comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 2 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 41 minutes ago

Challenging whether a regulation is valid within the law (which I doubt city will win anyway) is hardly a way of circumvention.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

How is it not? Do companies sue HMRC if they change tax laws to stop loopholes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How are you thinking that’s a comparable? Are you saying you think the premier league has the same power as the government and can implement laws?!

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 25 minutes ago
Going full circle to Jimmy Hill.

Its illegal. That's the issue with price caps. FFP/PSR at least legal. Man City even want to break that to instil chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh? No they don’t, they’re challenging the rules around associated party transactions, they’re not challenging FFP or PSR. They’re both good things for City.

If the APT rules are legal then they’ll stay in place. If they’re not then they’ll be rightly changed to ones that are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
One could argue that they're only good things NOW, after allegedly cheating to get where they are. Had they not 'cheated' they wouldn't be good things.

comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - confident for Southgate’s nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 3 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face, proud owner of the 100k comment, fack you Michael Edward’s and your 5m, th (U19119)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - confident for Southgate’s nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 6 minutes ago
I think one of the issues is how Man City have dominated, making it feel as if it's boring. The lack of competition is boring. Even in Fergie's most dominating days, Utd did not feel unbeatable like Pep's Man City do. And that's the real issue for me, especially because of the financial cheating that's gone on to maintain that. Is it a shock that they are suing the Premier League to force the Premier League to allow them to continue to cheat? That's devaluing the competition. This was the danger of allowing nations to buy football clubs. They aren't used to the idea of fairness in the Middle East or in the Oligarch community.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t blame Man City for this and don’t think the club and fans should be punished.

Instead, blame the lily livered powers that be that always just roll over for a few dollars rather than maintaining a healthy game.

Europes broke - the old adage that the Prem could not compete with Salary and transfer caps anymore is absolute bollox. If we set a transfer limit (regardless of sales) of £100m every year - 99% of the continent can’t get near that and the likes of Real would happily spend less I would imagine.

The lack of appetite to fix the game at the upper echelons of government speaks volumes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. The PL can only blame itself for its rampant greed, this was all self inflicted. City shouldn’t be charged, as it’s brought on by the league itself. The whole thing needs ripped up, independent regulator, no club say at all. Salary caps all round
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely - do that, the clubs make more money but operate in a market where they don’t have to spend it all. The players might not like it, but they won’t have anywhere to go - they won’t go to Saudi for the same reason they won’t go now with vastly more money available and most will be content with £100k plus a week.

The game will become less about squad building and more about systems and style.

The Prem won’t have to prove anything against City or any of the other clubs - it can just enforce the transfer limit and automatically demote sides that break it - which will be easy to monitor as it’s black and white.

They won’t though - we will instead have the same bullschitt for the next 5 years at least
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called the MLS!

Actually, even the MLS has fckd it somewhat with designated players and what not but way more regulated to set up, financial rules and monitoring of sustainability, all salaries published etc.

I've been arguing on here for years that European franchising is the way to go - to expand the overall market and not have massive teams in small countries literally disenfranchised. Of course all that is not in the interests of the too powerful legacy clubs from big countries so for it to happen needs UEFA to change or be kicked out, for borders to be abolished, for power to be transferred.

All this is what the super league should have been, could have been. There's still a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

American sports is radically different with a very different history, and doesn't compete with other countries. Franchising would destroy the European football pyramid and its traditions. I don't see how that would work.

I don't buy that a team like City have any insurmountable advantages over their rivals. There is not a single player that City can buy that the likes of Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal can''t. Not one single one. Having the best manager in the league is what has been decisive in their dominance - little different from so-called "dynasties" in American sports like the NFL and NBA.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
No way Liverpool could have bought Haaland. There were extremely high payouts not even excluding the transfer fee.

There are declared fees by City and according to Pinto a lot of unknown payments. Pep's brother is a part owner of football club with City. It all stinks to high heaven.

comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 25 minutes ago
Going full circle to Jimmy Hill.

Its illegal. That's the issue with price caps. FFP/PSR at least legal. Man City even want to break that to instil chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh? No they don’t, they’re challenging the rules around associated party transactions, they’re not challenging FFP or PSR. They’re both good things for City.

If the APT rules are legal then they’ll stay in place. If they’re not then they’ll be rightly changed to ones that are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
One could argue that they're only good things NOW, after allegedly cheating to get where they are. Had they not 'cheated' they wouldn't be good things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite, it would have been a good thing now regardless of whether they are guilty of the allegations or not.

Really? Man City revenue is over £700m. How much is their brand worth? What would it have been if they had not cheated. That all impacts PSR and FFP!

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 25 minutes ago
Going full circle to Jimmy Hill.

Its illegal. That's the issue with price caps. FFP/PSR at least legal. Man City even want to break that to instil chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh? No they don’t, they’re challenging the rules around associated party transactions, they’re not challenging FFP or PSR. They’re both good things for City.

If the APT rules are legal then they’ll stay in place. If they’re not then they’ll be rightly changed to ones that are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
One could argue that they're only good things NOW, after allegedly cheating to get where they are. Had they not 'cheated' they wouldn't be good things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite, it would have been a good thing now regardless of whether they are guilty of the allegations or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes it would but that's not what I'm saying. They would already have cheated and already are reaping the benefits.

What I'm saying is if they hadn't cheated, they would have found it more difficult to get where they got to and therefore it may not have been good for them currently. Obviously with FFP if you are already there, it benefits you as other clubs find it difficult to catch up.

comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 25 minutes ago
Going full circle to Jimmy Hill.

Its illegal. That's the issue with price caps. FFP/PSR at least legal. Man City even want to break that to instil chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh? No they don’t, they’re challenging the rules around associated party transactions, they’re not challenging FFP or PSR. They’re both good things for City.

If the APT rules are legal then they’ll stay in place. If they’re not then they’ll be rightly changed to ones that are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
One could argue that they're only good things NOW, after allegedly cheating to get where they are. Had they not 'cheated' they wouldn't be good things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite, it would have been a good thing now regardless of whether they are guilty of the allegations or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes it would but that's not what I'm saying. They would already have cheated and already are reaping the benefits.

What I'm saying is if they hadn't cheated, they would have found it more difficult to get where they got to and therefore it may not have been good for them currently. Obviously with FFP if you are already there, it benefits you as other clubs find it difficult to catch up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I know and I’m disagreeing with you. I don’t think any of the allegations would have benefitted city enough to have impacted ffp.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 25 minutes ago
Going full circle to Jimmy Hill.

Its illegal. That's the issue with price caps. FFP/PSR at least legal. Man City even want to break that to instil chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh? No they don’t, they’re challenging the rules around associated party transactions, they’re not challenging FFP or PSR. They’re both good things for City.

If the APT rules are legal then they’ll stay in place. If they’re not then they’ll be rightly changed to ones that are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
One could argue that they're only good things NOW, after allegedly cheating to get where they are. Had they not 'cheated' they wouldn't be good things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite, it would have been a good thing now regardless of whether they are guilty of the allegations or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes it would but that's not what I'm saying. They would already have cheated and already are reaping the benefits.

What I'm saying is if they hadn't cheated, they would have found it more difficult to get where they got to and therefore it may not have been good for them currently. Obviously with FFP if you are already there, it benefits you as other clubs find it difficult to catch up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I know and I’m disagreeing with you. I don’t think any of the allegations would have benefitted city enough to have impacted ffp.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case I would ask why they did it then?

comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 25 minutes ago
Going full circle to Jimmy Hill.

Its illegal. That's the issue with price caps. FFP/PSR at least legal. Man City even want to break that to instil chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh? No they don’t, they’re challenging the rules around associated party transactions, they’re not challenging FFP or PSR. They’re both good things for City.

If the APT rules are legal then they’ll stay in place. If they’re not then they’ll be rightly changed to ones that are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
One could argue that they're only good things NOW, after allegedly cheating to get where they are. Had they not 'cheated' they wouldn't be good things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite, it would have been a good thing now regardless of whether they are guilty of the allegations or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes it would but that's not what I'm saying. They would already have cheated and already are reaping the benefits.

What I'm saying is if they hadn't cheated, they would have found it more difficult to get where they got to and therefore it may not have been good for them currently. Obviously with FFP if you are already there, it benefits you as other clubs find it difficult to catch up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I know and I’m disagreeing with you. I don’t think any of the allegations would have benefitted city enough to have impacted ffp.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case I would ask why they did it then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well they said they didn’t! What one are you talking about specifically?

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 25 minutes ago
Going full circle to Jimmy Hill.

Its illegal. That's the issue with price caps. FFP/PSR at least legal. Man City even want to break that to instil chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh? No they don’t, they’re challenging the rules around associated party transactions, they’re not challenging FFP or PSR. They’re both good things for City.

If the APT rules are legal then they’ll stay in place. If they’re not then they’ll be rightly changed to ones that are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
One could argue that they're only good things NOW, after allegedly cheating to get where they are. Had they not 'cheated' they wouldn't be good things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite, it would have been a good thing now regardless of whether they are guilty of the allegations or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes it would but that's not what I'm saying. They would already have cheated and already are reaping the benefits.

What I'm saying is if they hadn't cheated, they would have found it more difficult to get where they got to and therefore it may not have been good for them currently. Obviously with FFP if you are already there, it benefits you as other clubs find it difficult to catch up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I know and I’m disagreeing with you. I don’t think any of the allegations would have benefitted city enough to have impacted ffp.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case I would ask why they did it then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well they said they didn’t! What one are you talking about specifically?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but if we hypothetically assume they did, why?

I'm not talking specifically but to narrow it down(again lets assume theyre guilty):-

1. Why did they provide inaccurate financial records?
2. Why did they provide inaccurate details for player and manager payments?
3. Why did they not cooperate with the investigation?

Surely the whole point of one and two is to get around FFP rules?

Surely the whole point of three is to attempt to conceal this?

Well the main allegation that would have had a material impact on revenue is the disguised equity via Etihad. If they did that then the main benefit would be to Etihad themselves, there’d have been no logical reason for them to do it for City’s benefit given the contract.

On the player and manager payments, the player ones are linked to image rights and United did a similar thing (and are under investigation by HMRC about it). There’s a benefit to the individuals and I don’t think the amount being talked about is enough for it to have materially influenced ffp.

Cash availability I suppose could be one with the Etihad one too.