Man City Found Guilty of 114 Charges

[SG]

League adamant wholesale fiddling of agreements and accounting.
City saying there a body of evidence to the contrary
They can't both be right. I wonder why City are so adamant or is it they need to keep up this pretence until after their appeal

Or could they have evidence ?

They've already had two years to provide that evidence and it seems that the evidence provided was insufficient or indeed possibly false. There can't be new evidence so it has to be down to interpretation of evidence provided already

[Jim©]

I think the fact that we wait until the last couple of days of the window to sign players, to save a few £ may mean that we're towing the line!
But then again, that makes me feel a bit cheated, playing by the rules, not spending too much, losing out on players because we can't stump up full payments in cash and losing points because our squad isn't complete until the last minute. Why is it different for them to assemble one of the world's top 5 most expensive squads.

We may even have won a point against them in the last 18 matches!!

[bill taylors apprentice]

A financial bloke on the Henry Winter podcast has run a spreadsheet, calculating the minimum amounts that other clubs can claim to have lost due to Man City's cheating. Basically every loss of a higher position in the table, every relegation that wouldn't have happened, every failure to qualify for Europe etc. He's come up with 600-700 million quid. That's a conservative estimate of what other clubs could sue City for, and doesn't include things like player's bonuses. He thinks that there should be a sort of class settlement between City and the League for an agreed figure (e.g. 700 mill) which would then be distributed to the affected clubs (about 30 of them).  That of course requires City to admit guilt. That's separate from any penalty such as points deduction or expulsion of course. Also requires other clubs to be prepared to settle for that. The likes of ManU might want a lot more.

It seems likely that City plan to fight this in the courts but maybe, just maybe the threat of a class action from the clubs affected will make them accept their punishment and bring this to a conclusion.

[The Old Count]

What astonished me is: did nobody suspect this was going on. It seemed bloody obvious to me that the 'sponsorship' deals at the time were on the swervy side
It was naiive of the authorities, to say the least, relying on the sportsmanlike and fair behaviour of the sort of people who seem to want to own football clubs these days.
(A notable exception being our current owners of course.)
I suspect Mr Al Fayed would have indulged in a little 'window dressing' if he had felt the need.

[FFC007]

200 point deduction over four seasons would give them a gruelling death into the national league.

50 points per season and a transfer ban for four years.

Oh and a £250m fine which is used for grass roots football and local community schemes across the EFL and national leagues to improve things, apart from City.

[FFC007]

What astonished me is: did nobody suspect this was going on. It seemed bloody obvious to me that the 'sponsorship' deals at the time were on the swervy side
It was naiive of the authorities, to say the least, relying on the sportsmanlike and fair behaviour of the sort of people who seem to want to own football clubs these days.
(A notable exception being our current owners of course.)
I suspect Mr Al Fayed would have indulged in a little 'window dressing' if he had felt the need.

Quite, although Al Fayed didn't spend the huge sums they did at the Emptyhad buying big trophies and European success.

[demeant0r]

What astonished me is: did nobody suspect this was going on. It seemed bloody obvious to me that the 'sponsorship' deals at the time were on the swervy side
It was naiive of the authorities, to say the least, relying on the sportsmanlike and fair behaviour of the sort of people who seem to want to own football clubs these days.
(A notable exception being our current owners of course.)
I suspect Mr Al Fayed would have indulged in a little 'window dressing' if he had felt the need.

Quite, although Al Fayed didn't spend the huge sums they did at the Emptyhad buying big trophies and European success.

Al Fayed also hasn't spent the hundreds of millions that our current owners have spent (mostly on the Riverside stand). Al Fayed was incredibly stingy compared to the Khans and we even sometimes consider the Khans a little stingy.

[Neutral Zone Ultra]

What astonished me is: did nobody suspect this was going on. It seemed bloody obvious to me that the 'sponsorship' deals at the time were on the swervy side
It was naiive of the authorities, to say the least, relying on the sportsmanlike and fair behaviour of the sort of people who seem to want to own football clubs these days.
(A notable exception being our current owners of course.)
I suspect Mr Al Fayed would have indulged in a little 'window dressing' if he had felt the need.

I think people did clock, but in terms of actually getting charged for it I imagine the PL would have wanted to make sure their case was watertight before going nuclear.

[Twig]

What astonished me is: did nobody suspect this was going on. It seemed bloody obvious to me that the 'sponsorship' deals at the time were on the swervy side
It was naiive of the authorities, to say the least, relying on the sportsmanlike and fair behaviour of the sort of people who seem to want to own football clubs these days.
(A notable exception being our current owners of course.)
I suspect Mr Al Fayed would have indulged in a little 'window dressing' if he had felt the need.

Quite, although Al Fayed didn't spend the huge sums they did at the Emptyhad buying big trophies and European success.

Al Fayed also hasn't spent the hundreds of millions that our current owners have spent (mostly on the Riverside stand). Al Fayed was incredibly stingy compared to the Khans and we even sometimes consider the Khans a little stingy.

Have to say that stingy is not a word I personally would use to describe our owners. Sometimes a bit misguided in their spending - perhaps. But stingy, no.

[john dempsey]

Swapping Bucket Hats for Collection Buckets.

[Somerset Fulham]

He is a football fan and also this country's current leader.  Of course he should have something to say about the biggest scandal (forget Juventus, that is peanuts) to ever affect the game.

This will be talked about for absolutely decades, if not more.

[St Eve]

I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure other big spenders like Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal are breaking the rules as well. Clearly Chelsea were and because they were "cooperative " they got a rap over the knuckles.

[RaySmith]

I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure other big spenders like Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal are breaking the rules as well. Clearly Chelsea were and because they were "cooperative " they got a rap over the knuckles.

Don't know that other clubs have done it in the same vast scale that City seem to have done. City are owned by a nation state, who have other reasons  for owning an English Prem football club than just  making money, and also have huge resources.

But, as Danny Murphy pointed out on Talk Sport, articulating my own thoughts,  the top clubs have always been the wealthiest, with the best, most expensive players, and it has never been an equal playing field, when the likes of Fulham - who FFP has maybe held back in  getting the top, most expensive players,face a Liverpool or Man U, and in recent years, thanks to the Saudi money, Man City.

I don't think a nation state should be allowed to own a  English  Prem club in the first place.

[sarnian]

I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure other big spenders like Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal are breaking the rules as well. Clearly Chelsea were and because they were "cooperative " they got a rap over the knuckles.

What's the chances of the iceberg melting away. Have a feeling the Premier League don't want their golden egg tarnished and are deliberately leaking confidential information to give City ammunition to take them to court and overturn any accusations of guilt.

[The Rock]

What astonished me is: did nobody suspect this was going on. It seemed bloody obvious to me that the 'sponsorship' deals at the time were on the swervy side
It was naiive of the authorities, to say the least, relying on the sportsmanlike and fair behaviour of the sort of people who seem to want to own football clubs these days.
(A notable exception being our current owners of course.)
I suspect Mr Al Fayed would have indulged in a little 'window dressing' if he had felt the need.

Yeah, but it's fixed and we're naive to think otherwise.

There in lies the "rub"