Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Manchester City’s 115 charges and legal action - Premier League statement p9
Comments
-
-
This would be the dream scenario as long as they weren't put in the Championship. Stick them in L2 with pretty much an academy side because of a transfer ban.DA9 said:Expel them from the PL, then an agreement with the EFL that they start off the next season -40 points in whatever division they are in, then a £250m+ fine evenly distributed between every single club they played in any first team match from when the Arabs took over. (Not every single PL fixture, i.e. Arsenal get 1 payment, Leyton Orient who played them in the FA cup last year get 1 payment) and so on going right back to September 2008 when the owners took over.6 -
I think you’ve missed out the biggest reason they don’t want to kick out City. They don’t want to set a precedent that wrongdoing will result in expulsion. They don’t want to risk it for themselves in futurecafctom said:
A fairly rude way of saying you’ve got a different opinion, but I’ll let you off and will offer some more context behind my argument:SE7_Red said:
I think that's also complete horse****cafctom said:PL execs have apparently already said (anonymously) to a journalist on Sky that they don’t want Man City expelled from the league (or even relegated any time soon). This is all because the commercial loss to the league for losing one of the big 6 is too much for them to stomach.
So there you have it. What’s morally right for the game and the league is not top of their agenda whatsoever. It’s all about commercial revenue.This is what I think will ensure that whatever City’s sanction, it won’t be some terminal punishment that will send them into the abyss forever. Their brand is too big, and nobody is filling their spot any time soon.
People aren't going to watch / buy merchandise for the premier league because Citeh aren't in it?
Complete b*****s....their fan base in the UK is tiny compared to the other "big" clubs and are people seriously suggesting that overseas fans and broadcasters in general won't be as interested in the premier league if there's "only" Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal etc in it?
If Citeh get kicked out, the other clubs will capture their overseas fans and the amount of actual UK fans make little difference - they don't even sell out their stadium
- As stated already, PL executives have already started making noises about the concern they’d have about expelling them from the league altogether. Are they talking “horse-shit”? Even though they’d have the possibility of voting to completely wipe out a rival, they’d be worried about actually doing it.
- If City instantly leave the league, the amount of blockbuster big 6 games that happen immediately drops by ~15-20%. At no point did I say people will “stop watching”, but losing Man City definitely hurts the league from a TV perspective rather than assists it. A prime-time airing of Man City vs Arsenal is a far bigger deal than Aston Villa/Sunderland/Leeds vs Arsenal, especially to the overseas viewing public.
- The smaller clubs who have made the PL like Hull, Brentford, Brighton and Coventry. To them, Man City home or away is one of the golden ticket fixtures for the revenue it brings on the day or via TV. For them to vote against having that option in the short term (when their PL place is by no means guaranteed long term) would cost them money.
- A big (and successful) part of Premier League marketing is not just about clubs, but about individual players. Man City currently boast the likes of Haaland and Foden. That might not matter to the sort of fan that posts on Championship message boards like this, but a lot of younger fans getting into the game will actively follow star players.All in all, if booting City out the league immediately was something clubs would love to do - then they’d be pushing for it. As it stands so far, they aren’t so keen. That tells you all you need to know. And it’s nothing about ‘integrity’ or upholding the traditions of the pyramid or any of that stuff that frankly went out the window years ago. It’s purely about short and long term commercial benefit.5 -
Possibly. But so far their argument is lead by the commercial concerns.fenaddick said:
I think you’ve missed out the biggest reason they don’t want to kick out City. They don’t want to set a precedent that wrongdoing will result in expulsion. They don’t want to risk it for themselves in futurecafctom said:
A fairly rude way of saying you’ve got a different opinion, but I’ll let you off and will offer some more context behind my argument:SE7_Red said:
I think that's also complete horse****cafctom said:PL execs have apparently already said (anonymously) to a journalist on Sky that they don’t want Man City expelled from the league (or even relegated any time soon). This is all because the commercial loss to the league for losing one of the big 6 is too much for them to stomach.
So there you have it. What’s morally right for the game and the league is not top of their agenda whatsoever. It’s all about commercial revenue.This is what I think will ensure that whatever City’s sanction, it won’t be some terminal punishment that will send them into the abyss forever. Their brand is too big, and nobody is filling their spot any time soon.
People aren't going to watch / buy merchandise for the premier league because Citeh aren't in it?
Complete b*****s....their fan base in the UK is tiny compared to the other "big" clubs and are people seriously suggesting that overseas fans and broadcasters in general won't be as interested in the premier league if there's "only" Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal etc in it?
If Citeh get kicked out, the other clubs will capture their overseas fans and the amount of actual UK fans make little difference - they don't even sell out their stadium
- As stated already, PL executives have already started making noises about the concern they’d have about expelling them from the league altogether. Are they talking “horse-shit”? Even though they’d have the possibility of voting to completely wipe out a rival, they’d be worried about actually doing it.
- If City instantly leave the league, the amount of blockbuster big 6 games that happen immediately drops by ~15-20%. At no point did I say people will “stop watching”, but losing Man City definitely hurts the league from a TV perspective rather than assists it. A prime-time airing of Man City vs Arsenal is a far bigger deal than Aston Villa/Sunderland/Leeds vs Arsenal, especially to the overseas viewing public.
- The smaller clubs who have made the PL like Hull, Brentford, Brighton and Coventry. To them, Man City home or away is one of the golden ticket fixtures for the revenue it brings on the day or via TV. For them to vote against having that option in the short term (when their PL place is by no means guaranteed long term) would cost them money.
- A big (and successful) part of Premier League marketing is not just about clubs, but about individual players. Man City currently boast the likes of Haaland and Foden. That might not matter to the sort of fan that posts on Championship message boards like this, but a lot of younger fans getting into the game will actively follow star players.All in all, if booting City out the league immediately was something clubs would love to do - then they’d be pushing for it. As it stands so far, they aren’t so keen. That tells you all you need to know. And it’s nothing about ‘integrity’ or upholding the traditions of the pyramid or any of that stuff that frankly went out the window years ago. It’s purely about short and long term commercial benefit.And whilst I don’t disagree that they’ll be thinking about their own clubs and how they’ve behaved in light of all this, they’d really have to go some way to getting anywhere near the gravity of what City have been found guilty for.2 -
The controversial Burnham quote comes from an interview with Chris Mason of the BBC.
It is worth quoting his original answer in full.
"Well, I would be really concerned to lose them. They've been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester. Obviously, the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is.
"I can't intervene more in the process. It would be wrong for me to do that. It would be wrong, I think, to jump to a conclusion before having really studied all of the detail, but obviously it's ongoing, and because it's still contested by Manchester City, then I think it's right that I don't say much more."
5 -
They say it is, but they’re never going to say they’re worried about precedent.cafctom said:
Possibly. But so far their argument is lead by the commercial concerns.fenaddick said:
I think you’ve missed out the biggest reason they don’t want to kick out City. They don’t want to set a precedent that wrongdoing will result in expulsion. They don’t want to risk it for themselves in futurecafctom said:
A fairly rude way of saying you’ve got a different opinion, but I’ll let you off and will offer some more context behind my argument:SE7_Red said:
I think that's also complete horse****cafctom said:PL execs have apparently already said (anonymously) to a journalist on Sky that they don’t want Man City expelled from the league (or even relegated any time soon). This is all because the commercial loss to the league for losing one of the big 6 is too much for them to stomach.
So there you have it. What’s morally right for the game and the league is not top of their agenda whatsoever. It’s all about commercial revenue.This is what I think will ensure that whatever City’s sanction, it won’t be some terminal punishment that will send them into the abyss forever. Their brand is too big, and nobody is filling their spot any time soon.
People aren't going to watch / buy merchandise for the premier league because Citeh aren't in it?
Complete b*****s....their fan base in the UK is tiny compared to the other "big" clubs and are people seriously suggesting that overseas fans and broadcasters in general won't be as interested in the premier league if there's "only" Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal etc in it?
If Citeh get kicked out, the other clubs will capture their overseas fans and the amount of actual UK fans make little difference - they don't even sell out their stadium
- As stated already, PL executives have already started making noises about the concern they’d have about expelling them from the league altogether. Are they talking “horse-shit”? Even though they’d have the possibility of voting to completely wipe out a rival, they’d be worried about actually doing it.
- If City instantly leave the league, the amount of blockbuster big 6 games that happen immediately drops by ~15-20%. At no point did I say people will “stop watching”, but losing Man City definitely hurts the league from a TV perspective rather than assists it. A prime-time airing of Man City vs Arsenal is a far bigger deal than Aston Villa/Sunderland/Leeds vs Arsenal, especially to the overseas viewing public.
- The smaller clubs who have made the PL like Hull, Brentford, Brighton and Coventry. To them, Man City home or away is one of the golden ticket fixtures for the revenue it brings on the day or via TV. For them to vote against having that option in the short term (when their PL place is by no means guaranteed long term) would cost them money.
- A big (and successful) part of Premier League marketing is not just about clubs, but about individual players. Man City currently boast the likes of Haaland and Foden. That might not matter to the sort of fan that posts on Championship message boards like this, but a lot of younger fans getting into the game will actively follow star players.All in all, if booting City out the league immediately was something clubs would love to do - then they’d be pushing for it. As it stands so far, they aren’t so keen. That tells you all you need to know. And it’s nothing about ‘integrity’ or upholding the traditions of the pyramid or any of that stuff that frankly went out the window years ago. It’s purely about short and long term commercial benefit.And whilst I don’t disagree that they’ll be thinking about their own clubs and how they’ve behaved in light of all this, they’d really have to go some way to getting anywhere near the gravity of what City have been found guilty for.
I agree they’d have to go some way to risk it themselves but I guess it’s a harder sell when you want to shift the club if there’s precedent for a team as big as City being kicked out1 -
Dubai would probably have something to say about that.PragueAddick said:
Thanks, you saved me making that point, I'll add that most of that investment dates back to long before Burnham became mayor of Manchester, he inherited the whole thing. While I was working on that Olympic Stadium campaign, somebody fixed me up with a telephone call to somebody fairly high up in the council, who was able to assist me in understanding the deal between the city and the council regarding the stadium (which was already a stark comparator with the London deal). I was quite taken aback by some of the things he told me. The figure for Mansour's investment in the city, as opposed to the club, already stood at £900mil. and included a whole new tram line.killerandflash said:I'm sure Burnham is slightly conflicted, as with his former Mayor of Greater Manchester hat on, City and their owners have been very good for Manchester. Vast amounts of investment in and around the Etihad Complex, including the 20k Coop Arena.
I imagine that in his previous job, he spent lots of time schmoozing with City's owners...
At first sight, I didn't much like Burnham's statement either, but he's a new PM. Even though he's probably easily the most authentic football fan who's ever made it to Prime Minister, he still has to focus onr the broader interests of the country as a whole. Abu Dhabi is basically a country being dragged into a war started by a country with whom we are supposed to have a special relationship. At this stage, nobody knows who in that operation instigated all this blatant cheating. Of course, the " fish rots from the head" rule applies to City just as it does to any other company, but I wouldn't be surprised if the main culprits turn out to be very British. Plenty such types were more than ready to take Abramovic's rouble in furtherance of Chelsea's bid for football supremacy.0 -
It's not the big 6 anyway, it's the big 4, plus Spurs who hilariously ride on those coattails despite winning absolutely fuck all in the Premier League era, and Man City who bought their way to the big table.
All 18 of City's trophies are post takeover
2 -
Manchester City lodge appeal
Manchester City Football Club can confirm that at 7pm on Thursday 1st October 2026 the Club lodged its comprehensive Appeal against the opinion of the Premier League Commission, in relation to the Premier League disciplinary matter.The Club’s firm position is that, on multiple grounds, the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe.
The Club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case.
We will continue to respect due process and are necessarily restricted in what we can say further until all proceedings are complete.
https://www.mancity.com/news/club/manchester-city-lodge-appeal-63926534
7 -
The continued use of the word “opinion” by City is a disgrace. They can disagree with the legal verdict all they like but it isn’t an opinion and they know it, it’s all a PR attempt to manipulate their fans.
It might sound like semantics to some but these words are important and carefully chosen.6 -
Sponsored links:
-
Quite a few people have said they don't think it's fair to comment while City contests it. But the club is officially guilty. This isn't an allegation anymore. Nobody has to qualify their opinion. City's claim of innocence is based on an argument that the committee already dealt with. The 'irrefutable evidence' City intends to supply supports an argument that the committee rejected during the investigatoin.jose said:The controversial Burnham quote comes from an interview with Chris Mason of the BBC.It is worth quoting his original answer in full.
"Well, I would be really concerned to lose them. They've been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester. Obviously, the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is.
"I can't intervene more in the process. It would be wrong for me to do that. It would be wrong, I think, to jump to a conclusion before having really studied all of the detail, but obviously it's ongoing, and because it's still contested by Manchester City, then I think it's right that I don't say much more."
"We concluded that it was an 'explanation' that the club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme."
So Burnham, like everyone else, should feel entirely comfortable condemning the actions of the club.1 -
City cheated and were caught - simply
they should be thrown out of the Prem and apply to join the EFL at its lowest level.3 -
The rudeness isn't directed at you - it was a response to the arguments put forward by those executives you quoted and the pundits like O Hara who are all over the airwaves with similar arguments that the Premier League suddenly becomes like the Scottish premiership with no Man City in there -> apologies if that wasn't clear. I'm not in the place to be rude to fellow posters.cafctom said:
A fairly rude way of saying you’ve got a different opinion, but I’ll let you off and will offer some more context behind my argument:SE7_Red said:
I think that's also complete horse****cafctom said:PL execs have apparently already said (anonymously) to a journalist on Sky that they don’t want Man City expelled from the league (or even relegated any time soon). This is all because the commercial loss to the league for losing one of the big 6 is too much for them to stomach.
So there you have it. What’s morally right for the game and the league is not top of their agenda whatsoever. It’s all about commercial revenue.This is what I think will ensure that whatever City’s sanction, it won’t be some terminal punishment that will send them into the abyss forever. Their brand is too big, and nobody is filling their spot any time soon.
People aren't going to watch / buy merchandise for the premier league because Citeh aren't in it?
Complete b*****s....their fan base in the UK is tiny compared to the other "big" clubs and are people seriously suggesting that overseas fans and broadcasters in general won't be as interested in the premier league if there's "only" Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal etc in it?
If Citeh get kicked out, the other clubs will capture their overseas fans and the amount of actual UK fans make little difference - they don't even sell out their stadium
- As stated already, PL executives have already started making noises about the concern they’d have about expelling them from the league altogether. Are they talking “horse-shit”? Even though they’d have the possibility of voting to completely wipe out a rival, they’d be worried about actually doing it.
- If City instantly leave the league, the amount of blockbuster big 6 games that happen immediately drops by ~15-20%. At no point did I say people will “stop watching”, but losing Man City definitely hurts the league from a TV perspective rather than assists it. A prime-time airing of Man City vs Arsenal is a far bigger deal than Aston Villa/Sunderland/Leeds vs Arsenal, especially to the overseas viewing public.
- The smaller clubs who have made the PL like Hull, Brentford, Brighton and Coventry. To them, Man City home or away is one of the golden ticket fixtures for the revenue it brings on the day or via TV. For them to vote against having that option in the short term (when their PL place is by no means guaranteed long term) would cost them money.
- A big (and successful) part of Premier League marketing is not just about clubs, but about individual players. Man City currently boast the likes of Haaland and Foden. That might not matter to the sort of fan that posts on Championship message boards like this, but a lot of younger fans getting into the game will actively follow star players.All in all, if booting City out the league immediately was something clubs would love to do - then they’d be pushing for it. As it stands so far, they aren’t so keen. That tells you all you need to know. And it’s nothing about ‘integrity’ or upholding the traditions of the pyramid or any of that stuff that frankly went out the window years ago. It’s purely about short and long term commercial benefit.
But yes, I think those execs are talking horseshit. Sure, they may lose out a little from having to price the replacement Man Citeh game from a Category A to a Category C but as a % of revenue they generate over a season it's a tiny fraction.
Replace Man City with a West Ham next year and those home games at Coventry / Hull / Brentford will still sell out. I'd be stunned if the amount broadcasters aren't willing to pay as much in the next bidding process for broadcasting rights as a result of Citeh not being in it.
A lot of execs are very pally with each other and probably have decent business relationships with the Citeh owners off the pitch and like things how it is. They are just scaremongering at the moment IMO. The premier league has been the biggest and most commercially successful league for decades - and that's before Man City even became a thing.
3 -
Although I don't want anybody getting away with tax they should have paid, the sums talked about are relatively small. HMRC getting involved would drag the process on for a long time, probably years. It is doubtful the PL could take action before this was completed. Personally I would hope for a speedy resolution.letthegoodtimesroll said:
In case it’s not been mentioned, Treasury Committee has asked HMRC whether it’s requested the redacted documents in the Commissions report.1 -
I wonder how the broadcasters feel about this. The Premier League as a brand is now seriously damaged. When the next round of contract talks come around, they may be more inclined to play hardball.0
-
jose said:
I have heard this too.killerandflash said:I'm sure Burnham is slightly conflicted, as with his former Mayor of Greater Manchester hat on, City and their owners have been very good for Manchester. Vast amounts of investment in and around the Etihad Complex, including the 20k Coop Arena.
I imagine that in his previous job, he spent lots of time schmoozing with City's owners...
About how the Manchester City ownership have extended largesse in various forms beyond the football into the city, particularly the Rusholme area I believe.
They are certainly not the only football entity that has extended in a positive way into their local community. They are not a special case in this regard.
The Charlton Athletic Community Trust (CACT) is encouraged and commissioned by Greenwich Council to run it's own community services, not all of them but (to quote) 'while they do not manage every single public community service, they are commissioned heavily by the local council and the NHS to deliver several of the borough’s flagship community initiatives'.
It is easy to research how much our club contributes to positive aspects of our community, and the enterprise receives regular national recognition and awards.
I feel sure that we're not the only club in English football that does such work, I feel sure that Manchester City are also not the only one, or by some measures not even the 'best' one.
So in short bollocks to any suggestion that Manchester City should be given a pass in this regard. If (god forbid) Charlton Athletic got involved in any points deduction shenanigans they wouldn't be let off because of the good work of CACT.
The problem with foreign investment, in any way, is that it is done for the benefit of the investor - Abramovich and the Russians in property, then the chinese, the Arabs, the French in our utilities etc etc - taking back control as Burnham said means getting back in control of our companies, public services and yes, our football clubs - we’ve sold everything to anyone for a quick fix - those anyone’s might if we are lucky, pay some tax but we are missing out on all the profit - both financial and social profit - the premier league is an international league played in this country - like wenger - so he can pipe down - most of the wages will be being played into off shore accounts - what does our country get out of the premier league financially ? A bit of employment maybe. Burnham knows the city owners have invested in Manchester so he acknowledges it is a problem if they pull the plug, he didn’t say he backs the city owners if they have cheated. Those who were supposed to be monitoring / auditing the roles are also guilty of incompetence at best. The whole world knows Chelsea and then city have well overspent their revenue - how did the authorities not ? Turning a blind eye rather than proper auditing2 -
If City are kicked out the Premier League they would push for a super league and it may not just be a European Super league this time.
There is no way the Abu Dhabi leaders will ever accept they have done any misdemeanors let alone 114 dodgy dealings.
It's just not in their DNA to admit any wrongdoing and they are convinced they have just used loopholes to circumvent the rules.
UAE and Saudi Arabia like sports washing but that is a western view and they are adamant they are innocent of all charges.1 -
Let them go and whoever else wants to go with them - they will soon realise playing in empty stadiums and travelling thousands of miles for away games won’t work - let the Championship become our top league and f&&k the rest off - it’s our history, crowds and passion that makes the spectacle, not the foreign ownerssoapboxsam said:If City are kicked out the Premier League they would push for a super league and it may not just be a European Super league this time.
There is no way the Abu Dhabi leaders will ever accept they have done any misdemeanors let alone 114 dodgy dealings.
It's just not in their DNA to admit any wrongdoing and they are convinced they have just used loopholes to circumvent the rules.
UAE and Saudi Arabia like sports washing but that is a western view and they are adamant they are innocent of all charges.8 -
This is just gonna drag on and on, and wouldn't bet against them still being in the Prem at the start of next season with no punishment announced, the appeal decision won't be decided until the new year at the earliest...1
-
Tottenham would bite their hand off for a place now...DOUCHER said:
Let them go and whoever else wants to go with them - they will soon realise playing in empty stadiums and travelling thousands of miles for away games won’t work - let the Championship become our top league and f&&k the rest off - it’s our history, crowds and passion that makes the spectacle, not the foreign ownerssoapboxsam said:If City are kicked out the Premier League they would push for a super league and it may not just be a European Super league this time.
There is no way the Abu Dhabi leaders will ever accept they have done any misdemeanors let alone 114 dodgy dealings.
It's just not in their DNA to admit any wrongdoing and they are convinced they have just used loopholes to circumvent the rules.
UAE and Saudi Arabia like sports washing but that is a western view and they are adamant they are innocent of all charges.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I'm not taking too much notice of what some PL CEOs are supposed to have told Sky, for two reasons.
1. The PL don't get to decide the punishment, the Commission will. (Or so I understood from Kieran Maguire on the Price of Football. And if that isn't the case, I misheard him, but I don't think so. And he knows his stuff)
2. (and he was pointing this out) when it comes to punishments there are clubs in the PL who have been punished for misdemeanours which set a benchmark. E.g. Everton, Andy Burnham's club. And if City don't get a punishment which stacks up against theirs in a way that looks just, they will be kicking off big -time, possibly via their lawyers.
A third reason is that from what I have seen the press reaction to the findings has been very hostile towards City. There will be some apologists, and I'm sure Sky will be first in line, you know, like that fine upstanding airline Etihad🤣 but it looks like many have up to now simply not taken a close enough look at what was happening and have been shocked into re-appraising their position.4 -
Do we have a claim against them I wonder? If they had not over spent, they could have been relegated. If they had been related they may not have been in a position to loan out so many players.
If they had not been in a position to loan out so many players we may not have had to ensure Tedic, Fiorini, Rassak and probably some others long forgotten.
Should be millions in compensation for that emotional pain.7 -
I really really really don't understand the stance of those that have said 'but look what they've done for Manchester!'.
Yes, they've built a new Co-op Arena and created some new jobs etc, but they have built it literally using the fraudulent funds of a State.
Pablo Escobar apparently did wonders for the Colombian lower class, but it still doesn't make the assassinations and bombings any less of a horrendous crime (not comparing mass murder to to a sheikh having deep pockets, but the double standards are mental).7 -
Agreed - even more shocking is that we have to rely on foreign investment to provide facilities for our cities.WiganAddick said:I really really really don't understand the stance of those that have said 'but look what they've done for Manchester!'.
Yes, they've built a new Co-op Arena and created some new jobs etc, but they have built it literally using the fraudulent funds of a State.
Pablo Escobar apparently did wonders for the Colombian lower class, but it still doesn't make the assassinations and bombings any less of a horrendous crime (not comparing mass murder to to a sheikh having deep pockets, but the double standards are mental).9 -
Not really sure what is shocking about that. It's been the case in the UK since at least the 1980s, if not before The real estate and infrastructure market in most western countries is international with pension funds, individuals, companies investing globally where they feel they will get the best return on investment. Canary wharf was commenced by a Canadian developer, Battersea power station by a Malaysian company, most of the Greenwich peninsula by Knight Dragon , a Hong King company - to give just three examples. In New York, a Japaneese company is behind the redevelopment of Hudson Yards and a Canadian company behind Manhattan West.DOUCHER said:
Agreed - even more shocking is that we have to rely on foreign investment to provide facilities for our cities.WiganAddick said:I really really really don't understand the stance of those that have said 'but look what they've done for Manchester!'.
Yes, they've built a new Co-op Arena and created some new jobs etc, but they have built it literally using the fraudulent funds of a State.
Pablo Escobar apparently did wonders for the Colombian lower class, but it still doesn't make the assassinations and bombings any less of a horrendous crime (not comparing mass murder to to a sheikh having deep pockets, but the double standards are mental).
2 -
I bet the proportion of foreign investment in England is far higher than in America. Why can't we invest and benefit from investing in our own country? We're supposed to be one of the richest countries in the world but own bugger all.Jints said:
Not really sure what is shocking about that. It's been the case in the UK since at least the 1980s, if not before The real estate and infrastructure market in most western countries is international with pension funds, individuals, companies investing globally where they feel they will get the best return on investment. Canary wharf was commenced by a Canadian developer, Battersea power station by a Malaysian company, most of the Greenwich peninsula by Knight Dragon , a Hong King company - to give just three examples. In New York, a Japaneese company is behind the redevelopment of Hudson Yards and a Canadian company behind Manhattan West.DOUCHER said:
Agreed - even more shocking is that we have to rely on foreign investment to provide facilities for our cities.WiganAddick said:I really really really don't understand the stance of those that have said 'but look what they've done for Manchester!'.
Yes, they've built a new Co-op Arena and created some new jobs etc, but they have built it literally using the fraudulent funds of a State.
Pablo Escobar apparently did wonders for the Colombian lower class, but it still doesn't make the assassinations and bombings any less of a horrendous crime (not comparing mass murder to to a sheikh having deep pockets, but the double standards are mental).1 -
0 -
They would collect a hundred million in parachute payments along the way though!Chizz said:I would fine them 200 Premier League points on a cumulative basis. So, if they achieve, say, 60 points this season, they end up on zero points and are relegated, but they start the next season they're in the Premier League on minus 140. And so on.
I'd also give them a Premier League player registration ban for five years, which means they could still sign players, but not play them in the Premier League.0 -
MarcusH26 said:
This would be the dream scenario as long as they weren't put in the Championship. Stick them in L2 with pretty much an academy side because of a transfer ban.DA9 said:Expel them from the PL, then an agreement with the EFL that they start off the next season -40 points in whatever division they are in, then a £250m+ fine evenly distributed between every single club they played in any first team match from when the Arabs took over. (Not every single PL fixture, i.e. Arsenal get 1 payment, Leyton Orient who played them in the FA cup last year get 1 payment) and so on going right back to September 2008 when the owners took over.This would be justice and the ONLY real punishment that should be given.Sadly, I cannot see this happening and all that will be is a points deduction sufficient for them to have one season in the Championship. Barely getting their knuckles rapped.4 -
But atleast they'll replace the Disney fc show by being the biggest underdog story bad come good again bullshit series with their route back to the topElfsborgAddick said:MarcusH26 said:
This would be the dream scenario as long as they weren't put in the Championship. Stick them in L2 with pretty much an academy side because of a transfer ban.DA9 said:Expel them from the PL, then an agreement with the EFL that they start off the next season -40 points in whatever division they are in, then a £250m+ fine evenly distributed between every single club they played in any first team match from when the Arabs took over. (Not every single PL fixture, i.e. Arsenal get 1 payment, Leyton Orient who played them in the FA cup last year get 1 payment) and so on going right back to September 2008 when the owners took over.This would be justice and the ONLY real punishment that should be given.Sadly, I cannot see this happening and all that will be is a points deduction sufficient for them to have one season in the Championship. Barely getting their knuckles rapped.1
