city will get nothing. the fa and premier leavue have made an offer to city to get out if this and city have refused it apparently. they would not offer relegation so city feel they can get away with it and laugh.
what I would like to know is why are the clubs (both of them) given such air time to bleat and moan whereas the evidence of their real and verified crime is not. forest came up. we all said well done. they then went on a rampage of irresponsible and downright illegal spending on any and every player that came across their view. the fact they breached is not a shock imo the fact that they can get away with it if they are even half competent in their final 9 games is testament to how weak the rule is. I honest think the points should be accompanied by a fine and transfer ban.
I don't think there should be ANY points ban. They should be hammered so hard financially with fines, that no ****ing sugar-daddy can pay off either, that they have a negative budget to exist for a season or two. And even when they go down they still have to keep paying the fine in instalments. In City's case that would see them on Bolton's budget for 20 seasons.
lets talk reality on forest 2023/24 alone Buys Ibrahim Sangaré €35.00m Anthony Elanga €17.50m Chris Wood €17.00m Andrew Omobamidele €12.85m Murillo €12.00m Nicolás Domínguez €10.00m Matt Turner €8.15m Matz Sels €8.00m Odysseas Vlachodimos €4.90m Callum Hudson-Odoi €3.50m sales (significant ones) Brennan Johnson €55.00m Orel Mangala €11.70m Sam Surridge €5.80m Gustavo Scarpa €5.00m Braian Ojeda €3.60m 2022/23 Morgan Gibbs-White €29.50m Taiwo Awoniyi €20.50m Danilo €20.00m Neco Williams €20.00m Emmanuel Dennis €14.80m Orel Mangala €13.00m Moussa Niakhaté €10.00m Giulian Biancone €10.00m Lewis O'Brien €9.40m Remo Freuler €9.00m Omar Richards €8.50m Jonjo Shelvey €6.50m Renan Lodi €5.00m (loan) Chris Wood Chris Wood (loan) €4.50m Ui-jo Hwang €4.00m Willy Boly €2.60m Harry Toffolo €2.40m Felipe €2.30m Josh Bowler €2.30m Brandon Aguilera €950k Jesse Lingard sales Brice Samba 5mil. How exactyl would they think they were going to keep anywhere near the levels of FFP required by the rules and how big a breach will they have next year? Its not like they stopped when they knew they were in the ****. they went right on spending.
I don't think fines can work at the top. City and chelsea would shurg and go to court not actually caring. You can try that emans but they'd just ignore it and pour in more money. Only compeititon exclusions (europe) and points deductions to stop this. Transfer bans should also be used.
Yeah, should be transfer bans as well, but the books should be handed over to a court-appointed auditor and they can't spend a penny other than gate receipts and sanctioned, verifiable commercial activities.
they didn't co-operate they lied to the tribunal which is why they gave them the extra points they got knocked off on appeal .
everton? I thought they disclosed thier "view" on the covid losses and claimed to coperate throughout the process?
One of the points raised in the Decision was that they gained no sporting advantage from their rule breaking. Whether that came under mitigating factors, I can't remember but whether or not it did, it was still used as a reason not to impose a harsher points deduction. This raises several red flags to me. One being, if some, or even one, of the 19 players (that they bought) scored goals that earned the team points, how can that not be a sporting advantage? The fact that they aren't scoring enough goals to have put the club in a better league position, should be irrelevant. The attitude of 'you're not doing very well in the league and that's punishment enough' is wrong. It's a bit like saying that if you're doping but not winning then it's alright. If doping is against the rules then it should be punished regardless of the outcome.
I don't understand it either. they sold johnson in August but what did they do since? spent more? how can it be said no sporting advantage in 22/23 when 23/24 is impacted. are they talking about a pure look at that single season? if so then how can buying more players than they could afford have no sporting impact???
"My client did indeed burgle the house in question, but as the residents had moved all their valuables into a safe deposit box in a bank he never made any financial gain from the act. And that, m'lud, concludes the case for the defence."
Only their sugar daddy would be able to pay it off. No way they'll be able to justify dining Man City £30b+ Points and title stripping are the only fit punishments (but not the latter on its own)
No, I specifically said that it couldn't be paid off through any other way but audited and inspected gate receipts and commercial revenue. No fiddling with the attendance figures, buying their own season tickets at inflated prices, or bogus sponsorship deals with the owners' subsidiaries. And with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads if they transgress those stipulations.
But why would they give a **** if the consequence is only another fine? They'd just break the same rules again to cover the additional expenditure. They have too much money for fines to make any difference Only way to hurt them is points deduction. They can't use their wealth to overcome this I don't even think they'd care about titles being stripped; they've already been won, celebrated, etc. Players may think twice about joining them if there is a chance of their titles being stripped but I can think of a few multi-million reasons they'd still join anyway. Deduct enough points and they don't challenge for the league and don't make Europe, players will be more bothered about that (but probably still tempted by money)
The fine, in City's case anyway, would be £1bn. Let's see how long they stay in the Prem paying that off with a transfer ban, their attendance receipts and sponsorship deals heavily audited, and absolutely no cash injections allowed from present or future owners until that bill has been paid off SOLEY FROM REVENUE AND GATE RECEIPTS. They'd be in League 2 in 4 years, worse off than Bolton or Derby.
I find the Forest Decision baffling but looking at it another way, with regard to how a Commission will investigate city, I was quite encouraged that they emphasised sporting advantage as a determining factor when applying their sanction. However, reading the Decision further, I couldn't help notice that where there's a yin there's also a yang, in that another paragraph stated that the remit of any Independent Commission isn't to be looking primarily at punishment but rather maintaining the integrity of the league. This, what you could call a two pronged approach, leaves a huge gap for the city Independent Commission to fill with waffle and a huge get-out strategy something like - 'on the one hand they did this but on the other hand a severe sanction would compromise the integrity of the league ....' I've gone from feeling semi-confident about a meaningful sporting sanction (following the Everton decision) to thinking that the Forest decision which deviates quite a bit from the Everton one, is trying to lay the foundations and/or manage expectations about what can be expected in the city Decision.
I do not get the it was already celebrated argument. I really don't. marseille never recovered from their scandal. it's a black mark on them forever. juve have not really recovered either. so what if they celebrated cheating to win. it only robbed the rival of the chance to celebrate. hammer the ****s
Z and I had a similar conversation about them having already celebrated because I don't get it either. I acknowledge that it's another way of looking at it in a similar way to one person thinking that the good someone did can be wiped out by later very poor behaviour and another thinking that it can't.
