Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Premier league Civil War

I think it's fair to say that the PL is already a massive stitch up and I think to a large degree Man City are right to say the financial rules that have been put in are to protect vested interests not to promote any sort of fair play. City are still next level scumbags, I just don't have any time for the attempts that are made to make out Man U/Liverpool/Arsenal etc are some sort of polar opposite rather than very marginally less shit.

Short answer: fuck em all.
 
two sheds said:
I think the argument is that more money will solve the problems of big money fucking up football, but only if you're a Man City supporter.
Click to expand...
The entire argument can be reduced to who gets the lion's share of the increasing flows of big money into the game. As I said above, when a new challenger comes along another club has to lose out-specifically one of those clubs with a sense of entitlement to a CL place and the bulk of the rest of the prize money.

When the money at the top of football became obscene, with the formation of the PL and shortly afterwards the CL, City were not among the driving forces.

What, incidentally, do you propose to do to make football 'less about money?' Because people tend to bemoan all this without having the slightest clue as to what can be done and how. (And even while knowing that, in reality, absolutely nothing can or will be done.) If they're fans of one of the self-entitled clubs, they're usually not worried about big money in the game at all, but that their own club has started losing out on some of it, and hence their previous competitive advantage. Which explains the pressure for the the constant introduction of new regulations-ones which didn't exist when other clubs had periods of dominance-aimed at cementing as much of the old status quo as can be salvaged.

And all of us are actually quite absurd in that we anguish over it all while in no way benefiting materially from it. Bread and circuses etc.
 
tommers said:
You'll know City have really joined the elite when they start moaning about Everton.
Click to expand...
I, for one, would welcome Everton, or any other club that the PL/CL stitch-up has reduced to also-ran status, breaking into the 'elite.'
 
RD2003 said:
The entire argument can be reduced to who gets the lion's share of the increasing flows of big money into the game. As I said above, when a new challenger comes along another club has to lose out-specifically one of those clubs with a sense of entitlement to a CL place and the bulk of the rest of the prize money.

When the money at the top of football became obscene, with the formation of the PL and shortly afterwards the CL, City were not among the driving forces.

What, incidentally, do you propose to do to make football 'less about money?' Because people tend to bemoan all this without having the slightest clue as to what can be done and how. (And even while knowing that, in reality, absolutely nothing can or will be done.) If they're fans of one of the self-entitled clubs, they're usually not worried about big money in the game at all, but that their own club has started losing out on some of it, and hence their previous competitive advantage. Which explains the pressure for the the constant introduction of new regulations-ones which didn't exist when other clubs had periods of dominance-aimed at cementing as much of the old status quo as can be salvaged.

And all of us are actually quite absurd in that we anguish over it all while in no way benefiting materially from it. Bread and circuses etc.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the money shared out more equally among the divisions rather than being funneled to a few teams who get mega-rich sponsors.

Eta: I'd also like to see more of the money going into training young players.
 
Reducing ticket prices might be a nice idea, too, although I'm sure paying huge salaries too footballers, managers and agents will take precedence. I take the point about many footballers being working class and indeed I'm not blaming them for the choice to take the money and dribble but it's the system that is to blame.
 
Let us not go to the Premier League, gentlemen. It is a silly place.

(I'd also like Everton to be one of the big cheeses because I have bluenoses in my family and it would piss people off.)
 
Maltin said:
The Premier League have no ability to charge anyone for tax fraud. That would be a matter for UK or other governments to consider. Just because you think you might have good accountants doesn’t mean you haven’t committed tax fraud. Many countries have general anti-avoidance rules to get around such schemes if they so wish. Many public companies and their employees have been found guilty of fraud so being a public company or going public is no indicator that a company has not committed fraudulent behaviour.
Click to expand...
So as not to jeopardise billions and billions of investment in 14 different football clubs around the world you wouldn't try to avoid getting taken to court for tax fraud?

But if there is no proof of fraud in Etihad books, and Citigroup books, how can the Premier league prove they've committed fraud?

This is why the city owners have said all along they have indisputable proof. The books don't show fraud.
 
two sheds said:
Reducing ticket prices might be a nice idea, too, although I'm sure paying huge salaries too footballers, managers and agents will take precedence. I take the point about many footballers being working class and indeed I'm not blaming them for the choice to take the money and dribble but it's the system that is to blame.
Click to expand...
FFP forces clubs to charge more for tickets prices, in order to stay within the rules.
 
TremulousTetra said:
So as not to jeopardise billions and billions of investment in 14 different football clubs around the world you wouldn't try to avoid getting taken to court for tax fraud?

But if there is no proof of fraud in Etihad books, and Citigroup books, how can the Premier league prove they've committed fraud?

This is why the city owners have said all along they have indisputable proof. The books don't show fraud.
Click to expand...
ffs, this is the daftest post ever. If it's not in the books it can't have happened? I dont think you know how accounts work. (clue: even the companies signing them off dont pretend they are definitely 100% accurate. They just say they have filled out the books correctly.)
 
Take your blinkers off for gods sake, you sound about 12. or mental age.

United spent money they earned, while owned by some local businessmen. they got lucky with timing in that it coincided with launch of PL and influx of money.
City are spending a limitless amount of money while owned by a petro-state with horrific human rights values, cooking the books, breaking the rules, and want to be able to do whatever they want... there's a difference. if you can't see it, it's only because you don't want to. I know plenty of City fans who hate what the club has become.
 
pbsmooth said:
Take your blinkers off for gods sake, you sound about 12. or mental age.

United spent money they earned, while owned by some local businessmen. they got lucky with timing in that it coincided with launch of PL and influx of money.
City are spending a limitless amount of money while owned by a petro-state with horrific human rights values, cooking the books, breaking the rules, and want to be able to do whatever they want... there's a difference. if you can't see it, it's only because you don't want to. I know plenty of City fans who hate what the club has become.
Click to expand...

In reality, United's, ahem, 'local businessmen' were big, far-reaching companies and among the richest in the game, and United were the biggest spenders in the league by far before the advent of the PL. This money was hardly 'earned' by being one of the most successful clubs of the era. Far from 'getting lucky' with the advent of something that was purely coincidental, United were instrumental in engineering the carve up of the English top flight that the PL represented. With the PL, the best positioned clubs sought to ensure that the lion's share of the money went to them, and this is exactly what happened, and which is why the top four, where the bulk of the money is concentrated, became more or less self-perpetuating and unchallengeable before new investment in, first, Chelsea, and then City came along and made the PL more competitive. Other big clubs who happend to be less well-postioned at the time were reduced to the status of fodder, doomed by financial necessity to having their best players hand-picked by United and the rest of the top four.

City are not 'owned by Abu Dhabi,' and, in any case, Abu Dhabi's human rights record bears no worse a comparison with many others, including the US and UK. Furthermore, United had long-term sponsorship deals with the Saudis, whose human rights record is indeed among the most horrific in the world, and have no qualms about having sponsors from among state entities in other parts of the world with dubious human rights records, such as Aeroflot. Among their current financial sponsors are Emirates NBD of Dubai and CB Bank of Myanmar. They would have happily sold out to Qatar if the latter hadn't balked at the asking price. INEOS, meanwhile has its fingers in the oil industry, and Ratcliffe has a happy relationship with the leaders of the Gulf states.

You can claim City have 'cooked the books', and broke the rules, but lets see if the IC agrees when the case is heard. And if any rules have been broken they were rules which United didn't have to adhere to when they were dominant because they didn't exist: they were intoduced under pressure from United and others who'd had their noses put out of joint because their cosy little cartel had been broken up.

Why am I not surprised that you happen to 'know' 'plenty of City fans who hate what the club has become'?
 
pbsmooth said:
I unblocked you to check you're still spouting nonsense. you are. bye.
Click to expand...
All I said is verifiable fact.

But you don't have to talk to me. There are, after all, plenty of more amenable 'City fans' inhabiting your head.
 
belboid said:
ffs, this is the daftest post ever. If it's not in the books it can't have happened? I dont think you know how accounts work. (clue: even the companies signing them off dont pretend they are definitely 100% accurate. They just say they have filled out the books correctly.)
Click to expand...
"ffs, this is the daftest post ever. If it's not in the books it can't have happened?" did I say that? No. So the daftest response comes from you.

Can you prove 100% that you haven't shagged your mother, if I accuse you of it? No! It is impossible to prove a negative because there is no evidence/data. So no matter what happens people will be able to claim Sheikh Mansour did things, and he hasn't proven he hasn't done anything wrong with regard to these issues. This happened to the Birmingham 6, people still argued they were guilty. Which is why when you go to court you don't get proved innocent, you get not guilty instead. I.e. the accuser wasn't able to bring enough evidence to convince people of guilt, nobody in court has to prove they are innocent of a charge, because that will always be impossible. That is the reason you are innocent, until PROVEN guilty. That's the first thing.

My point is about the stupidity of both UEFA and the Premier league bringing charges in their rules, that could never stand up in court because of the lack of evidence. The Court of arbitration in sport said there is no evidence of this happening. Get it? That's why when UEFA found us guilty, and we went to the Court of arbitration it got throughout. Now there is no room for appeal with the Premier league to the Court of arbitration in sport, but that doesn't mean they cannot take the Premier league to the courts of the land if they pretend we are guilty, when there is no evidence.

I have no idea, as does anybody else, what Sheikh Mansour has done. Like every billionaire I'm sure he is corrupt, within the law so he doesn't get nicked. I have no illusions however benevolent His spending might seem to the charities, workers, Manchester city and North Manchester, that his sole aim is to make as much money as possible in the long term.
 
pbsmooth said:
Take your blinkers off for gods sake, you sound about 12. or mental age.

United spent money they earned, while owned by some local businessmen. they got lucky with timing in that it coincided with launch of PL and influx of money.
City are spending a limitless amount of money while owned by a petro-state with horrific human rights values, cooking the books, breaking the rules, and want to be able to do whatever they want... there's a difference. if you can't see it, it's only because you don't want to. I know plenty of City fans who hate what the club has become.
Click to expand...
well could the converse be true of you?

Firstly, you are absolutely right about Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, all buying the most expensive players from money they have earned through winning trophies, gate receipts, advertising, TV deals et cetera. This IS a key distinction between those 3, and Blackburn, Chelsea, Manchester city and even Leicester were found guilty under FFP. So you are right on that. So your arguments are that sugar daddies shouldn't be allowed. Why?

Even Gary Neville, hardly a city fan, said that situation is untenable. It means any clubs outside the red cartel will always be excluded from the top tier, because the red cartel will just use their economic superiority they get from all the above to undermine other economic competitors, as in the example I gave above of United buying Andy Cole. Can you concede how we would be impossible for anyone to compete with the economic power of United?
 
PS Manchester city are the 4th biggest spender in the last 10 years, the 6th biggest spender in the last 5 years, and the lowest spender in the Premier league last year. One thing the billionaire has spent billions on, is making Manchester City the most efficient moneymaking sports business in the world, unlike the Glazers, who are bloodsucking leeches, agreed?
 
Efficient?! Well they’ve been caught basically money-laundering and cooking the books. Not very efficient.

You’re focusing on irrelevant points and diverting. They want to break the rules and do what they want - and they’re prepared to go to court and bring down the whole league to do it. Can you see what’s wrong?! I don’t remember Blackburn doing that…
 
TremulousTetra said:
"ffs, this is the daftest post ever. If it's not in the books it can't have happened?" did I say that? No. So the daftest response comes from you.

Can you prove 100% that you haven't shagged your mother, if I accuse you of it? No! It is impossible to prove a negative because there is no evidence/data. So no matter what happens people will be able to claim Sheikh Mansour did things, and he hasn't proven he hasn't done anything wrong with regard to these issues. This happened to the Birmingham 6, people still argued they were guilty. Which is why when you go to court you don't get proved innocent, you get not guilty instead. I.e. the accuser wasn't able to bring enough evidence to convince people of guilt, nobody in court has to prove they are innocent of a charge, because that will always be impossible. That is the reason you are innocent, until PROVEN guilty. That's the first thing.

My point is about the stupidity of both UEFA and the Premier league bringing charges in their rules, that could never stand up in court because of the lack of evidence. The Court of arbitration in sport said there is no evidence of this happening. Get it? That's why when UEFA found us guilty, and we went to the Court of arbitration it got throughout. Now there is no room for appeal with the Premier league to the Court of arbitration in sport, but that doesn't mean they cannot take the Premier league to the courts of the land if they pretend we are guilty, when there is no evidence.

I have no idea, as does anybody else, what Sheikh Mansour has done. Like every billionaire I'm sure he is corrupt, within the law so he doesn't get nicked. I have no illusions however benevolent His spending might seem to the charities, workers, Manchester city and North Manchester, that his sole aim is to make as much money as possible in the long term.
Click to expand...
You clearly have no fucking clue what 'evidence' is. The Premier League believe they have clear evidence, not least of MCFC having failed to file fair accounts. That's illegal in any court. If you dont wanna see that, well, thats your problem. Your fantastic fury does you no favours either.

The UEFA case wasn't lost because of a lack of facts, it was because it was out of time, so they didnt even consider the wider evidence.
 
TremulousTetra said:
So as not to jeopardise billions and billions of investment in 14 different football clubs around the world you wouldn't try to avoid getting taken to court for tax fraud?

But if there is no proof of fraud in Etihad books, and Citigroup books, how can the Premier league prove they've committed fraud?

This is why the city owners have said all along they have indisputable proof. The books don't show fraud.
Click to expand...
Again, this seems like Trump’s defence. “The accounting software only has an option for legal expense and therefore it can’t be fraud that they treated the hush money payment as legal expense.” Just because their accounts don’t disclose that they may have committed fraud, doesn’t mean that they haven’t.
 
belboid said:
You clearly have no fucking clue what 'evidence' is. The Premier League believe they have clear evidence, not least of MCFC having failed to file fair accounts. That's illegal in any court. If you dont wanna see that, well, thats your problem. Your fantastic fury does you no favours either.

The UEFA case wasn't lost because of a lack of facts, it was because it was out of time, so they didnt even consider the wider evidence.
Click to expand...
I apologise if my post came across as "fantastic fury", I have no fury on the issue. It's just a big money game, of which I have no skin in.

EXACTLY! That is my point! What UEFA are accusing Manchester city of is fraud, in any court in the land. I've already said all this.what the PL UEFA are accusing Citigroup, Etisalat, Etihad, Deloitte, many auditing companies, and many other parties of doing, would be a global financial scandal.
Stefan Burson "The accounts are only false if the auditors had false information or the auditors were negligent. There is no 3rd way. Given the UEFA investigation from 2012-2014, the UEFA investigation into thousand and 18, the UEFA findings in 2019, the CAS hearing in 2020 in the Premier league investigation and the charges from 2018-2024, the idea that many direct questions about the matter in those same accounts have not been specifically put to MCFC in multiple audit processes is implausible - there is simply no possibility the accounts were simply weight through.

Shouting about Enron, Wirecard, or any other global accounting scandals is not a good counter - indeed that is the point.

If the bar for the PL is proving a fraud of the scale of those in an independent commission, that is a very high hurdle. Not impossible, of course, but a huge challenge."

Even if the Premier league do find them guilty, this will end up in the High Court.

The claim often repeated in the media for click bait about UEFA about time barring is bollocks. The Premier league's charge is exactly the same as UEFA's but over a longer timescale. It still requires a monumental amount of fraud by many many many different financial players from auditors to companies. Impossible? No! Likely? No.
 
Maltin said:
Again, this seems like Trump’s defence. “The accounting software only has an option for legal expense and therefore it can’t be fraud that they treated the hush money payment as legal expense.” Just because their accounts don’t disclose that they may have committed fraud, doesn’t mean that they haven’t.
Click to expand...
I'm not disputing that for one moment. Read the Stefan quote above. I have been convinced for nearly 2 years by a young lad studying law explaining the level of evidence required to prove this in the High Court would be so high, you would need smoking gun level evidence. The court of arbitration in sport did not believe UEFA presented such evidence, and the PL is the same case over a longer timescale. but we will see. Just think about it, if this fraud is so endemic, which I agree with you it is, then there would be companies every week being taken to court successfully, but they ain't. Because the level of evidence you need is very high.
 
Stefan Borsen Tweet .
1718222093937.png

Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? And that all the auditors of all the various companies colluded in this? You are talking about a conspiracy of monumental proportions.
 
pbsmooth said:
Efficient?! Well they’ve been caught basically money-laundering and cooking the books. Not very efficient.

You’re focusing on irrelevant points and diverting. They want to break the rules and do what they want - and they’re prepared to go to court and bring down the whole league to do it. Can you see what’s wrong?! I don’t remember Blackburn doing that…
Click to expand...
Where are the allegations of money laundering? Can you quote them? As for allegations of 'cooking the books,' as I say, wait and see what the IC decides.

Pbsmooth shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about in conflating the hearing currently under way with the supposed '115 charges,' when they are two entirely separate cases. He does it again in calling the former a 'court case' when it isn't being heard in any law court, and indulges in the media-driven hyperbole about 'bringing down the league,' after it has already been pointed out that it's a challenge to a rule change not yet in effect which will result, if successful, in merely taking things back to how they were last February.

Lastly, Blackburn had to do nothing of the kind because... no such rules and regulations existed at the time, and club owners were allowed to spend their money as they saw fit. United were able to dominate during that period, picking off other clubs' best players, precisely for that reason. When they were no longer able to dominate on the pitch, and when Ferguson's retirement revealed them to be a bit of a shambles behind the scenes, they got together with other clubs to try and re-establish the previous situation through bureaucratic methods.
 
belboid said:
You clearly have no fucking clue what 'evidence' is. The Premier League believe they have clear evidence, not least of MCFC having failed to file fair accounts. That's illegal in any court. If you dont wanna see that, well, thats your problem. Your fantastic fury does you no favours either.

The UEFA case wasn't lost because of a lack of facts, it was because it was out of time, so they didnt even consider the wider evidence.
Click to expand...
You don't have to keep repeating tired old lies when the reasoning behind the CAS ruling can be read in...the report released by CAS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Charles Ufarley
  • Sticky
Fantasy Premier League 2024-25
2 3 4 5
Replies
141
Views
4K
Steel Icarus
Steel Icarus
S
Budget against achievements, Premier League 2023-24
Replies
11
Views
487
stavros
S
G
Lucas Paqueta charged with four cases of spot-fixing in Premier League matches
Replies
18
Views
704
Sasaferrato
Sasaferrato
two sheds
Nations League 24-25
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
151
Views
3K
editor
editor
Wilf
Which order should the league tables be in?
Replies
5
Views
190
Bus Honeygun
Bus Honeygun
Back
Top Bottom