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
-
JohnBoyUK said:I've been going over the punishments in my head last few days and I can honestly say nothing really works.
There are pros and cons to everything.
* If any points deduction is given this season, it ruins the integrity of the PL. That said, the integrity is already ruined because of them. That amazing AGUEROOOOO! moment, arguably one of the greatest memorable moments in the PL, is a complete utter sham. Like when Ben Johnson won Olympic Gold in 1988 and they had it stripped off of him.
* if they get relegated, its unfair on the teams that then have to play in the same league as them.
* if a fine is given, its a let off to their owners who are richer than a 3rd world country.
* if a transfer ban is given, it will likely be overturned in a court of law down to employment rights.
Then I think I must be going soft in the head...
A relegation to the Championship is not a sufficient punishment as they'll just come straight back up again and it gets brushed under the carpet like a slapped wrist.
They need to be relegated to League 2 as a bare minimum for what they have done.
And then on top of that, as @thickandthin63 exactly says above, leave them open to be sued by all and sundry.
There is absolutely no point in anyone trying to sue them. They have deeper pockets than everyone else. They’ll tie any attempt down by prolonging the process, as they’ve already demonstrated with the PL, and that will rack up the costs. That route could also be self defeating if the City lawyers do what the BBC has done to Trump and basically prove it impacted you and open up all your books. They’d all have to be squeaky clean because they’ve all spent a lot of money over the same period.L2 would be the one punishment that I think would be worthwhile but I can’t see that happening0 -
Paul Gilroy is absolutely brilliant on this.Ross said:Really good episode of Stick to Football this morning with David Ornstein (journalist who broke the latest guilty story) and sports KC Paul Gilroy about the case.
Found Neville's seeming anger towards Ornstein for not answering vague questions a bit odd1 -
The people who will suffer the most in this, are of course the fans and the clubs day to day staff.
Owners are incredibly rich, have diplomatic immunity and nothing will happen. The players will just move on to other big clubs, collecting a nice signing on fee along the way.
Meanwhile the fans are getting ripped to shreds on a daily basis by rival fans and the clubs staff will end up losing their jobs if the club is relegated and inevitably has to cut costs and downsize.3 -
It's not until this morning I read that Khaldoon Al-Mubarak has diplomatic immunity so no one can go after him as Chairman of the whole thing. That spanners a lot of the potential claims for damages that would inevitably come his way as the orchestrator of this all.Chris_from_Sidcup said:The people who will suffer the most in this, are of course the fans and the clubs day to day staff.
Owners are incredibly rich, have diplomatic immunity and nothing will happen. The players will just move on to other big clubs, collecting a nice signing on fee along the way.
Meanwhile the fans are getting ripped to shreds on a daily basis by rival fans and the clubs staff will end up losing their jobs if the club is relegated and inevitably has to cut costs and downsize.
I agree it's the day to day staff that you've got to feel sorry for that had absolutely nothing to do with any of this and are probably fearing for their jobs if we do get a decision before Christmas.2 -
Appreciate you have far more knowledge of events at Stoke, but I think the figure you have presented is slightly skewed. Going back 10 years distorts the average net spend to £7m, as it includes Stokes's record sale at £20m. If you were to look over the last four seasons stoke have spent roughly £80m and brought in relatively little in transfer fees, maybe £15-20m. The average net spend of the last 4 years would be closer to £15m.bobmunro said:DamoNorthStand said:Stoke City are the one I would look at........ that Bet365 Stadium 'sponsorship'.......... no way they have the revenue organically to support their spend this summer.Yada, yada - "Bob, you would say this anyway!!!"Why is that then? The stadium naming rights are peanuts compared to some of the others (and are transparent, not inflated), and bet365 sponsored the stadium when the deal with Britannia ended because no other f*cker wanted it.They have spent bigger this season purely because they have spent relatively little over the past few years due to not having headroom within FFP. Here are the figures for the last 10 seasons, and two of those were in the Prem followed by two with parachute payments. Hardly splashing the cash at an average of net £7m a season.
0 -
Also didn’t appreciate Neville’s attitude. He’s understandably angry with City, no idea why he chose to take it out on Ornstein.fenaddick said:
Paul Gilroy is absolutely brilliant on this.Ross said:Really good episode of Stick to Football this morning with David Ornstein (journalist who broke the latest guilty story) and sports KC Paul Gilroy about the case.
Found Neville's seeming anger towards Ornstein for not answering vague questions a bit odd2 -
They also got to enjoy all of trophies, let’s not feel too bad for them as no matter what, those moments of pure joy will stay with them forever.Chris_from_Sidcup said:The people who will suffer the most in this, are of course the fans and the clubs day to day staff.
Owners are incredibly rich, have diplomatic immunity and nothing will happen. The players will just move on to other big clubs, collecting a nice signing on fee along the way.
Meanwhile the fans are getting ripped to shreds on a daily basis by rival fans and the clubs staff will end up losing their jobs if the club is relegated and inevitably has to cut costs and downsize.
its also why the club needs the entire library thrown at them, as they stole those moments of joy from others by cheating4 -
bobmunro said:DamoNorthStand said:Stoke City are the one I would look at........ that Bet365 Stadium 'sponsorship'.......... no way they have the revenue organically to support their spend this summer.Yada, yada - "Bob, you would say this anyway!!!"Why is that then? The stadium naming rights are peanuts compared to some of the others (and are transparent, not inflated), and bet365 sponsored the stadium when the deal with Britannia ended because no other f*cker wanted it.They have spent bigger this season purely because they have spent relatively little over the past few years due to not having headroom within FFP. Here are the figures for the last 10 seasons, and two of those were in the Prem followed by two with parachute payments. Hardly splashing the cash at an average of net £7m a season.
The PL need to launch an investigation into whether Spurs, in fourth place and with a net spend of £752.9m, illegally bought all their PL titles too. No wonder Daniel Levy got out when he did. He saw all this coming.2 -
I am really surprised at how many people think City will get away with a fine and a small points deduction. What they've done is probably the biggest case of cheating in the history of the sport (that we are aware of at least). The people who did it are still at the club. The club is still benefitting from the cheating (and for all we know, the cheating might be ongoing or, at least, lasted well beyond the timeframe of the charges).
The impact is huge. The majority of PL clubs believe this has impacted them on myriad levels - losing out on trophies, European qualification and PL prize money for finishing lower than they perhaps might have. Clubs will argue they were relegated unfairly. Clubs lost players to money City shouldn't have had. Nobody knows where to draw the line on this, and a line will have to be drawn even if it isn't entirely fair. But will that line save City from being sued by dozens of different entities in law courts outside of football?
I am beginning to think the situation is absolutely dire for Manchester City. The independent commission that declared City to be guilty doesn't seem to be afraid of treating them with the contempt they deserve, so I expect the punishment to be dramatic.
The government might step in and that alone will be fascinating. As a society we largely choose to remain ignorant of the relationships the UK has with countries we might not be particularly fond of, and this one is going to clash with something that does matter to us, and my gut feeling is the government won't save City. It's too high profile and consequential for too many people. I am incredibly surprised at Burnham's words today, and I think he's going to get shouted down for what he's said and not want to touch it again. The man wants to be popular.
Even if City is saved from expulsion from the PL, or even the EFL, the law suits they're up against could cause an existential crisis - especially if the owners leave (and based on the PL's rules could and should be forced to sell the club anyway).
I think there is a very real chance that City will have to reform from the ashes of a club that Mansour has set fire to. And I am loving every second of it, because I never, ever bought into the idea that we should be enjoying that fucking hypocrite Guardiola's football. It was an incredibly effective smokescreen to disguise what those people were really up to.
I got shouted down on this forum in 2017 or 2018 for being against it to the extent that I didn't post here for the best part of a year. So fuck City and fuck Mansour and his cronies. I hope they get booted out and sued to hell. And yes, fuck those of you from that Guardiola thread that annoyed me so much. I feel really bloody smug now.
16 -
mcgrandall said:
Appreciate you have far more knowledge of events at Stoke, but I think the figure you have presented is slightly skewed. Going back 10 years distorts the average net spend to £7m, as it includes Stokes's record sale at £20m. If you were to look over the last four seasons stoke have spent roughly £80m and brought in relatively little in transfer fees, maybe £15-20m. The average net spend of the last 4 years would be closer to £15m.bobmunro said:DamoNorthStand said:Stoke City are the one I would look at........ that Bet365 Stadium 'sponsorship'.......... no way they have the revenue organically to support their spend this summer.Yada, yada - "Bob, you would say this anyway!!!"Why is that then? The stadium naming rights are peanuts compared to some of the others (and are transparent, not inflated), and bet365 sponsored the stadium when the deal with Britannia ended because no other f*cker wanted it.They have spent bigger this season purely because they have spent relatively little over the past few years due to not having headroom within FFP. Here are the figures for the last 10 seasons, and two of those were in the Prem followed by two with parachute payments. Hardly splashing the cash at an average of net £7m a season.Maybe, maybe not. It may well be closer to £15m over the past couple of years but that's not light years ahead of ours, certainly last summer's spend. Stoke are a richer club than us with higher turnover and with an owner that will spend money as a fan.It could also be argued though that for the first four years of the 10 they would have received around £300m in Sky money and that would distort the figure more than your point about going back 10 years.I know for a fact that they have worked strictly within the confines of FFP, very frustratingly - not least because they were until recently wholly owned by a highly regulated company who do not possess diplomatic immunity!0 -
Sponsored links:
-
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.1 -
I found Ian Wright's pronunciation of the word 'process' quite annoying in the first part and then it rubbed off on Gary Neville but episode to be fair.fenaddick said:
Paul Gilroy is absolutely brilliant on this.Ross said:Really good episode of Stick to Football this morning with David Ornstein (journalist who broke the latest guilty story) and sports KC Paul Gilroy about the case.
Found Neville's seeming anger towards Ornstein for not answering vague questions a bit odd1 -
"Will no-one rid me of the troublesome club"...
Manchester bloody Shity is getting very boring now, 😴😴...and there was talk on the radio this morning of a decision being made" before the end of the season"...ffs just kick them out of the Prem and into the National League and ban them from the Prem for 10 years, what's so bloody difficult..🤦♂️1 -
A big moment from Stick to Football podcast today was Ornstein saying it’s very possible that Mansour is the redacted name mentioned in the review and stated as not knowing about any of the offences. If that’s the case, then he is not going to forced to sell, it’s the directors etc who will be kicked out.JiMMy 85 said:I am really surprised at how many people think City will get away with a fine and a small points deduction. What they've done is probably the biggest case of cheating in the history of the sport (that we are aware of at least). The people who did it are still at the club. The club is still benefitting from the cheating (and for all we know, the cheating might be ongoing or, at least, lasted well beyond the timeframe of the charges).
The impact is huge. The majority of PL clubs believe this has impacted them on myriad levels - losing out on trophies, European qualification and PL prize money for finishing lower than they perhaps might have. Clubs will argue they were relegated unfairly. Clubs lost players to money City shouldn't have had. Nobody knows where to draw the line on this, and a line will have to be drawn even if it isn't entirely fair. But will that line save City from being sued by dozens of different entities in law courts outside of football?
I am beginning to think the situation is absolutely dire for Manchester City. The independent commission that declared City to be guilty doesn't seem to be afraid of treating them with the contempt they deserve, so I expect the punishment to be dramatic.
The government might step in and that alone will be fascinating. As a society we largely choose to remain ignorant of the relationships the UK has with countries we might not be particularly fond of, and this one is going to clash with something that does matter to us, and my gut feeling is the government won't save City. It's too high profile and consequential for too many people. I am incredibly surprised at Burnham's words today, and I think he's going to get shouted down for what he's said and not want to touch it again. The man wants to be popular.
Even if City is saved from expulsion from the PL, or even the EFL, the law suits they're up against could cause an existential crisis - especially if the owners leave (and based on the PL's rules could and should be forced to sell the club anyway).
I think there is a very real chance that City will have to reform from the ashes of a club that Mansour has set fire to. And I am loving every second of it, because I never, ever bought into the idea that we should be enjoying that fucking hypocrite Guardiola's football. It was an incredibly effective smokescreen to disguise what those people were really up to.
I got shouted down on this forum in 2017 or 2018 for being against it to the extent that I didn't post here for the best part of a year. So fuck City and fuck Mansour and his cronies. I hope they get booted out and sued to hell. And yes, fuck those of you from that Guardiola thread that annoyed me so much. I feel really bloody smug now.1 -
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...10 -
I have no doubt they have worked within the confines of FFP and the owner, as a fan, they are allowed to spend money but the rules dictate how much. I also imagine the owner of the company selling the club to themself and wiping the debt owed had a greater effect on the confines of the FFP than the higher turnover/higher costs.bobmunro said:mcgrandall said:
Appreciate you have far more knowledge of events at Stoke, but I think the figure you have presented is slightly skewed. Going back 10 years distorts the average net spend to £7m, as it includes Stokes's record sale at £20m. If you were to look over the last four seasons stoke have spent roughly £80m and brought in relatively little in transfer fees, maybe £15-20m. The average net spend of the last 4 years would be closer to £15m.bobmunro said:DamoNorthStand said:Stoke City are the one I would look at........ that Bet365 Stadium 'sponsorship'.......... no way they have the revenue organically to support their spend this summer.Yada, yada - "Bob, you would say this anyway!!!"Why is that then? The stadium naming rights are peanuts compared to some of the others (and are transparent, not inflated), and bet365 sponsored the stadium when the deal with Britannia ended because no other f*cker wanted it.They have spent bigger this season purely because they have spent relatively little over the past few years due to not having headroom within FFP. Here are the figures for the last 10 seasons, and two of those were in the Prem followed by two with parachute payments. Hardly splashing the cash at an average of net £7m a season.Maybe, maybe not. It may well be closer to £15m over the past couple of years but that's not light years ahead of ours, certainly last summer's spend. Stoke are a richer club than us with higher turnover and with an owner that will spend money as a fan.It could also be argued though that for the first four years of the 10 they would have received around £300m in Sky money and that would distort the figure more than your point about going back 10 years.I know for a fact that they have worked strictly within the confines of FFP, very frustratingly - not least because they were until recently wholly owned by a highly regulated company who do not possess diplomatic immunity!
That is the point isn't it? "Creative accounting" is rife within football. You only have to look at the table you produced to see something is off for a number of those clubs. The only difference is City got caught and Chelsea self-reported.
1 -
Whilst I have sympathy for the club staff, especially those on low pay like cooks & cleaners, I have no sympathy for City fans. We all know that following your club means you go through highs & lows. City fans have had 26 years of highs (getting promoted into the Prem along with us in 2000) and 15 years of extreme highs with winning the Title & Champions league football. And before that they didnt have that many lows (can't remember how many seasons they spent in the 3rd tier- maybe just 1 in 98/99) and as far I can remember most of the last 50 years has been in the top tier of English football.Chris_from_Sidcup said:The people who will suffer the most in this, are of course the fans and the clubs day to day staff.
Owners are incredibly rich, have diplomatic immunity and nothing will happen. The players will just move on to other big clubs, collecting a nice signing on fee along the way.
Meanwhile the fans are getting ripped to shreds on a daily basis by rival fans and the clubs staff will end up losing their jobs if the club is relegated and inevitably has to cut costs and downsize.
And getting ripped to shreds by other fans......well boo hoo.1 -
It depends on the internal thought process of each individual fan.
For the fans that now feel that their success was fake, and consider their extreme highs to be a lie, I sympathise.1 -
They will rightly throw the book at them. Those saying just a fine are deluded2
-
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.
9 -
Sponsored links:
-
I so, so hope you’re right, I just don’t see it, too many string pullers at play.JiMMy 85 said:I am really surprised at how many people think City will get away with a fine and a small points deduction. What they've done is probably the biggest case of cheating in the history of the sport (that we are aware of at least). The people who did it are still at the club. The club is still benefitting from the cheating (and for all we know, the cheating might be ongoing or, at least, lasted well beyond the timeframe of the charges).
The impact is huge. The majority of PL clubs believe this has impacted them on myriad levels - losing out on trophies, European qualification and PL prize money for finishing lower than they perhaps might have. Clubs will argue they were relegated unfairly. Clubs lost players to money City shouldn't have had. Nobody knows where to draw the line on this, and a line will have to be drawn even if it isn't entirely fair. But will that line save City from being sued by dozens of different entities in law courts outside of football?
I am beginning to think the situation is absolutely dire for Manchester City. The independent commission that declared City to be guilty doesn't seem to be afraid of treating them with the contempt they deserve, so I expect the punishment to be dramatic.
The government might step in and that alone will be fascinating. As a society we largely choose to remain ignorant of the relationships the UK has with countries we might not be particularly fond of, and this one is going to clash with something that does matter to us, and my gut feeling is the government won't save City. It's too high profile and consequential for too many people. I am incredibly surprised at Burnham's words today, and I think he's going to get shouted down for what he's said and not want to touch it again. The man wants to be popular.
Even if City is saved from expulsion from the PL, or even the EFL, the law suits they're up against could cause an existential crisis - especially if the owners leave (and based on the PL's rules could and should be forced to sell the club anyway).
I think there is a very real chance that City will have to reform from the ashes of a club that Mansour has set fire to. And I am loving every second of it, because I never, ever bought into the idea that we should be enjoying that fucking hypocrite Guardiola's football. It was an incredibly effective smokescreen to disguise what those people were really up to.
I got shouted down on this forum in 2017 or 2018 for being against it to the extent that I didn't post here for the best part of a year. So fuck City and fuck Mansour and his cronies. I hope they get booted out and sued to hell. And yes, fuck those of you from that Guardiola thread that annoyed me so much. I feel really bloody smug now.0 -
mcgrandall said:
I have no doubt they have worked within the confines of FFP and the owner, as a fan, they are allowed to spend money but the rules dictate how much. I also imagine the owner of the company selling the club to themself and wiping the debt owed had a greater effect on the confines of the FFP than the higher turnover/higher costs.bobmunro said:mcgrandall said:
Appreciate you have far more knowledge of events at Stoke, but I think the figure you have presented is slightly skewed. Going back 10 years distorts the average net spend to £7m, as it includes Stokes's record sale at £20m. If you were to look over the last four seasons stoke have spent roughly £80m and brought in relatively little in transfer fees, maybe £15-20m. The average net spend of the last 4 years would be closer to £15m.bobmunro said:DamoNorthStand said:Stoke City are the one I would look at........ that Bet365 Stadium 'sponsorship'.......... no way they have the revenue organically to support their spend this summer.Yada, yada - "Bob, you would say this anyway!!!"Why is that then? The stadium naming rights are peanuts compared to some of the others (and are transparent, not inflated), and bet365 sponsored the stadium when the deal with Britannia ended because no other f*cker wanted it.They have spent bigger this season purely because they have spent relatively little over the past few years due to not having headroom within FFP. Here are the figures for the last 10 seasons, and two of those were in the Prem followed by two with parachute payments. Hardly splashing the cash at an average of net £7m a season.Maybe, maybe not. It may well be closer to £15m over the past couple of years but that's not light years ahead of ours, certainly last summer's spend. Stoke are a richer club than us with higher turnover and with an owner that will spend money as a fan.It could also be argued though that for the first four years of the 10 they would have received around £300m in Sky money and that would distort the figure more than your point about going back 10 years.I know for a fact that they have worked strictly within the confines of FFP, very frustratingly - not least because they were until recently wholly owned by a highly regulated company who do not possess diplomatic immunity!
That is the point isn't it? "Creative accounting" is rife within football. You only have to look at the table you produced to see something is off for a number of those clubs. The only difference is City got caught and Chelsea self-reported.I'm sure it had a positive effect, not least in wiping debt. But all done transparently:How It Works Structurally- Legal Separation: Even if an owner has a major stake in an investment group or holding company (such as a Multi-club ownership network), the football club itself operates as a distinct legal entity or subsidiary.
Asset Transfer: The holding group can sell its shares (or a portion of them) in the specific club to an individual investor, even if that individual is a partner, director, or major shareholder in the parent group.In addition:Conflict of Interest & Integrity: Regulators scrutinize related-party transactions to ensure fair market value is paid and that the deal isn't structured to bypass financial fair play (FFP) or profit and sustainability rules (PSR).I can assure you it was scrutinised by the regulators.Besides, the motivation for the sale of the club by bet365 Group to John Coates was driven by other factors outside of FFP/PSR.0 -
Hard to know how representative it is but if you go to their forums, the vast majority are delusional and/or positing conspiracy theories. The few who acknowledge the issues get abused and accused of being trolls.jimmymelrose said:It depends on the internal thought process of each individual fan.
For the fans that now feel that their success was fake, and consider their extreme highs to be a lie, I sympathise.1 -
This was mentioned on talksport yesterday and if it is his name redacted then its pretty clearly only been done to avoid any political issues, as i guess it's a bit of an issue to officially and very publicly label the Vice President of a country a cheat.stoneroses19 said:
A big moment from Stick to Football podcast today was Ornstein saying it’s very possible that Mansour is the redacted name mentioned in the review and stated as not knowing about any of the offences. If that’s the case, then he is not going to forced to sell, it’s the directors etc who will be kicked out.JiMMy 85 said:I am really surprised at how many people think City will get away with a fine and a small points deduction. What they've done is probably the biggest case of cheating in the history of the sport (that we are aware of at least). The people who did it are still at the club. The club is still benefitting from the cheating (and for all we know, the cheating might be ongoing or, at least, lasted well beyond the timeframe of the charges).
The impact is huge. The majority of PL clubs believe this has impacted them on myriad levels - losing out on trophies, European qualification and PL prize money for finishing lower than they perhaps might have. Clubs will argue they were relegated unfairly. Clubs lost players to money City shouldn't have had. Nobody knows where to draw the line on this, and a line will have to be drawn even if it isn't entirely fair. But will that line save City from being sued by dozens of different entities in law courts outside of football?
I am beginning to think the situation is absolutely dire for Manchester City. The independent commission that declared City to be guilty doesn't seem to be afraid of treating them with the contempt they deserve, so I expect the punishment to be dramatic.
The government might step in and that alone will be fascinating. As a society we largely choose to remain ignorant of the relationships the UK has with countries we might not be particularly fond of, and this one is going to clash with something that does matter to us, and my gut feeling is the government won't save City. It's too high profile and consequential for too many people. I am incredibly surprised at Burnham's words today, and I think he's going to get shouted down for what he's said and not want to touch it again. The man wants to be popular.
Even if City is saved from expulsion from the PL, or even the EFL, the law suits they're up against could cause an existential crisis - especially if the owners leave (and based on the PL's rules could and should be forced to sell the club anyway).
I think there is a very real chance that City will have to reform from the ashes of a club that Mansour has set fire to. And I am loving every second of it, because I never, ever bought into the idea that we should be enjoying that fucking hypocrite Guardiola's football. It was an incredibly effective smokescreen to disguise what those people were really up to.
I got shouted down on this forum in 2017 or 2018 for being against it to the extent that I didn't post here for the best part of a year. So fuck City and fuck Mansour and his cronies. I hope they get booted out and sued to hell. And yes, fuck those of you from that Guardiola thread that annoyed me so much. I feel really bloody smug now.
However i don't think there is anyone who would seriously believe that the club put in 830m of his money over 9 years and he didn't know about it.0 -
"Aside from Manchester City, ADUG have amassed investments totaling over £1 billion in Manchester, mainly in property and the higher education sector. This includes a 10-year partnership deal with the Manchester City Council, investing £1 billion in equity and debt finance to completely revamp and regenerate the previously run-down East End of Manchester, aiming to construct up to 6,000 homes."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...
Putting aside what they've done at Man City, they've been incredibly good for the local area.5 -
Not that they will ultimately ever be held to account, but it highlights what a dodgy bunch of scam artists the Abu Dhabi ruling family are. There’s no way they didn’t know what was going on, and they’ve been quite happy to let it happen, thinking they’re untouchable.Proper dodgy folk who unfortunately won’t be held to account2
-
It seems that City's "irrefutable evidence" was that the Abu Dhabi state was given money to the sponsors to cover the costs rather than the owner directly. It's incredible that they think this is a defencecabbles said:Not that they will ultimately ever be held to account, but it highlights what a dodgy bunch of scam artists the Abu Dhabi ruling family are. There’s no way they didn’t know what was going on, and they’ve been quite happy to let it happen, thinking they’re untouchable.Proper dodgy folk who unfortunately won’t be held to account4 -
fenaddick said:
It seems that City's "irrefutable evidence" was that the Abu Dhabi state was given money to the sponsors to cover the costs rather than the owner directly. It's incredible that they think this is a defencecabbles said:Not that they will ultimately ever be held to account, but it highlights what a dodgy bunch of scam artists the Abu Dhabi ruling family are. There’s no way they didn’t know what was going on, and they’ve been quite happy to let it happen, thinking they’re untouchable.Proper dodgy folk who unfortunately won’t be held to accountAbsolutely.But with their bottomless pockets, and a desire above all else to protect their very thin veil of integrity, I can see this going all the way to the Supreme Court.This has a very long way to run yet.
0 -
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.6 -
And I am sure there were no corrupt practices involved. After all Man City and its owners are the epitome of honesty.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...0
