we would’ve won those titles 10 years ago but City were cheating’. The PL will have absolutely no desire in driving superstars like Haaland out of the league, devaluing the tv rights not just for them but crucially the other clubs in the league. They will also have no desire for City to appeal and drag it out another 2-3 years with the risk of them actually winning an appeal.
Finally there will be no general desire to not have an official statement that the #2 of one of the UKs biggest trading partners is a liar and a cheat, not least in Whitehall.
As said, a settlement with City being allowed to claim their innocence, but agreeing to draw a line under it with a smallish points deduction, a large fine and paying all of the PLs legal fees will be the inevitable result. | | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 11:02 - Sep 27 with 699 views | TK1 |
| Man City - GUILTY on 10:30 - Sep 27 by lassel |
Other cases are completely irrelevant. As was “115/130” which was always just tabloid fodder, it’s always been 4 offences, plus non-cooperation which holds a non-sporting penalty.
You literally have one of the country’s most respected sports journalists, with impeccable sources within the hallways of Arsenal saying it’s not going to be anything to write home about penalty wise and that the clubs wouldn’t want that anyway.
Which of course, makes sense. Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea can all now say ‘we would’ve won those titles 10 years ago but City were cheating’. The PL will have absolutely no desire in driving superstars like Haaland out of the league, devaluing the tv rights not just for them but crucially the other clubs in the league. They will also have no desire for City to appeal and drag it out another 2-3 years with the risk of them actually winning an appeal.
Finally there will be no general desire to not have an official statement that the #2 of one of the UKs biggest trading partners is a liar and a cheat, not least in Whitehall.
As said, a settlement with City being allowed to claim their innocence, but agreeing to draw a line under it with a smallish points deduction, a large fine and paying all of the PLs legal fees will be the inevitable result. |
The other cases are not irrelevant. It's not always been 4 offences. These are not statements of facts.
"You literally have one of the country’s most respected sports journalists, with impeccable sources within the hallways of Arsenal saying it’s not going to be anything to write home about..."
What an odd thing to take as definitive proof of what punishment will be delivered by the Premier League: the tweet of an Athletic journalist about what Arsenal desire the PL to do. Incidentally, have just looked for that tweet. Can't see it. Do you have it to hand?
But rather than mysterious tweets from "inside the hallways of Arsenal" by David Ornstein, and the trust me bro, Ian Holloway will be sacked by Christmas 2024 soothsaying of QPR messageboard insiders, I'm just basing my very limited reading of the situation upon the vast media rounds done yesterday and this morning by British football's main finance experts Kieran Maguire and Stefan Borson (formerly City's financial advisor) who both say - while comparing the cases directly with Forest and Everton - that there will be points deductions equal to a relegation. Maguire estimated on Talksport yesterday that City have profited close to £1b thanks to circumventing the rules.
Based merely on the three or four media rounds I've caught, I'm not sure we can discount a punishment heavier than European disqualification and a fine.
Can link to some of these interviews if you'd like? Quite a lot out there if you have Google though. Not sure of either's links to the "hallways of Arsenal" though. | | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 11:40 - Sep 27 with 626 views | KensalT |
| Man City - GUILTY on 11:02 - Sep 27 by TK1 |
The other cases are not irrelevant. It's not always been 4 offences. These are not statements of facts.
"You literally have one of the country’s most respected sports journalists, with impeccable sources within the hallways of Arsenal saying it’s not going to be anything to write home about..."
What an odd thing to take as definitive proof of what punishment will be delivered by the Premier League: the tweet of an Athletic journalist about what Arsenal desire the PL to do. Incidentally, have just looked for that tweet. Can't see it. Do you have it to hand?
But rather than mysterious tweets from "inside the hallways of Arsenal" by David Ornstein, and the trust me bro, Ian Holloway will be sacked by Christmas 2024 soothsaying of QPR messageboard insiders, I'm just basing my very limited reading of the situation upon the vast media rounds done yesterday and this morning by British football's main finance experts Kieran Maguire and Stefan Borson (formerly City's financial advisor) who both say - while comparing the cases directly with Forest and Everton - that there will be points deductions equal to a relegation. Maguire estimated on Talksport yesterday that City have profited close to £1b thanks to circumventing the rules.
Based merely on the three or four media rounds I've caught, I'm not sure we can discount a punishment heavier than European disqualification and a fine.
Can link to some of these interviews if you'd like? Quite a lot out there if you have Google though. Not sure of either's links to the "hallways of Arsenal" though. |
I wouldn't take Stefan Borson too seriously.
He was adamant Southampton wouldn't get a points deduction for Spygate. He blocks everyone on Twitter who picks holes in his arguments - I speak from experience on this matter :-)
Neither Borson or Maguire are litigation lawyers.
And to be frank, there is no direct precedent for cheating on this scale. [Post edited 27 Sep 11:55]
|  | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 12:50 - Sep 27 with 517 views | CiderwithRsie |
| Man City - GUILTY on 00:56 - Sep 26 by BrianMcCarthy |
Ya, but did they Cider?
Cheating has been endemic in English football throughout my fifty-six years.
In the 80's and 90's, we were denied fair justice by match officials when playing Liverpool and Man Utd on far too many occasions for it to be coincidental.
We weren't allowed play in Europe in 67-68, even though we'd earned it.
Liverpool's schedule for the last month before their Wolves games in 1976 defies belief, but not for the reason people might think.
Did Liverpool earn all of those titles fairly?
Did Man Utd?
And FFP, as we all know in W12, is a tool designed to keep the smallies in their place. |
Fair points, Brian, every one of them.
I suppose I just try to rein in my natural belief that we, and similar sized clubs. don't get a fair crack of the whip, until you get something undeniable like this City thing.
Ironically I think for quite a long time Man City got a free pass from many fans precisely because they looked like a club that hadn't had all those advantages, and had been through the mill, who had got their hands on the ability to give it right back to the likes off Man United and Liverpool. (Related, I have never got over Man United fans calling Shearer a mercenary because he opted for Blackburn's cash instead of theirs in the one tiny window in history when Rovers could outbid them.) | | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 13:07 - Sep 27 with 467 views | MedwayR |
chelsea:
74 breaches of FA Rule E1.2 (breaching rules concerning intermediaries) = 6 point deduction suspended for a year and £26m fine reduced by a third to £17.25m for self-reporting, then cut by another third to £11.4m for an early guilty plea, then reduced to £10m due to fines already given by UEFA & Prem Lge.
Man City:
114 breaches (failure to provide accurate financial info, failure to provide accurate details for player & manager payments, failure to comply with FFP/PSR, failure to cooperate with PL investigations.
It appears to me that chelsea have been let off of the 'failure to provide accurate financial info, and failure to provide accurate details for player & manager payments' elements of their cheating, the only real difference between chelsea and City is the FFP element and cooperation with the investigation. If I was in City's shoes I'd be using the chelsea punishment (if we can call it that!) as the benchmark; so a £40m fine, 10 point deduction suspended for 18months. Add a bit on for the FFP element and that's job done.
Edit: The 'failure to provide accurate financial info, and failure to provide accurate details for player & manager payments' elements of City's charges account for 68 of the breaches so, their punishments for that part should be less than chelsea's. [Post edited 27 Sep 13:12]
|  |
| |
| Man City - GUILTY on 14:08 - Sep 27 with 362 views | KensalT |
| Man City - GUILTY on 13:07 - Sep 27 by MedwayR |
chelsea:
74 breaches of FA Rule E1.2 (breaching rules concerning intermediaries) = 6 point deduction suspended for a year and £26m fine reduced by a third to £17.25m for self-reporting, then cut by another third to £11.4m for an early guilty plea, then reduced to £10m due to fines already given by UEFA & Prem Lge.
Man City:
114 breaches (failure to provide accurate financial info, failure to provide accurate details for player & manager payments, failure to comply with FFP/PSR, failure to cooperate with PL investigations.
It appears to me that chelsea have been let off of the 'failure to provide accurate financial info, and failure to provide accurate details for player & manager payments' elements of their cheating, the only real difference between chelsea and City is the FFP element and cooperation with the investigation. If I was in City's shoes I'd be using the chelsea punishment (if we can call it that!) as the benchmark; so a £40m fine, 10 point deduction suspended for 18months. Add a bit on for the FFP element and that's job done.
Edit: The 'failure to provide accurate financial info, and failure to provide accurate details for player & manager payments' elements of City's charges account for 68 of the breaches so, their punishments for that part should be less than chelsea's. [Post edited 27 Sep 13:12]
|
I don't know the details of the Chelsea case but you seem to be saying they broke one rule 74 times.
Man City have been charged with multiple breaches of five different rules:
"Failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information (2009-2018) (54 charges)
Failure to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation (2009-2018) (14)
Failure to comply with UEFA's regulations, including Financial Fair Play Regulations (5)
Breaching Premier League Profitability and Sustainability regulations (2015-2018) (7)
Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations (2018-2023) (35)"
https://www.skysports.com/foot
City's offending is more wide-ranged than Chelsea's, and they haven't been charged with breaking the same rule as Chelsea so I don't see why the Chelsea punishment should be a starting point for calculating City's punishment.
Also, in breaching the financial regulations I think the scale of offending and advantage City gained should be taken into account.
When we were done for FFP breaches we spent £75m on wages against a £38.6m turnover. For that we got what I believe is still a world record fine of £42m.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
City are reckoned to have spent £1.2bn just on transfers across the nine years that they were offending.:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport
I would be very p!ssed off if City walked away from this with a fine smaller than the one we're still paying off.
It would make a complete nonsense of the financial regulations and be no disincentive to the Saudis or whoever breaking the bank to win the title, qualify for the Champions League, and take a small slap on the wrist somewhere further down the line. [Post edited 27 Sep 14:10]
| | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 14:11 - Sep 27 with 346 views | davman |
| Man City - GUILTY on 10:59 - Sep 26 by R_from_afar |
I agree with you and re. this bit - "if that means that clubs go bust because of their and their supporters over ambition then so be it" - there is a simple way to protect clubs.
You do what the Canadian government does with prospective mining companies, you require them to provide a bond - cleared funds - upfront. In the mining scenario, it is used to ensure that the land can be made good once extractive activities cease. |
This is what I have always said.
Spend what you like, but GIVE the money to cover those expenses UP FRONT so that you are not putting the very fabric of the team you own in danger.
I mean that is how these financial regulations were sold to the smaller clubs.
Of course the reality is very, very different and it is actually all about keeping the top clubs at the top.
This should trigger massive change in the game, but it won't.
As with Spygate, there should be a clear framework in place outlining the rules along with what the punishment is for breaking those rules as opposed to this "fund the lawyers" shite that is playing out.
The FA spent the tail end of the Summer calling out Infantino as being "corrupt". So ironic as he is just doing what the Cash Cow League does every single f'in season.
It is tiresome. |  |
| |
| Man City - GUILTY on 14:19 - Sep 27 with 324 views | GroveR |
| Man City - GUILTY on 16:33 - Sep 26 by SK_hoops |
Imagine if we weren't safe by the time that Agueralo goal went in and we went down... |
You'd still have a fair proportion of QPR supporters cupping Joey Barton's balls and praising his 'pashun' |  | | |
| Man City - GUILTY on 14:26 - Sep 27 with 307 views | MedwayR |
| Man City - GUILTY on 14:08 - Sep 27 by KensalT |
I don't know the details of the Chelsea case but you seem to be saying they broke one rule 74 times.
Man City have been charged with multiple breaches of five different rules:
"Failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information (2009-2018) (54 charges)
Failure to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation (2009-2018) (14)
Failure to comply with UEFA's regulations, including Financial Fair Play Regulations (5)
Breaching Premier League Profitability and Sustainability regulations (2015-2018) (7)
Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations (2018-2023) (35)"
https://www.skysports.com/foot
City's offending is more wide-ranged than Chelsea's, and they haven't been charged with breaking the same rule as Chelsea so I don't see why the Chelsea punishment should be a starting point for calculating City's punishment.
Also, in breaching the financial regulations I think the scale of offending and advantage City gained should be taken into account.
When we were done for FFP breaches we spent £75m on wages against a £38.6m turnover. For that we got what I believe is still a world record fine of £42m.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
City are reckoned to have spent £1.2bn just on transfers across the nine years that they were offending.:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport
I would be very p!ssed off if City walked away from this with a fine smaller than the one we're still paying off.
It would make a complete nonsense of the financial regulations and be no disincentive to the Saudis or whoever breaking the bank to win the title, qualify for the Champions League, and take a small slap on the wrist somewhere further down the line. [Post edited 27 Sep 14:10]
|
According to the charge sheet chelsea broke one rule 74 times, but by doing so would surely have 'failed to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information' and 'failed to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation' but the FA have shown (undue imo) leniency to chelsea because they self-reported. As I see it, the 74 charges against chelsea are the same in nature as the 68 against City. Therefore, that should be the precedent for City's punishment, plus the FFP/PSR punishment on top.
This would result in a relatively small punishment for City, which just highlights how light the chelsea punishment was. I'm not saying City should get a small punishment, just that chelsea should've got a much larger one.
The media are the ones making a big deal of this for clicks, I suspect many will be disappointed. | |
| |
| Man City - GUILTY on 14:37 - Sep 27 with 288 views | KensalT |
| Man City - GUILTY on 14:26 - Sep 27 by MedwayR |
According to the charge sheet chelsea broke one rule 74 times, but by doing so would surely have 'failed to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information' and 'failed to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation' but the FA have shown (undue imo) leniency to chelsea because they self-reported. As I see it, the 74 charges against chelsea are the same in nature as the 68 against City. Therefore, that should be the precedent for City's punishment, plus the FFP/PSR punishment on top.
This would result in a relatively small punishment for City, which just highlights how light the chelsea punishment was. I'm not saying City should get a small punishment, just that chelsea should've got a much larger one.
The media are the ones making a big deal of this for clicks, I suspect many will be disappointed. |
Agree with you about Chelsea.
Hope you are wrong about City. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.