Premier league Civil War

[TremulousTetra]

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.

and you correctly point to the malevolent intent in FFP. For the only way you can assess a new rule, is to weigh up how would off affected the past. If you take the title off FFP transgressors since 1992, and give the title to the team who came 2nd, you end up with United 19 PL titles, Arsenal 8, Liverpool 4 and nobody else.

 

[tommers]

I think we should call an intervention.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

as a city fan, I think the formation of the Premier league and UEFA fucked it up, and city are just part of that fuck up now.

 

[RD2003]

Anyway, for anybody who's interested, here's a sensible article on the case that's currently in process.


'In a nondescript chambers in the EC4 area of London, an arbitration is taking place that will change football for ever. Or maybe not. That will usher in a duopoly lasting decades. But probably won’t. That will destroy the very fabric of the game we know and love. Although that’s really quite unlikely.

We’ve heard from everybody in the past week, since The Times broke the story of Manchester City’s challenge to the Premier League. Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey, Ducky Lucky, Chicken Licken. They’re all on the move because the sky’s coming in, if you know your European folklore, or maybe just your Happy Mondays.

But it’s not. The sky isn’t falling, no matter what the arbitrators decide. Teams can field only 11 players. Good players do not want to be in the reserves. Managers leave. Bad decisions get made. Nothing is for ever, not even in the Bundesliga, as Harry Kane rather frustratingly discovered.'



' “The tyranny of the majority,” claimed Manchester City, and everyone laughed. It’s called democracy, they sneered. But it’s not. At the risk of explaining John Stuart Mill to the Oxbridge set, in football, if every rule, every policy, every regulatory development, is intended to be a curb on the same minority — and backed by the prevailing opinion — that is as much tyranny as democracy. And since Financial Fair Play was introduced, in whatever form it is manifested, it has always been aimed at specific clubs. First Chelsea, then City, now Newcastle.

When FFP was initially discussed it was to address debt, which would have hugely affected Manchester United under the Glazers. Then it pivoted, so the bogeyman became owner investment and putting money into football became a bigger crime than taking it out. The multi-club ownership model was also going to be a problem, until more established members of the elite copied the Red Bull, City Football Group idea, so now that threat seems to be receding too. Remember, it’s only dirty oil money when it’s buying players for City. Not when it’s sponsoring Arsenal’s stadium, or is the longest-running commercial partnership at Old Trafford.'

The sky won’t fall in even if Manchester City win their court case

The Premier League’s rules were always going to be challenged by one of the clubs they were designed to stop – but whatever the outcome football will continue

www.thetimes.com

 

[TremulousTetra]

and this is from the CAS decision document.

 

[TremulousTetra]

 

[TremulousTetra]

I know these facts will have not convinced anybody, the science predicts that. But people must concede when you actually LOOK at the CAS decision, a lot of the narrative in the media is shown to be nonsense. Why do they print nonsense? Click bait makes more money than the truth.

I am quite happy to look at any evidence countering my argument.

 

[belboid]

yawn.

 

[Charles Ufarley]

I'd like to see Jesse Plemons in it.

 

[belboid]

I'd like to see Jesse Plemons in it.

he'd be great as Pochetino

 

[Don Baumgarten]

yawn.

TremulousTetra are you a Man Citeh wu-mao ?

 

[RD2003]

'Manchester United co-owner Jim Ratcliffe understands why rivals Manchester City are challenging Premier League financial rules, and warned the competition faces "ruin" if regulation goes too far.'

Ratcliffe 'understands' City suing Premier League

Manchester United co-owner Jim Ratcliffe understands why rivals Manchester City are challenging Premier League financial rules, and warned the competition faces "ruin" if regulation goes too far.

www.rte.ie

 

[TremulousTetra]

TremulousTetra are you a Man Citeh wu-mao ?

just out of interest, what does that mean?

 

[Maltin]

Paddy Power seem to have been talking to some on this thread.

 

[Derek S-H]

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'?

You clearly write knowledgeably and insightfully about life before the PL and life after and I can't disagree with much of what you say, but I do have to point out a couple of things:

1. This phrase, "new investment", is debatable. Before the PL, most funding came within the UK, sometimes locally and usually from people who had a passion for the club. Since the PL let Abrambovich through the door that all went out the window (sorry to mix my metaphors there). Was he a huge Chelsea fan? What was the motivation and purpose of his investment?

2. Sportswashing is practised by pretty much all the clubs, even my own (Liverpool, maybe less so by my other club, Brighton). They have sponsorship deals with bookmakers and betting agencies, bring out new (unaffordable) kits every Season, have barely improved disabled access at grounds and the wastage rate for players is enormous (something like 98%).

3. I take your point that the old cartel are trying to stop the new cartel, but this doesn't make the new cartel better nor acceptable. It would basically turn into a League of two: City and Newcastle with everyone else scrabbling around for the crumbs. I wouldn't call that making the PL more competitive, if anything it would shrink it even more.

Here's an interesting (and depressing) opinion piece written last year before City went on to win (yet another) two League titles in a row:

Manchester City May Fall, but Soccer’s Billionaire Era Lives On

Regardless of how or whether Manchester City is punished, the biggest question is how European soccer plans to contend with a growing sector of oligarch playthings and sportswashing superpowers

www.theringer.com

I suppose the bigger picture is more than City and Newcastle; it's the direction of travel whereby the PL dominate English football completely and any club that has practically unlimited funding will also dominate the PL. How to break this hegemony will be the big question and I don't think the PL have the answers.

 

[Derek S-H]

As an aside: I suppose all this nonsense gives us a bit of an insight into how big business/corporations operate, with their ruthless mergers and acquisitions (players), all intended to swallow up and dominate the competition.

I'm not sure if it's a template that's truly suitable for sport and a (supposed) level playing field, but I guess if you treat the fans as customers and you're trying to keep them interested in your product, then it is very successful.

 

[Humberto]

Everything is up for sale now. The UK in particular. This is just the beginning. That's the system. Football clubs are just another asset in a portfolio.

The money in profits and any potential sale is arse dribble to the main players. Do the Saudis, Dubai or the hedgefunders care? No not at all.

Their point of view is 'why should they?'.

 

[Derek S-H]

Everything is up for sale now. The UK in particular. This is just the beginning. That's the system. Football clubs are just another asset in a portfolio.

The money in profits and any potential sale is arse dribble to the main players. Do the Saudis, Dubai or the hedgefunders care? No not at all.

Their point of view is 'why should they?'.

It does feel like football is just a vehicle for financial interests, that they're not that interested in the sport.

But the PL's formation, its very essence and existence, is founded on greed, not fair competition, so we were always going to end up here, it was inevitable.

 

[Lotte]

The Championship is heading that way too. There is a gulf between the recently relegated teams and the long-term residents/promoted teams.

 

[Lord Camomile]

The Man City v Premier League 115 charges case reportedly starts on Monday.

Would this be an appropriate thread for any discussion as it develops, or would it be better with its own thread (figure it's best to leave the actual Man City thread (mostly) for the football)?

BBC also did a handy catch up article earlier this year.

 

[tommers]

Not the 115 charges but clubs can now have their owners give them whatever amount of money they want as "sponsorship".

Newcastle rubbing their hands together.

FFP or whatever it's called essentially no longer exists.

 

[tommers]

Turns out I'm chatting shit.

 

[Lotte]

The whole thing is bullshit and it's why I don't want Wednesday getting promoted. The Premier League has changed a lot since we were last in it, and not for the better.