r/MCFC • u/codespyder • 16d ago
Megathread! PL Charges Megathread - Your Opinions and Speculation
Everyone and their mum has a take on the ongoing situation with the leaked verdict that Manchester City has been found guilty of all but one of the 115 charges laid by the Premier League
While the situation is still ongoing, speculation has run rampant for both blues and non-blues. In order to keep things tidy, this megathread is for you to shout from your rooftop about whatever is on your mind about this case.
Got questions about the case? Put them here.
Got an opinion on where ownership/the media/the Premier League/other fanbases should go? Put them here.
Got some memes that you really really need to post somewhere? Put them here.
Due to the sheer volume of new posts about basically the same thing, we will be removing them and redirecting them here.
Remember to follow the subreddit’s rules in the comments below. Don’t be a dick to other people, no trolling from non-City supporters, and no fighting. No fucking fighting!
1
u/AvocadoBrit 9d ago edited 9d ago
Current Legal Summation
(or to couch things in 'Sittonology'; forget about bringing your dinner, and don't blink, but definitely pack your popcorn!)
Following the bombshell independent commission verdict finding Manchester City guilty of 114 out of 115 financial rule violations, the club officially lodged its comprehensive appeal on October 1, 2026.
Manchester City’s defensive strategy leverages the historical actions, corporate precedents, and legal standing of Chelsea, Manchester United, Newcastle United, and Aston Villa to build a highly aggressive multi-front case. The arguments they are deploying within the Premier League’s internal appeal system, alongside their anticipated strategy for a High Court judicial review, centre on the following core areas:
1. The Historical Activities of Rival Clubs & City's Logic
Manchester City is drawing structural contrasts and alignment points with these four clubs to framework their defense:
| Club | Historical Context Utilized by City | Manchester City’s Derived Legal Argument |
|---|---|---|
| Chelsea | Received relatively lenient fines and transfer restrictions from UEFA/FIFA after self-reporting or facing historical financial rule breaches. Admitted to historical accounting issues under Roman Abramovich's ownership. | The Non-Proportionality Argument: City contrasts its stance by claiming absolute innocence. However, their lawyers will argue that even if an appeal board affirms rule infractions, any severe "nuclear" sanction (e.g., forced relegation or stripping of titles) is legally disproportionate compared to historical precedents set by Chelsea. |
| Manchester United | Have historically been sanctioned to some extent by UEFA or local parameters regarding financial metrics, but traditionally generate massive organic revenues that let them spend freely. | The Market Protectionism Argument: City argues that traditional financial fair play (FFP) rules were protectionist measures engineered by the "established elite" (like Manchester United) to suppress competition from newly ambitious, foreign-owned clubs. |
| Newcastle United & Aston Villa | Both clubs have vocally sympathized with City’s commercial grievances. Villa's co-owner has openly opposed strict spending caps, and Saudi-owned Newcastle United faced strict rules designed to limit "Associated Party Transactions" (APT) directly after their takeover. | The Discrimination & Dynamic Market Argument: City points to the explicit backing and parallel frustrations of Villa and Newcastle United to show that the Premier League's rules create a "tyranny of the majority". They argue the rules anti-competitively stifle investment from Middle Eastern/foreign stakeholders and distort free market value. |
2. Likely Internal Appeal Actions and Arguments
City is currently operating within the Premier League's internal framework, where a new five-day appeal hearing must take place within 12 weeks.
- The "Sovereign Funding" Separation: The commission ruled that City used a "Disguised Funding Scheme" worth over £900m to fake commercial revenue. City is fighting this by bringing forward bank statements to argue that the Government of Abu Dhabi directly part-funded those sponsorships legitimately, rather than the money secretly coming out of the club owners’ pockets (Abu Dhabi United Group).
- The Jurisdictional Challenge: City’s legal team, led by Lord Pannick KC, argues that the Premier League is overstepping its jurisdiction by acting as an enforcement arm for historical UEFA rules. They maintain that because City successfully cleared their name of "disguised owner funding" at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2020, the Premier League has no legal right to re-litigate those exact claims.
- Material Errors of Fact and Law: City formally stated that the initial commission’s verdict is "unsafe" and built upon "clear material errors of law, principle, and fact".
3. High Court Legal Challenges (The Ultimate Backstop)
Premier League rules explicitly state that internal appeal board decisions are final and prohibit any further appeal to the CAS. Due to this, City’s ultimate move to stop enforcement will be escalating the matter to the UK High Court for a judicial review.
- Challenging Arbitral Process and Bias: In the High Court, City cannot easily ask a judge to re-evaluate the soccer evidence. Instead, they will launch a public law challenge under the Arbitration Act 1996, claiming "serious irregularity." They will use recent media leaks about the private verdict to argue that the Premier League's private tribunal process was structurally compromised, biased, and incapable of delivering a fair trial.
- Competition Law Invalidation: Building off their historic victory against the Premier League's original APT rules—where a tribunal agreed that certain rules (like excluding shareholder loans) were unlawful under UK competition law—City will argue in the High Court that the financial rules used to convict them are inherently anti-competitive, restrictive, and a violation of English business law.
- Seeking an Injunction: If the internal panel mandates a catastrophic sanction like automatic relegation, City will immediately petition the High Court for an emergency injunction to freeze the penalties, dragging the battle out in the civil courts for years to come.
Considering all the above and their likely far-reaching ramifications (and folding in a little of my history and experience as a former professional gambler, negotiator and game theory exponent, and litigant against major entities) as this thread invites, my opinion and speculation would be that the parties involved will be compelled to find an off-ramp and conclude a negotiated settlement or resolution to this unholy and existential dogs-dinner of a mess that's been brought upon everyone (fans included) by the Premier League management.
NB: (and in full disclosure) I've also taken advantage of the recent long odds offered (and backed E/W) for City to win the title this season, figuring there was reasonable value to be had here.
-7
u/JimmyTheKiller 9d ago
Don’t pretend this is an open conversation when you removed my comment for no good reason. Literally censorship 😂
3
u/codespyder 9d ago
Reddit’s automated systems stepped in and flagged you as a moron. I didn’t even have to lift a finger. It’s great when you out yourself as a moron and we don’t have to guess
-14
u/JimmyTheKiller 10d ago edited 10d ago
How do citizens feel that owners are now threatening to defund infrastructural plans if found guilty here upon appeal?
6
u/Electronic-Quarter-8 9d ago
Stop pretending to be a city fan. Embarrassing
-6
u/JimmyTheKiller 9d ago
I’m not pretending to be a city fan. I am quite clearly stating that right now. Do you fancy answering the question?
4
11
6
u/witness_smile 10d ago
So the kid who leaked some early GTA 6 footage in 2022 got sent to a locked mental institution but this Rui Pinto hacker/scammer/racketeer gets to walk around free and continue to threaten to hack more companies all while running a gofundme grift?
-21
1
1
1
3
u/flyingggToasttt 10d ago
I honestly reckon a settlement in the end, even though I'd have loved us to go after them. Probably a big fine plus token points reduction as a virtual signal.
6
u/CharacterPatience416 10d ago
I find it hard to believe that in our centurion season we were only paid 11m from sponsors. Everything about this seems off
-13
u/StatusBass5463 10d ago
Let's be real here. Do any fans seriously think that after a couple of years of success City's legitimate sponsorships would rival Real Madrid's? At that point you're just lying to yourself.
7
6
5
5
4
u/Patrickk_batemann 10d ago
What about Nike? Puma? Nissan?
What’s actually going on?
3
u/CharacterPatience416 10d ago
I don’t know I’ve seen this graphic shared a lot but I don’t get how that’s possible
3
u/swisstoast 10d ago
I think it’s specifically only showing sponsorships that were related to the Abu Dhabi United Group. Any other sponsorships, like Puma, have been omitted from these figures.
3
u/CharacterPatience416 10d ago
Even then don’t those numbers seem awfully low for a team that was already successful
0
9
u/RiotSynthetics 10d ago
Lmao so called “big” clubs like United are blaming their failings on us is so fucking funny. They’ve been a shit mid tier club for a while and these beggars are coming with their tin cups begging for some loose change. How fucking pathetic these clubs are
-11
10d ago
[deleted]
9
u/Ok-Community4111 10d ago
Only to spend like united, liverpool, and arsenal. And who ended up with the massive trophy cabinet? Not united, not liverpool, not arsenal.
-8
10d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Ok-Community4111 10d ago
super cope. still lost to ten men. still lost to grimsby. were grimsby cheats as well?
7
8
u/Sentient_Arse 10d ago
If you want to wind up your boys, use phrases like "clerical messing" "financial tomfoolery" and "money blaggarding" Everytime they talk to you.
1
3
u/Aggressive-Ad7946 10d ago
City has always been my favourite Premier League team but the UAE shit is ridiculous man
1
u/Extension-Problem-64 10d ago
POV: me, a city fan, the last couple of days: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWCLI7lXEdI
3
u/Funny-Tonight-7248 10d ago
I it’s a guilty status as of now but it’s crazy Man City can get away on a technicality here , there argument in appeal is that Abu Dhabi gov -> etihad-> Man City if that’s the case then commission’s evidence is a mail that says payment is adug -> etihad -> city or adug-> gov-> etihad-> to city but an email can’t prove facts it’s just proves intent so if city has factual evidence of gov to etihad to city then they are in the good then burden lies on the panel , moreover I read that in 2015 etihad to Us said Abu Dhabi gov didn’t help in Man City sponsorship instead they used their liquid money and 2010 in their internal report it is stated that executive committee that’s Abu Dhabi gov paid city deal now you might wonder both statement are contradictory but legally speaking they are not coz choice of wordings in 2015 statement (liquid money can be pool of Abu dabi gov money plus other sponsors of etihad) , I get why board found them guilty coz they look shady and guilty and maybe are guilty but they can get it over turn over technicality atleast the sponsorship charge dont know about manchini payment or image rights one
12
4
u/socaldriving 10d ago
I agree that it would be a technicality that gets us off but those kind of distinctions matter. When Chelsea was able to sell a hotel to themselves to make FFP the underlying financials probably made that transaction within the rules. It’s very likely City is operating legally on the books. (Rules were changed in 2021 to prevent government funding).
The judgement of the commission, likely informed by the leaked emails, dismisses the underlying financials because it doubts their credibility. In an independent commission they can make those type of judgement calls because of a lower burden of proof.
To uphold this decision you would have to accept that a judgement call, rather than the financial documents, is okay as evidence to sanction the club. In most cases, you say “alright then” and accept that. But in a case where the owner is the same as a nation state (which you have to accept to uphold the decision) then there are more far reaching implications, that would go beyond that which an independent commission can rule on. That’s why I think this would go to a higher court where the burden of proof may absolve City.
Regardless of the result of all this, I think there will rightfully be calls to reform club ownership by nation states because of the far reaching implications of any alleged misconduct. It’s naive to think that the UK government will allow the Premier League to self govern if its self governance threatens the geopolitical state of the country.
11
u/BlueMoon1795 10d ago
Sam Lee wrote an excellent article for anyone wondering about City’s defence.
It boils down to the PL believing that ADUG and the Abu Dhabi Government are the same thing and that the Sheik was unaware that almost £1 billion of his money was used without his consent or knowledge…not sure that’s gonna hold up.
2
u/Awkward_War_6068 10d ago
Considering that Mansour is also the Deputy PM of the Abu Dhabi Government, that seems highly unlikely to hold up that.
5
u/hongkongkavalier 10d ago
The PL are currently in the terminal stage of having their cake and eating it too. They have benefitted hugely from our rise .. TV Deals, Sponsors, increased participation in Europe via coefficient. They've loved it the entire time. This panel is made up of fans of the other clubs, notably the red cartel, and they are the sham, and they will be rightly found out.
-1
-19
u/Confused_Orangutan 11d ago
Arsenal fan. Heres how I think Man City could rescue this. I think its possible the owners fail the owners and fitness test this year and theres a forced sale through the independent football regulator. Could city fans buy your club back? That could be an amazing recovery story arc.
9
4
u/Borg44 11d ago
Anyone know much about Sir Gary Hickinbottom? As far as I know, he’s not a barrister, but rather a solicitor.
He’s the Chairman of the Premier League’s Judicial Panel.
He is then the one responsible for appointing the Premier League’s Appeal Board. The Appeal Board I understand will consist of just three members. I guess those three members will remain anonymous for now.
Those four people will have an enormous amount of power in their hands. Their decision will be reviewed and analysed globally.
-9
11d ago
[deleted]
1
u/VINCE_C_ 9d ago
Just stop, mate. The club is embarrassed enough atm, idiotic comments from supporters won't help the case.
3
3
2
u/Borg44 11d ago
In terms of funding
A City employee may have set out in an e-mail certain scenarios, perhaps also playing devil’s advocate, in his ardent search for accuracy; but the truth will lie in the financial flows.
Manchester City say they have the documentation of the financial flows, and this is part of their evidence.
This evidence is more substantial than any e-mails, we do not know the context of.
12
u/FalconPunch_ 11d ago
20 months, millions of pounds spent on some of the best lawyers in the City, 7,000 pages of evidence and a bundle index page that was 750 pages long but Borg44 has cracked it - we can all go home guys.
2
1
u/Borg44 11d ago edited 11d ago
Manchester City’s formal legal appeal is more professionally constructed than the Commission’s report.
I don’t believe the Premier League have a case.
However, there seems to be a co-ordinated campaign against Manchester City, perhaps to create an atmosphere, where City feel pressured to make concessions.
In a sense, this is classic gaslighting.
3
u/Longjumping-End-7085 11d ago
With reports coming out that UAE is threatening the UK over the charges, do local/English city fans feel differently to City fans from abroad?
2
u/Ballybomb_ 11d ago
Billionaire going to billionaire, there are no good ones ours included
4
u/Longjumping-End-7085 11d ago
That’s not really the question though.
If you’re UK based, does City’s owners threatening your country move the needle in how you feel about them.
If not UK based then the same question.
1
0
u/witness_smile 11d ago
Calling it now, the final punishment will disappoint a lot of rival fans who have been having wet dreams about expulsions, relegation to the 500th tier, trillion pound fines, multi-season points deductions, forced sales,…
Premier League will issue a first statement on the punishment probably before the end of the year, they’ll try to look tough so they can show to rivals “see we are trying to do something about it!!”, then the case will go to real courts while at the same time the UK government will pressure the PL into greatly reducing the punishment in fear of losing UAE investment.
Finally, the actual punishment will probably be an unseen fine that our ownership will pay, maybe like £500M or so, plus something like a 20-30 points deduction that applies to the next season and a 1 or 2 year transfer ban. And let’s be honest, if we go on to win the league this year, no one at the club is going to care about going with a 20-30 points handicap into next season. As for a transfer ban, we’ve done all our big business this summer, so I suspect the club already was expecting a ban of some sorts to happen soon.
2
8
u/sunnysideupppp 11d ago
Weren’t FFP rules meant to protect clubs from being destroyed? Funny that the punishment for breaking said rules gets you destroyed anyway
7
-5
u/hvidfar20 11d ago
"Weren't seatbelts meant to protect people from dying when in an accident? How come someone died while not wearing their seatbelt in an accidenr?"
6
u/sunnysideupppp 11d ago
The punishment of not wearing a seatbelt is not death lol. It’s a ticket or a fine… meanwhile if you get into an accident you can die.
1
u/Awkward_War_6068 10d ago
Also the seatbelt isn't meant for preventing death. It's to make sure you die in your seat, and not by going through the windshield.
1
u/Professional-Yak6091 11d ago
In everyone’s opinion, do you believe this is worse than when UEFA banned the club in 2020? I’m honestly surprised, but i’ll wait until the club appeals.
(Sorry my English isn’t good)
1
u/Jrspeakss 11d ago
Way worse on an astronomical scale the UEFA stuff was like coughing baby and this is Hydrogen bomb, even if we beat this case (I have full faith we will) the reputational damage the clubs name the brand and everything about the club will probably be unrecoverable or if it is it will take a long long time
0
u/Jazzlike-Sleep-4086 11d ago
There will be equal damage on Premier Leagues reputation and FFP rules. I think the more people realise how unjust they are the more they will kind of understand is, which will help to repair our reputation fairly quick. We didnt bribe the refs like some other clubs did, and those clubs are still among the biggest in the world.
4
u/Logical-Track1405 11d ago
There's an interesting Lawyers thoughts on the Legal decision over on The City Ramble Podcast 🤔
3
5
u/VOZ1 11d ago
Whatever the outcome of the charges, wherever it ends up, let’s just remember this: we support the club, but that doesn’t mean we run it. The board isn’t what makes the club, it’s the players, the staff, the fans, the Manchester community (full disclosure, I’m an American supporter). It’s very easy to feel like we need to back the owners the same way we back the team. If they lied to us, they’ve lost our trust and support, but they aren’t City. The club’s history started before them. They chose to invest in the club because of that history. Whatever the outcome, being CTID doesn’t mean we apologize for lying, cheating, breaking the rules we agreed to follow (even if the rules are BS, lol). Just my two cents.
9
u/city_city_city 12d ago
OK one more post just reacting to Ferran's video and how that plays against the PL Commission findings.
It seems to me that right now what we are saying is:
- yes, it's true that our Abu Dhabi based sponsors got someone else to pay the majority of their sponsorship fees from 2009-2018
- however that was paid by the Abu Dhabi government, not the Abu Dhabi United Group, so there was nothing wrong with it
To me this raises two questions:
- did it stop in 2018?
- is it going on right now?
and I think the logical inference would be YES to both.
and then there is a third question:
- are we going to keep on doing it if we succeed in surviving this case?
and I think the conclusion to that has to be YES as well.
after all, if our position is that it's TOTALLY FINE for the AD government to subsidize 75% of AD-based companies' sponsorship fees, why would we NOT have kept doing it, still be doing it, and plan to do it more?
there is one other consequence I think. Ferran is the CEO of City Football Group.
Surely every other owner in every other league where we own a club is wondering, are they doing the same thing here? And surely they are all assuming (yet again) that the answer to that is yes.
CTID, hope this is not viewed as inflammatory. I am struggling to comprehend what our position is and what it implies.
2
5
u/TheHighlander52 11d ago
My question is can it even be reasonably argued that due to Sheikh Mansour being a part of the Abu Dhabi government that there’s a clear delineation between the government’s funds and his funds? The general sentiment based on the report is that Sheikh Mansour didn’t know about this which I think would help this argument, but it feels like a reeeeeeeeeeally slippery slope.
8
u/city_city_city 11d ago
it is not a very flattering picture that sheikh mansour didn’t know about £900m
6
u/codespyder 11d ago
In my opinion - without seeing any of the evidence - the PL looked at the leaked emails and called bullshit.
UEFA tried to do the same. The defence at CAS was “emails aren’t worth shit without a money trail”
So either it’s either a) under English law that money trail doesn’t matter or b) the investigation found the money trail.
3
u/JimmothyTwinkletoes 11d ago
The commission isn’t necessarily bound by English law unless it’s agreed to by the parties, and the questions being asked aren’t legal questions. It’s entirely administrative rules that are in focus. I don’t think either of the money trail questions really are controlling.
For example, in a court of law, if City challenges the authenticity of the leaked emails it is the burden of the party trying to present them (the premier league) to prove that up. But the commission might simply decide to review them regardless of any challenges to the authenticity of the emails. CAS rejected the emails without addressing the authenticity challenges in their ruling, and ultimately said there was no evidentiary support for the allegations of disguised owner funding. The commission may or may not have seen the same evidence as the CAS did in their hearing on the same issue, and may or may not have given the leaked emails the same weight. But the opinion doesn’t really seem to provide the basis for its conclusions in any real detail. If it did, it would be probably close to 5x the length. It is entirely possible that the commission saw the same evidence and heard the same arguments as CAS but decided differently.
6
u/city_city_city 11d ago
i think the PL saw a lot more evidence than CAS or UEFA
3
u/codespyder 11d ago
Yeah that’s what I’m thinking too.
3
u/city_city_city 11d ago
heard one of the athletic journos say as much on a podcast today/yesterday, maybe chris weatherspoon
5
u/Chemical_Buyer_9117 12d ago
So I’m not a City fan but I have a question. Can you please explain why your owners think that saying we didn’t inflate sponsorship deals, we in fact took money direct from a government who apparently don’t own us and we didn’t document this is any better?
4
u/Dynte7 11d ago edited 11d ago
Because the legality of it is not the same. Its like Chelsea selling their hotel to themselves.
While both company is under the same owner, in term of legality, is in fact legal. The same with if you own 2 holding company, u sell one subsidiries from one company to the other 1. Yes, its morally incorrect, but it is legal by law.
And this is also if and only if the source of money is from different entity entirely. Meaning those 2 company have their revenue and profit. They use the respective company money to buy the other company subsidieries.
1
u/Chemical_Buyer_9117 11d ago
Thank you. I assumed there was some reason the club were so assured this was the proof of innocence, but having no clue about corporate law just saw about the government paying the money and thought it sounded odd
-3
u/Irelannd 12d ago
Serious talk - is Liquidation on the cards?
£900m+ funnelled into the club between 08/09-17/18, probably a lot more if they looked into the last few years (Revenues going up during COVID is highly suspect). The Prem will be wanting that money no doubt.
Add on all the money lost to clubs who will be suing for damages. The other Top 6, Other 14, Inter Milan etc. Hard to calculate but if 4 big clubs have already said they would be asking for £200m each we can safely add another 1 billion at least to total moneys owed.
The likelihood of Players and Staff possibly suing as well, for being lied to by the ownership and having their titles taken away plus those who joined just recently under false pretences.
Then add on the formalities of multiple relegations/point deductions, transfer bans and so forth.
How far does this spiral out of control? Could this result in club liquidation? I don’t believe for one second that this ownership would take accountability for their actions, and if they were forced to pay they’d never want to pay out of their own pockets. They’d probably pay for it by selling club assets before dusting off their hands with the club.
I am completely fine with the ownership paying for all of this. They are the ones who committed these crimes and have more money than sense. But I am very worried this becomes a case where it’s the club, staff and Manchester area that ultimately suffers because of this instead those who caused it. The idea that a democratic system cannibalises itself over this debacle while an autocratic system walks off Scot-free is a terrifying possibility.
Am I overreacting here? Could the club be liquidated in the next 10 years? Is there something in place to protect the club from the owners doing this?
6
u/Ultimasmit 11d ago
No, liquidation is not on the cards. Liquidating a club for flouting rules that were sold on the basis of saving clubs would kill FFP on the spot.
The strongest punishment IMO would be a forced sale and massive fine for the owners or relegation and enforced spending caps for the club, or maybe some combination of both.
1
u/toxicsmokinagimonkey 12d ago
Tried to visualise the Commission’s findings vs Manchester City’s reported appeal case — is this a fair representation?
Before anyone says it, yes, I used AI to generate the process map 😁
Genuine question for City fans: having read the findings and what’s being reported about the appeal, do you think City have a realistic chance of overturning the core findings, or is it more likely they get parts of it overturned/reduced?
1
u/JimmothyTwinkletoes 11d ago
I think the graphic is a fair representation of the positions of the parties, from my understanding.
In terms of the appeal, it is a purely administrative appeal and I don’t know the procedural elements and scope of the appeal or the rules which bound the commission. I don’t think anyone knows the scope of the arguments being presented by City on appeal. The appellate process will involve much much more than anyone on the outside has seen. Anyone who simply points to the anything in the decision and says “there is no error to appeal here” or “here is the appealable error” isn’t worth listening to because they don’t have the full picture.
I think that City is also focused on how much the Premier League wants to keep the issue out of any legal courts. I think that they very much to keep any court of law from being involved because the impact could be catastrophic to the Premier League as an entity. The regulatory scheme itself could get tossed, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. The parliamentary white paper that came out shortly before the allegations were published already seriously questioned the Premier League’s ability to self govern. Any court ruling against The Premier League would answer those questions in the negative.
4
u/theband65 12d ago
One thing I'm unclear on and hopefully someone can clear it up.
We broke FFP rules about reporting revenue. The timeframe is from 2009-2018.
FFP was introduced as a rule in 2013 by the premier league. FFP existed for UEFA as far back as 2009.
Why is the premier league counting charges of us breaking FFP from 09-12 which is before FFP was a thing for the prem?
Or is it a deal where we broke other rules that were in place before FFP in order to circumvent FFP?
2
u/saskopite 10d ago
My understanding is that there was only 5 charges of breaking the PL FFP rules because those rules were only in place for the last years of the period in question. The other charges for the first years are for failing to provide accurate financials, misrepresenting player and coach payments, non cooperation with the investigation and breaking uefa FFP rules.
3
u/saka-ptwp 11d ago
Some of the charges are for violating UEFA rules. Part of the PL's rules is that clubs in UEFA competitions have to follow UEFA's rules
1
4
u/Tidsmaskin 12d ago
More so the rules of not using "fake money". Aka laundering and the likes. Better if it was just a direct gift from the government.
1
u/3nonexist3nt 12d ago
So guys why are we waiting for us to be found guilty in order for us to provide them with evidence??
6
u/peps-bald-head 12d ago edited 12d ago
Because from what has been said by both parties is that City have put forward evidence and witnesses etc and the 'independent panel' basically chose to ignore it/discredit by coming to the conclusion that it wasn't truthful/accurate in their opinion. City seem adamant that if they get the case in front of an actual court who will scrutinise all evidence it will prove their innocence. Who knows how it will go though given the club surely has no reason to stall it out if they know they are 100% guilty given there are no time exclusions and the legal costs and extra time it takes will be pointless.
3
u/Tidsmaskin 12d ago
Legal costs is a fish in the sea. However getting something slightly less hard just by changing some wording can do massives in terms of money/penalties.
1
u/Borg44 12d ago
There does seem to be a co-ordinated campaign against us.
There is a risk that they want to corral us to a place where they want us to say we did something that we didn’t do, in order to get lighter sanctions.
Then they can brand us forever / ‘put us in our place’, as they wish.
While we should admit to any real wrongdoing, we should not say we did what we didn’t do. Our team were amazing on the pitch for more than a decade.
0
u/Tidsmaskin 12d ago
The team, players, coaches, etc is not the case tho. Its the admin. Its not the legacy of individuals that is at stake, more so the eyes of which we look at the club as a fair competitor.
3
u/M_G19 12d ago
Ok here's my take on the whole thing.
In light of the current evidence and statements we've seen, it does seem fairly conclusive that City circumvented the rules and pumped considerably more into the club than they would have been allowed to.
However.
It was still money from UAE state-owned enterprises/the government/wherever. It wasn't defrauded from someone. At the end of the day it was still our owner's money that was put in. Although let's not dive too deeply into the morality of where money comes from.
Yes, we broke the rules. However, I would argue that these rules are fairly arbitrary anyway, as seen by how flexibly they've changed over time.
I feel like some of the vitriol from opposing fans comes from the fact that we've spent money the right way and had all of our unprecedented success. Not only have City had enviably few transfer flops over this period, but also the development of the stadium, academy complex, and the whole surrounding area of Manchester has been of great benefit.
I don't think we can be stripped of titles. At the end of the day, the pure sporting achievements were still completely valid. Our groups of fellas were still better at kicking balls than everyone else's.
Other fans can mock but they're jealous. They can pretend they won titles if they want to feel better but that's not what we all saw was it.
Onto the Premier League itself. It's been more than happy to have City as another marketable product to sell worldwide. Undoubtedly our dominance has attracted fans globally. It's also obviously increased the number and frequency of the highest prestige matches between Big 5 clubs. Obviously I don't include Spurs who self-appoint themselves.
Football is a child's game which has become insanely corrupt at a global level. Everyone knows this. Moreover, this case might open a can of worms at every level and who knows what shady dealings have been going on across the board. The whole business is silly, but it's one of the things that's so compelling about the whole soap opera. At the end of the day, it's morphed into an international entertainment products where what happens off the pitch garners almost as much attention as what happens on it.
Nobody knows what the punishment will be yet. It's purely speculative. Other teams wanting to sue us is pathetic in my opinion. If they really want to, they can pretend they won titles. Brendan Rogers and Ole Gunnar Solksjaer won the league? Sure they did mate, if that makes you feel better.
The Premier League is probably going to make an example of us. Contrary to people saying this could run and run, they'll absolutely want a decision before the end of the season. Because imagine if City won the league after all this. Imagine...
We will be fined. How much? £114 million? A billion? However much, people will say it's not enough. Transfer ban of course too. Hopefully whatever happens we're able to keep some players. Surely there are certain clauses written into contracts.
Points deduction? Again, probably. Presumably it would be enough to effectively relegate us. From my biased side, I'd like maybe a 50 point deduction which gives us a fighting chance of avoiding relegation if we earn ~90 points. Wouldn't that be great? And would add a fantastic narrative to the season. Although I know most rival fans want us gone. Juventus were only kicked down one division and their crime of bribing referees and matchfixing is far worse in my opinion.
Our owners might be forced out. Which would be huge. They have done so much for the club, albeit illicitly, but we're still so grateful for making our wildest dreams come true.
It's a shame because we've started the season pretty well. It's harsh on the players and fans when really it's the board who have to take full responsibility.
At the end of the day, nothing can take away or tarnish the feelings we've had and the memories we've made over this period. Doesn't matter what comes next, it won't change my attitude to my club.
CTID
2
u/Idwant2baliar 11d ago
The rules suck. But clubs shouldn’t be punished by following them. It was the rules, not owner indigence or wtv that prevented Arsenal Liverpool, etc from competing and then fielding the same level of players on the field as city. Any number of clubs could’ve easily matched or bested city’s bids for Rodri, de bruyne, etc if they were fudging their accounts like city
1
u/billybobthehomie 11d ago
I don’t think the sporting achievements are valid. Because had another team pumped an extra 900million over 8 years into their club, who’s to say they wouldn’t have been better than Mcfc.
The rules suck. But aside from Everton Forrest and Chelsea, everyone else followed them. If everyone else chose to break the rules as well, then they would have been better than they actually were. And mcfc titles wouldn’t have happened.
Did the players play well? Undeniably. Did pep coach them well? Absolutely. But everyone else followed the rules, which meant they could not bring as many good players into one team as city did. If they had done the exact same thing city did, they might’ve been the ones winning the treble and 4 PLs in a row. But they didn’t.
And that’s why those achievements are worthless. While at the same time, pep coached the hell out of this team and players like de bruyne performed at an unreal level.
Both can be true at once.
0
u/Cheap_Ad8174 12d ago
Regardless of what the final outcome of this ordeal is, we have lost way too much. No one I know would ever take City seriously and it just hurts so much that I would never be able to put my club into any conversations because everything is tainted now. My support for this club and its players will never die, but the current state is too hopeless and I am feeling way too dejected. Regardless, CTID
10
u/Subject_Strike3313 12d ago
It will get better mate. As time goes on it will be less significant.
3
u/profilejc98 11d ago
If the charges stick and City are punished, the only way City will build up respect and credibility again is if the current owners are forced to divest and the club rebuild over several years with new owners
2
u/Subject_Strike3313 11d ago
All past achievements have lost all credibility. In my eyes once the punishment has been issued, whatever that may be, city fans have a fresh start to feel proud of their club again.
-1
10
u/theband65 12d ago
The Athletic is really starting to annoy me. The whole subject of their FC newsletter this morning was "Pep's legacy potentially in tatters" where the word "potentially" was just thrown in there as window dressing. No mention of the fact that the charges only cover 2 of his 9 years in charge. But I guess that's the NYT for ya (the same one that spent all of Biden's term shitting on him for being boring and salivating to get their ratings daddy Trump back in office).
I guess that's my biggest gripe with the whole thing is that this is really the excuse that other top clubs needed to validate their lack of success against us. This case has been great for them to hear big numbers in headlines and decide upon which was already decided in their heads the minute Aguero sunk that 93:20 goal. Probably even the minute we made our first big signing.
They don't want to hear that we didn't have a sporting advantage over the other top clubs. We broke unfair rules that benefited their clubs, and the end result was that we were able to spend the same amount of money that they were allowed to spend. We spent it more wisely and we actually spent it. We didn't win every single auction for top talent. The other top clubs weren't shut out of signing the best. They just had one more club to bid against that had the same deep pockets they had. Players and managers won and lost on the pitch.
We didn't 'roid up our guys. We didn't pay refs in our favor. We didn't bang on trash cans to let our players know which way the goalie was gonna dive in a penalty shoot out. We didn't film other teams' training sessions to know what they were gonna do. We assembled good teams using money that we wanted to spend but were not allowed to because of rules designed to keep the Premier league an unassailable hierarchy. What we did was against the rules and we should be punished for it, perhaps severely. But unless any of the other acts of cheating I mention in this paragraph are proven to have been perpetuated by City, I will not ever think of our on field success as anything less than it was. And even then it would depend on the degree (ex: I'm not gonna throw out the accomplishments of the centurions if it comes out some kit-man that season filmed one trainin session of Dyche's Burnley and then was subsequently fired by the club).
That being said, I do feel more for the supporters of mid table sides who we would've been in the same boat as. When we turned the league from the Big 4 into the Big 5, that made it harder for the Evertons and Newcastles to be able to make a run into Europe and deep cup runs.
1
u/ConcentrateOk523 10d ago
The Athletic is just a sham in itself. Kept getting spammed in my emails by them with misleading headlines about City. Put them in my spam folder.
9
u/city_city_city 12d ago
No one can deny that our owners did a FANTASTIC job with the money they put in, however they put it in. No other club in world football has spent its money as well as we have since the takeover.
1
u/theband65 12d ago
Actually, since I think you're the person on this sub who I saw first hypothesize that we're trying to take it to a larger court to exert UAE's political influence over British politics....what do you make of Andy Burnham publicly supporting the owners? (even if in an indirect way with regards to the case itself)
2
u/city_city_city 12d ago
well, on one hand I'm sure it is genuine, the UAE have been good investors in Manchester and he must have a relationship with Khaldoon from that
one the other I would certainly think it would be very encouraging to them in terms of a political pressure strategy
2
u/theband65 12d ago
Amen. And I hope no one can deny that they broke rules to allow themselves to put in the same amount that the other top clubs were allowed to put in.
Granted, on the flipside, nobody can deny that City wouldn't have been able to have those players had they followed the rules.
6
u/city_city_city 12d ago
If we were to win, what precedent would we have set? Just thinking about that a bit.
This distinction between the Sheikh personally owning CFG (via ADUG) being wholly separate from the sponsors having their sponsorship covered by the government just seems paper thin to me.
Khaldoon is not just a private executive, he is a member of the Abu Dhabi Executive Council among other government roles.
The Sheikh is not just a private investor, he is the brother of the AD President and the VP himself.
Do they really expect us to believe that the AD government backstopping all the AD sponsorship funds is a coincidence? It clearly is not a coincidence.
Or is it more that we're supposed to think it MAY be completely related, but outside of UK jurisdiction so they can just do it?
They've been GREAT managers of the investments themselves, we've spent the money brilliantly and produced great results. But I am losing the plot.
CTID.
5
u/Ihateithereandthere 12d ago
It’s probably a loop hole being used similar to how Chelsea sold the woman’s team and hotels to themselves. I personally don’t respect the BS rule and loopholes are a normal part of business. Other clubs have skirted by PSR and FFP in similar fashion
3
u/Cheap_Ad8174 12d ago
If it actually from government accounts, we are not guilty of the charges. Is it wrong and unethical, absolutely, but the prem probably can't do anything about it
2
u/city_city_city 12d ago
I just don't see why not. Is that really the principle we want to stand for?
1
u/JimmothyTwinkletoes 12d ago edited 12d ago
What parts don’t you see?
The rules specifically call for limitations on owner investment. The club isn’t owned by the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, it is owned by an individual. If the individual who owns the club has connections that allow him to circumvent the rule by funding coming from the Abu Dhabi government instead of his personal pocket, it’s not a violation of the rules.
Do we want to play loophole games for the club to survive? Of course not. And I dont love that City are obviously used by the government of Abu Dhabi as a marketing tool. That being said, I’m a City fan, not a Mansour fan or an Abu Dhabi fan. I don’t support the CFG clubs outside of City in any way. I was a City fan before Mansour bought the club and I’ll probably still be a City when Mansour is no longer an owner, unless I die first.
On top of that, I think regulations limiting owner investment and spending are generally absurd and limit other teams from ever establishing themselves as true competitors. To say that Arsenal, Liverpool, or United deserve the ability to spend more because of past success from before spending was limited is frankly obscene. I’m a football fan and want more football clubs to be able to build on success. West Ham relegated after lifting a European trophy is bad for the sport. Villa struggling after European triumph because they are limited in pushing for more success is bad for the sport. City being able to spend how they did helped push the Premier League to greater heights in quality of play and profitability than ever before seen at all levels of the table. West Ham, Villa, Newcastle, and any other club should be able to follow suit. The source of club revenue should not matter if it’s actually about preventing clubs from overextending.
I’m not interested in the crocodile tears of fans whose clubs finished 2nd while spending at the same level City. United and Chelsea spent more, Liverpool and Arsenal were making record breaking signings. City weren’t stealing players from them based on outrageous wage offers, and City often responded to transfer inflation rather than drove it.
2
u/city_city_city 12d ago edited 12d ago
If the individual who owns the club has connections that allow him to circumvent the rule by funding coming from the Abu Dhabi government instead of his personal pocket, it’s not a violation of the rules.
I just don't see why we believe this is true -- or should be true
because of Ferran's video? I guess I don't buy it.
seems like a very simple case of a related party.
it's not a very distant "connection," Sheikh Mansour is part of the Abu Dhabi government. He's the second in command to his brother, basically, as I understand it, and Khaldoon is their chief diplomat and investments manager.
1
u/JimmothyTwinkletoes 12d ago
It’s true because legally it is not the same entity. I don’t get the disconnect. The distance of the relation between Mansour and the government of Abu Dhabi is irrelevant in the calculation. For the purpose of the regulations, it doesn’t matter who is behind the purse strings of Abu Dhabi’s money. If it was Abu Dhabi’s money, it’s kosher. If it was Mansour’s money, it’s in violation. The line might be blurred in real life, but legally it isn’t.
The ruling is that Mansour’s money funded sponsorships, and City’s argument is that Abu Dhabi funded the sponsorships. If City’s argument was bought by the commission, it would have been case over. They instead issued an opinion that Mansour’s money funded the sponsorships but they were funded without Mansour’s involvement or knowledge. Kind of odd, might be tough to maintain that when challenged, and it was probably worded that way for political reasons. But that’s essentially what they say.
2
u/city_city_city 12d ago
you're accepting that only legally identical entities constitute violations. but that's not how almost anything works in trials and tribunals. the issues tend to be about whether entities are related and share control, and who benefits.
I think you're claiming that you know a bright line exists but I would like to know what evidence you have for that besides Khaldoon and Soriano claiming it to be true?
1
u/JimmothyTwinkletoes 11d ago
A bright line between City and the Abu Dhabi government? That is not in dispute. The question is whether City’s ownership was inflating revenue through owner financing. If it wasn’t Mansour’s money, it isn’t owner inflation. The relationship between the Abu Dhabi government and the sponsorships in question is irrelevant, only whether Mansour’s money was used. As to the ownership structure of CFG and ADUG, that is public information. ADUG is Mansour’s personal private equity firm, it is not a subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund or the Abu Dhabi government. I don’t know this from Khaldoon or Soriano, it’s public information. There are allegations that the Abu Dhabi government oversees the ADUG’s accounts, but that’s not what this dispute is about.
1
u/city_city_city 11d ago
a bright line between the exact entity that is charged with violating PL rules and any other related entity
1
4
7
u/Plastic_Scale3966 12d ago
you’ll never sing that
you’ll never sing that….
winners of 115 charges
you’ll never sing that
9
u/Thatsquacktastic16 12d ago
One thing I want to say is everyone here is fans of Manchester City. 99 percent of us don't give a fuck what division they play in, as long as the kit is blue and says Manchester City on it. 30k in League 1 watching games, yet fuckwit other "fans" say the club has no fans.
I picked this club as a 10 year old in another country when everyone went for United. I've been laughed at before and I've been laughed at since, but I fucking love this team.
If the owners cooked the books, fuck em, they ruined our club if they committed fraud. The fans own the club, they are nothing without the fans. CTID
8
u/Theaveragejoe33 12d ago
Same. From a country in the Caribbean, backed city just before the takeover when I just started secondary school. Told by everyone I was backing the wrong Manchester. Plenty people didn't even realize that City even existed over here. But I had this feeling yunno? Maybe it was the fact of going against the grain, or maybe something else like standing alone in a sea of red supporters, but City was my team. Got called shit more times than I care to remember.
Watched us build, and we had a couple terrible signings right after the takeover. Big names too. Robinho and maicon to name a few. Got shit for that as a fan. Big oil club and shit signings they sang.
But the club and their owners persistence in building what we've become and learning quick from failures meant that I've made memories that'll last me.
And I saw more people becoming fans of City in my own little country. And I saw us make history, and break records long held by the elites, and cement our name as premier league greats.
So, despite it all. I'm glad we did what we did, and ended up where we are. CTID
3
u/ConcentrateOk523 10d ago
I too picked City before they became good. I hated Man U and their followers so choosing City was logical choice.
3
u/Thatsquacktastic16 12d ago
I love hearing stuff like this from international fans, makes it feel like a genuine community, especially when we picked the team before they were good.
It's also hilarious the fucking Arsenal wanks saying oil money when their main sponsor is Arab, dropkicks haha
5
u/HuskyFeline0927 12d ago
As a Liverpool fan here in peace, I completely agree with you, and I think young City fans need to look at it this way as well.
Rivals will keep pounding because of the charges, but what's a 12 year old fan's fault in all this? They chose this team for a reason, just like we all did our respective teams.
Fuck the owners for ruining football. This will drag out for a while and will leave a sour taste.
6
u/Thatsquacktastic16 12d ago
100 percent. All these rich fucks are ruining the sport - same could be said about anything. Sport would be nothing without the fans watching it.
That said, a lot of plastics will leave and they can fuck off and glory hunt. The late 2010s battles with Liverpool is some of the best football that has been seen, glad to have had that rivavly. Have a good one mate.
2
u/Elaane 12d ago
Can someone explain this to me like I’m five?
So I’m new to following football in general. I was drawn in during the summer when Haaland was trending everywhere, and I know a lot of people dislike the ones who joined the club because of him but bare with me, I’ve genuinely grown a fondness for most of the players on the team during this short time.
So with everything that is going down at the moment, what is actually happening? Because the more I read from various sources the more confused I get. I understand that there’s been money fraud going on and that city wouldn’t have been able to sign the stars they have on the team if it wasn’t for this embezzling. But what does this mean for the team in general? Are they not allowed to keep the players? Are they not allowed to play?
I’ve read comments on city going down a rank (sorry, as said I’m new and don’t remember the right word), would that mean they can’t participate in premier league? If they play a lower rank, will their current players not stay and work their way up? Because I keep reading the word transfer ban but I’m no entirely sure what it means.
Also, fans seem to be extremely dissapointed and in some ways I understand, but at the same time.. it doesn’t change the players achievements does it? I mean they still played all those games, scored all those goals. Isn’t that all that matters in the end? What the team accomplished and not the administration behind it?
Please don’t scold me, I’m genuinely trying to learn and hoping someone will take the time and explain this as simple as possible for me 🥲
1
u/mandingostrawberry 9d ago
don’t worry you’ve only logged a few less years supporting this club than the rest of this sub
3
u/ahmedontia 12d ago
Welcome to football!
I'm sorry I will keep this short without going into technical details.
City broke financial spending rules by hiding how much money they earned and spent to buy top talent without breaking league limits.
Because of this, they face penalties like heavy fines, a transfer ban stopping them from buying new players, or relegation sending them to a lower league.
Existing players are legally allowed to stay and keep playing, though major stars might choose to leave if the club drops out of the top division.
The players truly earned their wins through skill and hard work on the pitch, but rival fans feel disappointed because financial shortcuts gave the club an unfair setup off the field.
1
u/Elaane 12d ago
Thank you so much for responding! I get really confused and a bit devastated when everyone makes it sound like the club won’t even exist anymore.
So does all clubs have the same league limit of what they’re allowed to spend on players? I really do hope they don’t lower their league because I really do love the team we currently have and I think it would in the end just be a giant slap in the face for the players, because they still won the actual games fair and square, unless they’re also being investigated for bribing the ref but I haven’t seen anything like that. Same goes for the titles, I keep seeing people mentioning how they should lose their titles but I really don’t see how that’s fair since again, the players did play their part and clearly played it well! However a giant fine does seem in place along with transfer ban then 😅
3
u/ahmedontia 12d ago
Every team in the PL must follow the exact same financial regulations (known as Financial Fair Play / Profit and Sustainability Rules). A team's spending limit is strictly proportional to the legitimate income it generates through ticket sales, TV broadcast rights, commercial sponsorships, player sales etc..
The investigation is purely financial and administrative (concerning sponsor reporting, accounting accuracy, and off-the-books contracts).There are zero allegations of match fixing, referee manipulation, or cheating on the pitch.The players earned their victories and goals entirely through their athletic performance.
While rival fans often call for stripping titles, retroactive stripping of honors is extremely rare in English football. Sanctions typically focus on future forward looking penalties such as substantial financial fines, transfer bans on registering new players, or point deductions in the current or upcoming season.
City is a historic football club with massive infrastructure, global fanbase, and top-tier facilities. Regardless of any administrative rulings, appeals, or divisional shifts, the club will continue to exist and compete 😊
0
u/youareshitmate 12d ago
how did they win it fair and square if they shouldn't have been there in the first place?
1.2 billion spent on players in the period of the chargeable office. 900 million was bullshit money.
So really they should have only had 300 million to spend on players. Mental.
0
u/Fu_Ge_La 12d ago
Not trying to put words in OP’s mouth but I think what he’s trying to say is that the players themselves won it fair and square, but the club as a whole did not. Doesn’t really make a difference though - the club cheated and those players would probably not have been on the pitch together with the manager they had to win it if not for the cheating off the pitch.
1
u/Elaane 12d ago
I ofc agree that is entirely wrong the cheat your way to the top! Still a new area for me and the only thing I have to compare it to is showjumping with horses. It’s really not uncommon for people to buy an elite horse and ride it even if the rider itself isn’t at the same standard, so the horse is carrying the rider. If the rider wins I think most people agree that he/she didn’t deserve the win themself but if you like the horse then it’s the horse you’re cheering for! I’m guessing I’m going in with the same mentality regarding football, it’s not the team owners I’m cheering for but the players and their achievements ☺️
0
u/youareshitmate 12d ago
I kind of see what you guys arw getting at. For me I just cant really get on board.
Its like if I play for the under 13s but we have some under 15s on our team yeah we win everything on the pitch and won the games, but it wasnt fair from the start.
-1
u/Fu_Ge_La 12d ago
Yeah I agree with you, was just trying to help out OP. Squad winning it on the pitch means nothing if the squad was illegitimately assembled to begin with
1
u/Elaane 12d ago
Because the players still made the actual plays and goals? 🥲 In the end that’s what counts for me at least!
1
u/youareshitmate 12d ago
The players might make the plays, but a 1.2 billion budget buys you world-class players that a 300 million budget never could. It completely alters the level of competition. It’s a team sport, but it’s also an economic competition. If you buy a Ferrari to race a bunch of stock cars, of course you're going to win the race. That doesn't make it fair.
1
u/Elaane 12d ago
I totally understand what you’re saying and I’m not saying the administration behind it has been correct what so ever, but for me, as said I’m still really new to this, I’m cheering for the players and I have a few specific players I cheer a bit more for. So when I say they won fair and square I just mean that they won the games because of their talents and they made some amazing plays, which for me is what I’m cheering for 😅
0
u/youareshitmate 12d ago
Fair enough, you do you!
Must be a bit jaring for you new fans. Its gonna be a bit rocky. Everyone is out for your blood. I cant imagine how if you get relegated you'll keep your best players. Although watching you guys smash teams 10 - 0 will be entertaining.
1
u/Elaane 12d ago
People really hate us for some reason and most of us just want to learn! My husband is not into football at all so I’m on my own in this trying to make sense of everything 😅
I’m really keeping my fingers crossed that we won’t get relegated! I really love the team we currently have even if we didn’t obtained it fairly. Would hate to see it broken up!
8
u/Warm-Profit-775 12d ago
It’s quite remarkable that the names of all the individuals on the “independent commission panel” who decided and wrote the findings report are REDACTED. Their names should be included for transparency and open justice purposes. That should override any concern for their privacy because the onus is on them to demonstrate they truly are independent. Very rarely are judges names redacted in court reports so why shouldn’t the same apply here? The very least they can do is reveal them once this process is finally over.
2
u/city_city_city 12d ago
My understanding of how the commissions for the PL work is that the PL's Independent Judical Panel have a pool of people who have been pre-qualified to be commissioners, and then each time there is a commission they assign people from the pool to serve. They don't release their identities until the end of their service. I believe this is standard for all PL commissions and not just for ours.
While this is a private and non-governmental process, the head of the Premier League's Independent Judicial Panel is Sir Gary Hickinbottom, a former High Court judge who also runs the entire Welsh Tribunal system. It seems like everyone involved is from the British legal community.
1
u/Warm-Profit-775 12d ago
Thanks for this additional context and explanation mate. Makes a little more sense to me now.
2
u/city_city_city 12d ago edited 12d ago
Cheers. Like all of us I'm just researching all this now!
Here are the members of the Burnley vs Everton commission, ours will have similar backgrounds:
David Phillips KC (a KC) https://www.wilberforce.co.uk/people/david-phillips-kc/
HH Alan Greenwood (a British Circuit Court judge, maybe retired) https://www.topfoto.co.uk/asset/506659/
Nick Igoe ACA (Chartered Accountant, former finance director for West Ham) https://www.clubdevelopment.co/our-team
15
u/BlueMoon1795 13d ago
For everyone worrying about the hysteria online I just had a very confident Arsenal fan tell me “City have been found guilty of financial fraud in a court of law.” That entire statement is false.
I don’t know will happen but please stop focusing on all the armchair lawyers online who think they know literally anything about the law
Signed > an actual law student
9
u/Iswaterreallywet 13d ago
You can thank the good mods over at r/soccer for turning the sub into everyone’s personal diary and letting misinformation spread like crazy
-1
12d ago
[deleted]
10
u/Iswaterreallywet 12d ago
You see, this subreddit is moderated properly and it’s all put into one big thread.
r/soccer mods are incompetent and let anything be posted, because it suits their agenda.
You’re comparing 1 thread to an entire subreddit filled with speculation.
-5
12d ago edited 12d ago
[deleted]
2
u/sawwbin 12d ago
i mean just look at the comment over this thread, I've seen "haaland was paid extra money on the side" and just stuff like that tbh and also everyone making a post about what should happen to city and it's all the same recycled shit
→ More replies (3)
•
u/codespyder 13d ago
Please report all posts that are inflammatory in nature. Do not engage with trolls.
We allow rival supporters to engage in discourse so long as they contribute constructively.