City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
Heard that Omar Berrada is the main man behind all 115 charges and his club at time of trial are likely to be expelled not just from the PL but from existence entirely.
No idea how true it is but he rumour is, he was filmed by der Spiegel putting books in the oven.
No idea how true it is but he rumour is, he was filmed by der Spiegel putting books in the oven.
That’s fine, by the time City’s lawyers let this get to trial, we’ll all be long gone
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Why do people share videos from that absolute dipshit of a human being?
You mean they said “if they earn it (really), they can spend it”?…. the basics of any business/financial model?
HOW DARE THEY!
We didn’t fast forward, circumvent the rules, pay our managers 80% of their salary via a consultancy fee through the Cayman Islands, didn’t get an airline (owned by our owners) to sponsor our socks for £100m/year.
Our “sin“ is winning the league just as the PL started and SKY/money from football ramped up massively. But that was on top of what had come before - we got relegated (I watched it) and had the biggest attendance in England - our size, success and support is built on decades and decades and decades. It’s what made my 26 year wait so special.
Im not jealous of City… their football is (sometimes) great to watch but it’s everything wrong with sport, life. As much as I can’t stand Liverpool and want to beat them every time, I can still respect them… their club and support is decades old too.
The only thing you’re right about is it’d be different if it was United that had systemically cheated their way to success - it would be…. half the world would be on us and almost every part of the media. If you think we get some easy ride, you must have been living under a rock.
(PS. we don’t want the same teams at the top (other than our own… like every fan does). I remember Forest winning the league, then going on to back to back European Cups. I remember Villa and Evertons title winning teams - fantastic mixes of well built teams. Teams with real history. Fantastic memories).
They were the original City imo, well ahead of what Blackburn, Leeds, and others did to date, and in fairness they could do as they pleased and it's created a contingent of snobby Chelsea fans, seemingly. It would have been any club Roman bought in England that would have eventually won trophies galore. It could have been Leeds, or Spurs, or Villa, or whoever. Same had ADUG bought any club other than City. It's akin to winning the lotto.
Roman buys Chelsea in 2003 and they spent £111.35m net the first transfer window, summer 2003, an unprecedented spending spree practically buying enough for a new first XI. They spent another £22m in the winter window (if Robben's pre-contract is considered that year). That's about £186m plus £36m in today's money adjusted for inflation.
However, transfer fees have soared well beyond inflation meaning they'd have spent somewhere between £500-800m in today's insane market terms, depending on how high one adjusts transfer fee inflation; I've seen numbers from that 01-05 era tripling to quadrupling then transfer fee rates in today's terms. Granted, I don't believe Roman would have bought 8-10 players in one summer at £40-80m each in today's market.
They spent another £86.85m net (£140m today) in the summer 2004 window plus £3.75m (£6m) in the winter window (Jarosik), totaling £90.6m (£146m). Adjusting for transfer fee inflation it's probably £300m plus. They curtailed spending a bit in summer 2005 at £45.675m net (£71.75m) thanks to a few sales and reported winter spending of £3.8m net (£5.5m), totaling £51.175m net (£77.25m), or let's say $100m plus today. Oh, and they also lured the hottest coach on the market that summer 2004, Mourinho, and paid him a big wage. Speaking of wages, though I cannot confirm, but supposedly they were offereing higher compensation packets to players.
They also spent large in summer 2006 but offset a third of that outlay on transfers out plus signed Ballack on a free tansfer (albeit with a hefty sign-on fee most likely). Roman began reducing the transfer spending in 2007 before making some splashes here and there.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How can it not be in the public's interest? There wouldn't be a white paper if not for the public.
@adexkola assuming this is true, do you read such things and think “conspiracy“ is infeasible?
In fact, what is your reaction to this kind of information?
Something something contrarian and elusive
I am intrigued. The wiggle room is becoming more remote.
I only assigned a low probability, I didn't say it was impossible!
But yes this does move the needle a bit. Why are City discussing a football governance white paper with the government independent of the PL or FA? Has any other club done this?
My reaction to this kind of information is that it's not a smoking gun, but it is smoke
He does make sense here. This guy was at the top of the financial food chain at City. How can he not be aware of all the dirty dealings that went on there. The timing, all of it is very fishy.
Timing is odd, but if Berrada has only left City because he knows they are about to be punished and he will be be caught up in it all, then I can't see Utd would be touching him, and I also can't see SJR not having clarity on this either.
Could you imagine the fallout if City get the book thrown at them, and Berrada is named as one of the main people who knew about it all, to me it almost points to opposite happening, ie City will get away with a token points deduction and fine.
Yeah ok..
Well he starts in the summer right? So the breaches won’t be investigated fully until after then I would think. united will not want a circus with this guy if all kinds of charges come at him whilst in the middle of their rebuild. Then he becomes “ agent”
Omar.
I don't know, but I was thinking it will be alot sooner than that.
Either way United must be confident that he won't be implicated, or will be an irrelevance to the whole thing.
If Pep jumps ship soon then we know something is about to kick off, but he'll just plead ignorance and walk straight into another top job anyway, like all the rest of the staff will do.
It's the owners and club itself then that's about to cop it.
It’ll be akin to a thousand cuts if the right slabs are turned over, I’d wager… but this has felt like the most incredulous scandal the English game has ever seen the likes of a long time ago to me, which is why I cannot associate any of it with or through a conspiratorial lens.
I think the biggest surprise to City is that what they’ve done wasn’t water tight enough to simply slip through the net; that was the only bit they weren’t ready for.
Anyone still prepared to vote for these cretins must either be one of the cnuts getting backhanders or is really stupid.
That's the reply date.
The thing is the Premier league is up against a whole fkn state. Shouldn't the government be involved? Imagine a whole country buying out a small club in the US and cheating thier way to the top. As big as the Yankees of Dallas Cowboys. Wouldn't there be an outrage?
Point I'm making is that I don't know if the Premier League even has the capacity to fight them. They need help.
Point I'm making is that I don't know if the Premier League even has the capacity to fight them. They need help.
It's a bullet scented fart
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Maybe but think about which bunch of corrupt pocket lining crooks are currently running the country and you'll have your answer.
Wonder who actually did
Did other clubs have discussions with the sports minister?
Yes. No club can fight with the massive funding from a state. If we don't put a stop to that, the premier league is going to be just dominated by stated-owned clubs who can put political influence into the game. There should be a ban from state or political-exposed-persons to own any clubs. I understand these people have great difficulty and restriction in setting up corporations here. If that is the case, I don't see why they can be allowed to own clubs here.
They couldn't. Because the setup of US sports is way more egalitarian and fair (European football just left the chat). That's why the Dallas Cowboys are the most valuable team in the world but can't leverage that into winning Superb Owls. So the president of Uzbekistan could buy the Cowboys but he would be prohibited from violating salary caps.
Smells American
Superb Owls - amazing.
While that is true for American football, that’s not true for basketball or baseball. A motivated (and fabulously wealthy) owner can spend as much as they want, those leagues do not cap spending, but they do penalize and tax spending above designated tiers.
If it's a breaking news tweet it must be true?
True, but the punitive soft caps in the NBA cause even billionaires to pull back on spending. Less familiar about the MLB but pennants aren't only carried by rich teams.
As a Mets fan, it doesn't translate.
From the Times
If they do get relegated you’d have to fancy the football league to put them in the conference or League 2. That would maximise the time the circus is in town and probably result in a massive increase in revenues for the EFL and its clubs.
So basically Spurs would be the only organic winners of the Premier league considering Henry Norris, John Houlding, John Henry Davies and James William Gibson, Jack Walker and Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha all used their own money to bankroll (or even form) the other clubs at one stage or another, and it is very probable that at least 2 of These clubs would have folded without wealthy benefactors being allowed unrestricted investment.
In the Times, but also why would it be breaking news?