| City Punishment 07:56 - Sep 30 with 1662 views | solent_toffee |
Now that the PL have released the Pepstein Files, what do we think the punishment will be.
Saints got thrown out of the play offs plus a four point deduction for having a young lad watch the opposition with a set of binoculars.
Everton got two punishments for a total of 8 points for being in breach by a total of 25m for the interest on a loan for the stadium build. Forest, Leicester, Sheff United have all received points deductions in the past year, whilst the likes of Reading and Wigan have also been battered by points deductions in recent years, whilst Bury went out of business with the EFL offering zero support or compassion.
Surely City’s crime should be comparable with the above. The deduction alone would amount to hundreds of points.
They could and should end up in the conference. |  | | |  |
| City Punishment on 07:59 - Sep 30 with 1426 views | Butty101 |
I think they will get kicked out of the premier league. Fair play to the league as they haven’t fudged this . |  |
| |
| City Punishment on 09:19 - Sep 30 with 1296 views | SaintNick |
The City lawyers will tie the Premier League up in knots and faced with the threat of an injunction to suspend the Premier League from 2027/28 indefinitely until the matter is sorted legally, they will back down and City will just get what would be a hefty fine for every other club, but peanuts to City's owners |  |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| City Punishment on 09:34 - Sep 30 with 1247 views | Butty101 |
| City Punishment on 09:19 - Sep 30 by SaintNick |
The City lawyers will tie the Premier League up in knots and faced with the threat of an injunction to suspend the Premier League from 2027/28 indefinitely until the matter is sorted legally, they will back down and City will just get what would be a hefty fine for every other club, but peanuts to City's owners |
No chance with the strongly worded statement from the premiership last night. I would hope the police/tax department get involved as they have committed fraud. | |
| |
| City Punishment on 09:46 - Sep 30 with 1215 views | solent_toffee |
| City Punishment on 09:19 - Sep 30 by SaintNick |
The City lawyers will tie the Premier League up in knots and faced with the threat of an injunction to suspend the Premier League from 2027/28 indefinitely until the matter is sorted legally, they will back down and City will just get what would be a hefty fine for every other club, but peanuts to City's owners |
I think we all thought that City's lawyers would tie the PL up in knots during the independent commission but its been the complete opposite. They've offered nothing in terms of counter evidence and are bang to rights on a massive scale.
The sanction needs to be imminent and it needs to be huge. | | | |
| City Punishment on 11:54 - Sep 30 with 1059 views | dirk_doone |
| City Punishment on 09:46 - Sep 30 by solent_toffee |
I think we all thought that City's lawyers would tie the PL up in knots during the independent commission but its been the complete opposite. They've offered nothing in terms of counter evidence and are bang to rights on a massive scale.
The sanction needs to be imminent and it needs to be huge. |
You underestimate the lengths the legal profession will go to in order to drag out a lucrative case like this. The end may still be far away.
City have a very long history of financial cheating. Their first major trophy was won with it. After their punishment, it was 25 years before they won another one.
"in 1904 , after allegations of illegal payments, that year's FA Cup winners Manchester City had a former chairman, the secretary, two directors and 17 players suspended and fined."
[Post edited 30 Sep 12:19]
|  |
| |
| City Punishment on 12:10 - Sep 30 with 1025 views | Number_58 |
This is typical favourtism of the big clubs. We were first in the queue to receive a hefty punishment and now it's all about City. It's one broken law for them and one broken law for us. |  | | |
| City Punishment on 13:15 - Sep 30 with 934 views | Gennaro_Contaldo |
I think they will be kicked out the football league entirely and have to start in the national leagues somewhere. |  |
| |
| City Punishment on 13:24 - Sep 30 with 910 views | franniesTache |
I know i'll be the outlier here but i do think people are massively over reacting about this.
Yes they broke the rules but is the upshot of them breaking the rules really any different to what Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea etc. do anyway?
I mean every single one of the big clubs rigs the game with their money, so why is it "worse" that that money comes from a rich owner instead of selling replica shirts abroad, or getting more of the tv revenue than the smaller clubs?
The whole thing just smacks of complete hypocrisy to me, Chelsea did it for decades, Blackburn did it for a few seasons, Liverpool and United do it in all but name, and we're supposed to somehow think City have done the equivalent of a tonya harding?
Personally i'd take this all a lot more seriously if they actually did something about the obscene money that kills the game no matter where it came from, because i don't see any difference just because of the source of where it came from |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| City Punishment on 13:59 - Sep 30 with 851 views | Ifonly |
| City Punishment on 13:24 - Sep 30 by franniesTache |
I know i'll be the outlier here but i do think people are massively over reacting about this.
Yes they broke the rules but is the upshot of them breaking the rules really any different to what Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea etc. do anyway?
I mean every single one of the big clubs rigs the game with their money, so why is it "worse" that that money comes from a rich owner instead of selling replica shirts abroad, or getting more of the tv revenue than the smaller clubs?
The whole thing just smacks of complete hypocrisy to me, Chelsea did it for decades, Blackburn did it for a few seasons, Liverpool and United do it in all but name, and we're supposed to somehow think City have done the equivalent of a tonya harding?
Personally i'd take this all a lot more seriously if they actually did something about the obscene money that kills the game no matter where it came from, because i don't see any difference just because of the source of where it came from |
Not sure what's difficult to understand here but Man City broke the rules. There's no evidence, or even allegations that Liverpool, Man U or Arsenal did. They are completely different. Perhaps you don't like the rules but that's irrelevant here. What matters is who played according to the rules and who didn't.
Btw, it's highly unlikely that other big clubs would have done the same as City because they have no incentive to. The owners of those clubs are interested in making a profit. They have no interest in pouring hidden money into the clubs at a loss, as City did. The likes of Fenway Sports are successful businesses.
In contrast, City's owners are the Abu Dhabi royal family. They have no interest in making a profit from City. They want to use it to promote Abu Dhabi and the UAE. Their incentives are to make a loss on City in order to best promote the image of the UAE by winning competitions, and probably also enjoy their royal pet project. What else do you spend money on when you have it all? | | | |
| City Punishment on 14:17 - Sep 30 with 821 views | franniesTache |
| City Punishment on 13:59 - Sep 30 by Ifonly |
Not sure what's difficult to understand here but Man City broke the rules. There's no evidence, or even allegations that Liverpool, Man U or Arsenal did. They are completely different. Perhaps you don't like the rules but that's irrelevant here. What matters is who played according to the rules and who didn't.
Btw, it's highly unlikely that other big clubs would have done the same as City because they have no incentive to. The owners of those clubs are interested in making a profit. They have no interest in pouring hidden money into the clubs at a loss, as City did. The likes of Fenway Sports are successful businesses.
In contrast, City's owners are the Abu Dhabi royal family. They have no interest in making a profit from City. They want to use it to promote Abu Dhabi and the UAE. Their incentives are to make a loss on City in order to best promote the image of the UAE by winning competitions, and probably also enjoy their royal pet project. What else do you spend money on when you have it all? |
My point is the rule is arbitrary, the issue is the money, the rule was changed after it had been done by other clubs, mainly to stop the rich clubs being challenged.
Why is one way of getting obscene amounts of money in a club different to another? What's different in City spending £100m on a player funded by a state and Liverpool spending £100m on a player funded by overseas fans?
From a pure ethical perspective why is one "bad" and the other "good"?
my point is the issue isn't where the money came from, it's the money itself | | | |
| City Punishment on 14:26 - Sep 30 with 802 views | saintmark1976 |
| City Punishment on 14:17 - Sep 30 by franniesTache |
My point is the rule is arbitrary, the issue is the money, the rule was changed after it had been done by other clubs, mainly to stop the rich clubs being challenged.
Why is one way of getting obscene amounts of money in a club different to another? What's different in City spending £100m on a player funded by a state and Liverpool spending £100m on a player funded by overseas fans?
From a pure ethical perspective why is one "bad" and the other "good"?
my point is the issue isn't where the money came from, it's the money itself |
Good point franniesTache.
I’ve many more years behind me than ahead and I’ve learned that :-
Unfortunately, where there are people and money there is always corruption.
That doesn’t mean however that good people should not call out the corruption when they find it. | |
| |
| City Punishment on 14:29 - Sep 30 with 799 views | SaintNick |
| City Punishment on 13:24 - Sep 30 by franniesTache |
I know i'll be the outlier here but i do think people are massively over reacting about this.
Yes they broke the rules but is the upshot of them breaking the rules really any different to what Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea etc. do anyway?
I mean every single one of the big clubs rigs the game with their money, so why is it "worse" that that money comes from a rich owner instead of selling replica shirts abroad, or getting more of the tv revenue than the smaller clubs?
The whole thing just smacks of complete hypocrisy to me, Chelsea did it for decades, Blackburn did it for a few seasons, Liverpool and United do it in all but name, and we're supposed to somehow think City have done the equivalent of a tonya harding?
Personally i'd take this all a lot more seriously if they actually did something about the obscene money that kills the game no matter where it came from, because i don't see any difference just because of the source of where it came from |
I think the difference is that Liverpool, Man Utd & Arsenal etc have generated massive incomes outside of just playing games of football, they have developed world wide fanbases and milk them for all they can get.
Manchester City cannot generate the same level of income by a long chalk, they can't even sell out their own stadium | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| City Punishment on 14:45 - Sep 30 with 776 views | franniesTache |
| City Punishment on 14:29 - Sep 30 by SaintNick |
I think the difference is that Liverpool, Man Utd & Arsenal etc have generated massive incomes outside of just playing games of football, they have developed world wide fanbases and milk them for all they can get.
Manchester City cannot generate the same level of income by a long chalk, they can't even sell out their own stadium |
But surely getting a rich investor is still generating income? It's just that some body has decided that type of investment is bad and the other type is good.
It doesn't make a difference to me where that money comes from, the money itself is corrupt and rigs the game.
What's needed isn't relegating City for doing it "the wrong way", it's to put in place rules and changes that stop people doing it any way.
Football needs a complete reset, and simply banning state money isn't that. | | | |
| City Punishment on 14:53 - Sep 30 with 758 views | TripleNiemi |
| City Punishment on 14:29 - Sep 30 by SaintNick |
I think the difference is that Liverpool, Man Utd & Arsenal etc have generated massive incomes outside of just playing games of football, they have developed world wide fanbases and milk them for all they can get.
Manchester City cannot generate the same level of income by a long chalk, they can't even sell out their own stadium |
That reminds me, wonder how Ralph (Krueger) is getting on driving the Southampton FC brand Stateside........... |  |
| |
| City Punishment on 14:57 - Sep 30 with 753 views | dirk_doone |
Ironically, North American sports have sorted it out with their squad wage caps and draft recruitment system to create a level playing field for teams.
Although we can't have a college draft system here, we could do something similar and squad wage caps to be agreed by a majority of teams in a league would be possible. What it means in America is that teams have to share the best players fairly equally. [Post edited 30 Sep 15:00]
| |
| |
| City Punishment on 14:58 - Sep 30 with 749 views | Ifonly |
| City Punishment on 14:17 - Sep 30 by franniesTache |
My point is the rule is arbitrary, the issue is the money, the rule was changed after it had been done by other clubs, mainly to stop the rich clubs being challenged.
Why is one way of getting obscene amounts of money in a club different to another? What's different in City spending £100m on a player funded by a state and Liverpool spending £100m on a player funded by overseas fans?
From a pure ethical perspective why is one "bad" and the other "good"?
my point is the issue isn't where the money came from, it's the money itself |
It's a good question, but there's a difference between your examples. The main difference is that one is a sustainable, fan based business, and the other isn't.
You regard foreign fans as inferior, or plastic. I don't think that's fair, but either way, in business terms their money is as good as the money from local fans. Football is a business and Liverpool make money from the PL, which makes money from selling TV rights around the world. Those TV rights go for big money because the likes of Liverpool and Man U have millions of fans around the world. That's a sustainable model.
If China was allowed to buy 5 clubs like Doncaster Rovers and Yeovil and pour billions in so that they took over the PL, lots of bad things would happen. One is that the TV audiences would go down, so incomes go down. Another is that genuine businesses would stop investing in the PL. There would be no point to it. If China then walked away, the PL would have no business left at all. It's unsustainable.
I get your question, but if I was running the PL, I would also want it to be run on a sustainable basis, so I would want rules like the current ones. This sustainability is also the ethical choice because people's livelihoods are involved and you want an environment where people can invest and plan for the future with some degree of certainty. | | | |
| City Punishment on 15:06 - Sep 30 with 735 views | franniesTache |
| City Punishment on 14:58 - Sep 30 by Ifonly |
It's a good question, but there's a difference between your examples. The main difference is that one is a sustainable, fan based business, and the other isn't.
You regard foreign fans as inferior, or plastic. I don't think that's fair, but either way, in business terms their money is as good as the money from local fans. Football is a business and Liverpool make money from the PL, which makes money from selling TV rights around the world. Those TV rights go for big money because the likes of Liverpool and Man U have millions of fans around the world. That's a sustainable model.
If China was allowed to buy 5 clubs like Doncaster Rovers and Yeovil and pour billions in so that they took over the PL, lots of bad things would happen. One is that the TV audiences would go down, so incomes go down. Another is that genuine businesses would stop investing in the PL. There would be no point to it. If China then walked away, the PL would have no business left at all. It's unsustainable.
I get your question, but if I was running the PL, I would also want it to be run on a sustainable basis, so I would want rules like the current ones. This sustainability is also the ethical choice because people's livelihoods are involved and you want an environment where people can invest and plan for the future with some degree of certainty. |
Why would the tv revenue go down? People don't care about the name of the club if they're not from this country they care about the players and success, City were hardly a huge club before their buy out, did that affect the revenue of the premier league.
If Wrexham went up and were bought out by Elon Musk do you think tv ratings would drop? If Saints got bought by Jeff Bezos do you think the tv rights wouldn't sell?
And as for sustainable it's only unsustainable if they leave, City were bought out in 2008, that's 18 years they've been owners, and they're so rich City are a rounding error on their spreadsheet, why is that any less sustainable for them than reliance on tv rights or fans who are fickle because a club is a brand?
Don't get me wrong i hate all of it, i'm not arguing one is good and the other is bad, i think both are f*cking sh*t. But i'm not going to wring my hands in false shock and think City have brought anything into disrepute more than anyone else.
And i'm definitely not going to get angry because they've broken a technicality.
All anyone is getting angry about is that city have broken technicalities, they're all angry about the wrong thing.
You should instead be angry that clubs can go out and spend £1bn on players because there's no transfer cap.
You should be angry that clubs can spend £100m on wages because there's no wage cap.
You should be angry that academy players can be poached before they've played a game for the team that invested in them.
You should be angry that tv rights aren't fairly distributed, that gate receipts aren't shared.
You should be angry that clubs don't have a 50+1 model.
You should be angry that there's no football regulator.
But what do i know, i'm just a legacy fan | | | |
| City Punishment on 15:25 - Sep 30 with 705 views | 1885_SFC |
| City Punishment on 14:29 - Sep 30 by SaintNick |
I think the difference is that Liverpool, Man Utd & Arsenal etc have generated massive incomes outside of just playing games of football, they have developed world wide fanbases and milk them for all they can get.
Manchester City cannot generate the same level of income by a long chalk, they can't even sell out their own stadium |
"Manchester City cannot generate the same level of income by a long chalk, they can't even sell out their own stadium".
That's why City were found guilty of 114 out of 115 charges.
The one single charge they were found not to have broken is 'overcrowding'. |  |
| |
| City Punishment on 15:34 - Sep 30 with 687 views | Ifonly |
| City Punishment on 15:06 - Sep 30 by franniesTache |
Why would the tv revenue go down? People don't care about the name of the club if they're not from this country they care about the players and success, City were hardly a huge club before their buy out, did that affect the revenue of the premier league.
If Wrexham went up and were bought out by Elon Musk do you think tv ratings would drop? If Saints got bought by Jeff Bezos do you think the tv rights wouldn't sell?
And as for sustainable it's only unsustainable if they leave, City were bought out in 2008, that's 18 years they've been owners, and they're so rich City are a rounding error on their spreadsheet, why is that any less sustainable for them than reliance on tv rights or fans who are fickle because a club is a brand?
Don't get me wrong i hate all of it, i'm not arguing one is good and the other is bad, i think both are f*cking sh*t. But i'm not going to wring my hands in false shock and think City have brought anything into disrepute more than anyone else.
And i'm definitely not going to get angry because they've broken a technicality.
All anyone is getting angry about is that city have broken technicalities, they're all angry about the wrong thing.
You should instead be angry that clubs can go out and spend £1bn on players because there's no transfer cap.
You should be angry that clubs can spend £100m on wages because there's no wage cap.
You should be angry that academy players can be poached before they've played a game for the team that invested in them.
You should be angry that tv rights aren't fairly distributed, that gate receipts aren't shared.
You should be angry that clubs don't have a 50+1 model.
You should be angry that there's no football regulator.
But what do i know, i'm just a legacy fan |
- You think cheating is "a technicality". Fortunately the vast majority of people disagree with you. City deliberately set out to cheat on a massive scale and so deserve to be punished proportionately.
- The City model is unsustainable because they lose hundreds of millions of pounds on an ongoing basis. So, if the world stops burning oil, the royal family lose interest, or if there is a coup in the UAE, then they go bust in their current form.
- In contrast, Liverpool's is a sustainable model built on fans, which tend to be lifelong. But that sustainability would be threatened if there were lots of cheats like City.
- Doncaster v Yeovil will always attract a lower TV audience than Liverpool v Man U.
- You don't have the right to tell me what I "should" do, but I agree with you on some of the other issues in football. | | | |
| City Punishment on 15:58 - Sep 30 with 650 views | saints__fan__73 |
The PL make a TV product they sell around the world for billions. Why would they kick out their leading actor? It would only end up making their product less desirable. |  |
| |
| City Punishment on 19:36 - Sep 30 with 425 views | Butty101 |
I see Burnham 'really concerned' if Man City owners sell up after rule breaches
They are going to get off as they have Burnham in their pocket.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art | |
| |
| City Punishment on 21:27 - Sep 30 with 322 views | dirk_doone |
The Emiratis have enormous political and economic influence. Dubai is seen as the de facto capital of the Islamic World. If Britain upsets them, there will be consequences. If the other Arab nations back the Emiratis, those consequences will be even greater. You'd expect FIFA to back the Arab nations against the English Premier League every time.
Perhaps that's why the BBC has been taking a largely pro-Man City line in their reports. [Post edited 30 Sep 21:30]
| |
| |
| City Punishment on 21:55 - Sep 30 with 283 views | SaintNick |
| City Punishment on 21:27 - Sep 30 by dirk_doone |
The Emiratis have enormous political and economic influence. Dubai is seen as the de facto capital of the Islamic World. If Britain upsets them, there will be consequences. If the other Arab nations back the Emiratis, those consequences will be even greater. You'd expect FIFA to back the Arab nations against the English Premier League every time.
Perhaps that's why the BBC has been taking a largely pro-Man City line in their reports. [Post edited 30 Sep 21:30]
|
The only answer is to form a European super league so the big clubs can spend their millions how they want and it can all be broadcast live world wide.
Meanwhile back in England we will have the rebirth of a competitive league | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| City Punishment on 22:15 - Sep 30 with 268 views | dirk_doone |
| City Punishment on 21:55 - Sep 30 by SaintNick |
The only answer is to form a European super league so the big clubs can spend their millions how they want and it can all be broadcast live world wide.
Meanwhile back in England we will have the rebirth of a competitive league |
It is one possible way the Emiratis could punish the Premier League; by destroying it. If they can get the Qataris, Saudis and owners of the big clubs of Europe on board.
Right now, the people who run the Premier League will be feeling very nervous. [Post edited 30 Sep 22:20]
| |
| |
| City Punishment on 22:25 - Sep 30 with 251 views | SaintNick |
| City Punishment on 22:15 - Sep 30 by dirk_doone |
It is one possible way the Emiratis could punish the Premier League; by destroying it. If they can get the Qataris, Saudis and owners of the big clubs of Europe on board.
Right now, the people who run the Premier League will be feeling very nervous. [Post edited 30 Sep 22:20]
|
Yes and the rest of football will be feeling that we will get our game back | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.