Manchester City

[The Reverend]

What is really behind all the Man City pearl clutching?

If City breached financial rules, they should be punished. But ownership wealth itself is not sporting corruption. They didn’t rig matches or bribe referees. They spent heavily on players who still had to perform and win.

Competitive imbalance due to wealth existed long before City. Nobody considers it scandalous that Arsenal can massively outspend Millwall. So why is City spending more than anyone else in the Premier League inherently less “fair”? There’s no natural law determining how much a football club should be allowed to spend.

City broke the rules. Punish them. But is the moral theatre around all of this genuine outrage about financial ethics or just jealousy that City bought their way into a hierarchy previously dominated by the same handful of clubs?

Because if City’s downfall is being celebrated as a victory for “fairness”, doesn’t it also condone the old hegemony of 4 big clubs dominating English football forever?

[RedDwarf 1881]

While they still had to win on the pitch the point is those players shouldn't have been together under the existing financial fair play rules .

[Story of O]

So Gandler can’t just put his hands in his pockets and buy players

[The Reverend]

While they still had to win on the pitch the point is those players shouldn't have been together under the existing financial fair play rules .

Sure, but that just establishes they broke the rules which are presumably in place to establish fairness and financial sustainability.

Why is financial advantage from historic commercial wealth inherently fairer than financial advantage from owner investment?

[RedDwarf 1881]

So Gandler can’t just put his hands in his pockets and buy players

No . It's probably the main reason why we need a new stadium . The club needs to somehow increase it's revenue in order to compete at a higher level . Whether we can attract more supporters is another matter but in my opinion we could attack quite a few middle-class glory hunters . I remember Fulham getting home crowds of only about two and a half thousand when they were in the same league as us . Now look at their home attendance. Where did all those supporters come from ?

[Mistadobalina]

What is really behind all the Man City pearl clutching?

If City breached financial rules, they should be punished. But ownership wealth itself is not sporting corruption. They didn’t rig matches or bribe referees. They spent heavily on players who still had to perform and win.

Competitive imbalance due to wealth existed long before City. Nobody considers it scandalous that Arsenal can massively outspend Millwall. So why is City spending more than anyone else in the Premier League inherently less “fair”? There’s no natural law determining how much a football club should be allowed to spend.

City broke the rules. Punish them. But is the moral theatre around all of this genuine outrage about financial ethics or just jealousy that City bought their way into a hierarchy previously dominated by the same handful of clubs?

Because if City’s downfall is being celebrated as a victory for “fairness”, doesn’t it also condone the old hegemony of 4 big clubs dominating English football forever?

I get where this argument comes from but should City win their appeal, the idea of any limits on spending relative to income at all goes out the window. This would have two awful consequences:

- you'd get more of the time old problem of dodgy owners wracking up huge debts on the off chance their club makes it to big time, making financial sustainability even more of an issue

- it'd give the green light to autocratic regimes or other sports washing owners to spend as much as they want of their essentially limitless funds, completely distorting any sense of a competitive league. These limits need to exist to maintain some sense of fairness.

[BiggsyMalone]

What is really behind all the Man City pearl clutching?

If City breached financial rules, they should be punished. But ownership wealth itself is not sporting corruption. They didn’t rig matches or bribe referees. They spent heavily on players who still had to perform and win.

Competitive imbalance due to wealth existed long before City. Nobody considers it scandalous that Arsenal can massively outspend Millwall. So why is City spending more than anyone else in the Premier League inherently less “fair”? There’s no natural law determining how much a football club should be allowed to spend.

City broke the rules. Punish them. But is the moral theatre around all of this genuine outrage about financial ethics or just jealousy that City bought their way into a hierarchy previously dominated by the same handful of clubs?

Because if City’s downfall is being celebrated as a victory for “fairness”, doesn’t it also condone the old hegemony of 4 big clubs dominating English football forever?

A lot of paragraphs to talk absolute bollocks.

[BiggsyMalone]

What is really behind all the Man City pearl clutching?

If City breached financial rules, they should be punished. But ownership wealth itself is not sporting corruption. They didn’t rig matches or bribe referees. They spent heavily on players who still had to perform and win.

Competitive imbalance due to wealth existed long before City. Nobody considers it scandalous that Arsenal can massively outspend Millwall. So why is City spending more than anyone else in the Premier League inherently less “fair”? There’s no natural law determining how much a football club should be allowed to spend.

City broke the rules. Punish them. But is the moral theatre around all of this genuine outrage about financial ethics or just jealousy that City bought their way into a hierarchy previously dominated by the same handful of clubs?

Because if City’s downfall is being celebrated as a victory for “fairness”, doesn’t it also condone the old hegemony of 4 big clubs dominating English football forever?

I get where this argument comes from but should City win their appeal, the idea of any limits on spending relative to income at all goes out the window. This would have two awful consequences:

- you'd get more of the time old problem of dodgy owners wracking up huge debts on the off chance their club makes it to big time, making financial sustainability even more of an issue

- it'd give the green light to autocratic regimes or other sports washing owners to spend as much as they want of their essentially limitless funds, completely distorting any sense of a competitive league. These limits need to exist to maintain some sense of fairness.

Wracking up debts isn’t the same as pumping money into the club with fake sponsorship deals to circumvent the rules

[Mistadobalina]

The rules exist in part to stop owners from loading the clubs with debt. Don't really understand your point.

[Long slender neck]

I thought an owner could spend as much as they like, so long as it isnt a loan?

[Mistadobalina]

There have been strict limits on how much cash an owner can put into a club in the top flight for a while. Those are the rules City were breaking by creating fake sponsorships, paying staff via third countries for dubious 'work'.

[Token]

There have been strict limits on how much cash an owner can put into a club in the top flight for a while. Those are the rules City were breaking by creating fake sponsorships, paying staff via third countries for dubious 'work'.

This is also why Newcastle haven’t been able to do what City did

[The Reverend]

What is really behind all the Man City pearl clutching?

If City breached financial rules, they should be punished. But ownership wealth itself is not sporting corruption. They didn’t rig matches or bribe referees. They spent heavily on players who still had to perform and win.

Competitive imbalance due to wealth existed long before City. Nobody considers it scandalous that Arsenal can massively outspend Millwall. So why is City spending more than anyone else in the Premier League inherently less “fair”? There’s no natural law determining how much a football club should be allowed to spend.

City broke the rules. Punish them. But is the moral theatre around all of this genuine outrage about financial ethics or just jealousy that City bought their way into a hierarchy previously dominated by the same handful of clubs?

Because if City’s downfall is being celebrated as a victory for “fairness”, doesn’t it also condone the old hegemony of 4 big clubs dominating English football forever?

I get where this argument comes from but should City win their appeal, the idea of any limits on spending relative to income at all goes out the window. This would have two awful consequences:

- you'd get more of the time old problem of dodgy owners wracking up huge debts on the off chance their club makes it to big time, making financial sustainability even more of an issue

- it'd give the green light to autocratic regimes or other sports washing owners to spend as much as they want of their essentially limitless funds, completely distorting any sense of a competitive league. These limits need to exist to maintain some sense of fairness.

Spending limits alone don’t prevent point 1.

And point 2 is already happening on a global scale.

[OyinbO]

During their most successful era, Manchester United made all of their money through the success of the actual business. This used to be how most successful businesses worked (albeit football clubs have always been a bit different). United had earned the right to to spend.

The latterday City model is the perfect embodiment of how corrupted the game has become in recent years - they bought their success with money that had nothing to do with the Club, which was little more than a vehicle for a foreign power seeking to buy influence in Britain and across the world. City had not earned their fortune. That’s the fairness argument to me.

City are not alone, but they are by far the most egregious example.

[Max B Gold]

During their most successful era, Manchester United made all of their money through the success of the actual business. This used to be how most successful businesses worked (albeit football clubs have always been a bit different). United had earned the right to to spend.

The latterday City model is the perfect embodiment of how corrupted the game has become in recent years - they bought their success with money that had nothing to do with the Club, which was little more than a vehicle for a foreign power seeking to buy influence in Britain and across the world. City had not earned their fortune. That’s the fairness argument to me.

City are not alone, but they are by far the most egregious example.

I'm not sure that's right. Rich men have always put money into their plaything. United were no different.

These days forrins are sportswashing money and Americans believe they have detected the faint odour of making a few bucks and having a bit of fun in Euroland.

[The Reverend]

During their most successful era, Manchester United made all of their money through the success of the actual business. This used to be how most successful businesses worked (albeit football clubs have always been a bit different). United had earned the right to to spend.

The latterday City model is the perfect embodiment of how corrupted the game has become in recent years - they bought their success with money that had nothing to do with the Club, which was little more than a vehicle for a foreign power seeking to buy influence in Britain and across the world. City had not earned their fortune. That’s the fairness argument to me.

City are not alone, but they are by far the most egregious example.

I'm not sure that's right. Rich men have always put money into their plaything. United were no different.

These days forrins are sportswashing money and Americans believe they have detected the faint odour of making a few bucks and having a bit of fun in Euroland.

Jack Walker at Blackburn comes to mind.

The idea that football wasn’t run by money pre-city is laughable. The only difference now is that the sums are vastly larger and the investment comes from abroad.

Can someone explain why billions from some bloke from the Middle East is any worse than having - for example - an American sugar daddy?

The moral outrage seems selective on this subject.

[OyinbO]

During their most successful era, Manchester United made all of their money through the success of the actual business. This used to be how most successful businesses worked (albeit football clubs have always been a bit different). United had earned the right to to spend.

The latterday City model is the perfect embodiment of how corrupted the game has become in recent years - they bought their success with money that had nothing to do with the Club, which was little more than a vehicle for a foreign power seeking to buy influence in Britain and across the world. City had not earned their fortune. That’s the fairness argument to me.

City are not alone, but they are by far the most egregious example.

I'm not sure that's right. Rich men have always put money into their plaything. United were no different.

They were profitable during the 1990s, which also happened to be their most successful era. Liverpool during their golden era were owned and run by a local family, and even though they did subsidise the operating costs, they weren’t responsible for heinous human rights offences. What’s happened at City recently is self-evidently a different order of magnitude.

They are not being sanctioned for using superior financial resources to win trophies. The issue is about how they came into possession of those resources. In the narrow sense whether rules were broken (they were, and this is not known to be true of previous dominant clubs) and more broadly the ethics of the project and its funders.

English football is clearly less meritocratic than it was a generation or two ago, and City are the poster boys for that. The nationality of the money is relevant because it’s actually a nation state that’s funding it all. While the Yanks have become more oligarchic in the last couple of years, their money still doesn’t work in the same way

[Max B Gold]

Like I said. United had a wealthy local family putting money in just like Liverpool and Blackburn and a long list of others including Harry Bearn.

The rest I don't disagree with. But Yank money has been in control of our economy for a long time.

[BiggsyMalone]

During their most successful era, Manchester United made all of their money through the success of the actual business. This used to be how most successful businesses worked (albeit football clubs have always been a bit different). United had earned the right to to spend.

The latterday City model is the perfect embodiment of how corrupted the game has become in recent years - they bought their success with money that had nothing to do with the Club, which was little more than a vehicle for a foreign power seeking to buy influence in Britain and across the world. City had not earned their fortune. That’s the fairness argument to me.

City are not alone, but they are by far the most egregious example.

I'm not sure that's right. Rich men have always put money into their plaything. United were no different.

These days forrins are sportswashing money and Americans believe they have detected the faint odour of making a few bucks and having a bit of fun in Euroland.

It is right.

[BiggsyMalone]

Like I said. United had a wealthy local family putting money in just like Liverpool and Blackburn and a long list of others including Harry Bearn.

The rest I don't disagree with. But Yank money has been in control of our economy for a long time.

Utter sh*t.

[DuvB]

If Premier League clubs pursue Man City, Orient must go after them for our FA elimination

[OyinbO]

Well the judgement has now been published, and it makes for extraordinary reasoning. Tribunals rarely use language as strong as this, so you can tell the PL is furious about what’s been uncovered.

Ultimately the PL is a club of its own, with its own set of rules. And when they discover that one of its members has been flagrantly disregarding its rules, and then systematically lying about it… well obviously they’re going to be mightily pissed off, especially given how much more they’ve all had to spend in order to enjoy worse outcomes.

https://resources.premierleague.pulsel ... cision.pdf

[Omygawd]

If Premier League clubs pursue Man City, Orient must go after them for our FA elimination

FFS!!! What value does my half ‘n half scarf have now. I’m ruined I tell you, ruined.

[Scuba Diver]

Well the judgement has now been published, and it makes for extraordinary reasoning. Tribunals rarely use language as strong as this, so you can tell the PL is furious about what’s been uncovered.

Ultimately the PL is a club of its own, with its own set of rules. And when they discover that one of its members has been flagrantly disregarding its rules, and then systematically lying about it… well obviously they’re going to be mightily pissed off, especially given how much more they’ve all had to spend in order to enjoy worse outcomes.

https://resources.premierleague.pulsel ... cision.pdf

They're hacked off and understandably so, but I still don't think they will auto-relegate City.
It's bad for their precious "brand", and could open the EPL up to a whole host of clubs claiming they would have stayed up/qualified for the CL etc etc if they hadn't lost to a cheating City.

I predict a large points deduction, which would make it difficult for them to stay up, but not impossible: if they steam ahead and pick up lots of points.

[Hoover Attack]

I thought an owner could spend as much as they like, so long as it isnt a loan?

Apparently not.

I get the rules in place to stop clubs being loaded with debt. That makes perfect sense and protects fans from losing their clubs.

I don't get the rules in place to stop owners or their connections pumping money into clubs that isn't repayable. If someone wants to sponsor Man City £1billion pounds a season, go for it. These rules are only in place to protect the existing hierarchy.