City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing concluded | Awaiting outcome

Mockney said:
Arsenal bottling the league is funny, but its mental anyone would want City to waltz their way to a second domestic treble. Asterisk or not, thats still a thing happening
Click to expand...

Because City fans are so few and far between, it feels like a do-over when they win and stops everyone suffering Liverpool or Arsenal fans.

To a certain extent, I don't think there's much difference between the whole Villa/Everton and whoever else it was selling each other academy players for £20m+ each to cook the books, because they've massively overspent without getting near winning anything. It shouldn't be offensive just because there's some tangible outcome.
 
This thread is nearly five years old. More than three years since the 115 charges were brought. It's unconscionable.
 
B20 said:
This thread is nearly five years old. More than three years since the 115 charges were brought. It's unconscionable.
Click to expand...
Well, that is why it’s fascinating to see the same conversations and hope repeated ad nauseam like anything is happening or is going to happen.

The only thing that actually changes is the posters, with renewed hope and conviction in their words.

City continue unabated and with total impunity - racking up trophies and buying squads of players without a care in the world.
 


Deflect Deflect Deflect. Leaving aside the arguments about the semis being played at Wembley. United and Liverpool would almost certainly sell their allocation no problem in the same circumstances
 
Wembley is in London, right?

Probably around 7 London clubs in the league most seasons. Imagine trying to argue that not selling out your allocation because ‘21 London fixtures over the last 3 years is too much
 
Nyland said:
Wembley is in London, right?

Probably around 7 London clubs in the league most seasons. Imagine trying to argue that not selling out your allocation because ‘21 London fixtures over the last 3 years is too much
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that doesn’t matter at all to a bought journalist.
 
Bartondale said:
City owners bought the Title twice before Pep was appointed.
They will continue to buy it after he departs, unless drastic punishment for being found guilty of the 115 charges is imposed.
Click to expand...
I agree they will continue to buy and fund whichever manager takes over after Pep but I think there will be a drop off and their success will be less consistent, hopefully anyway!
 
"Predominantly a working class fanbase" :lol:journalists trying to peddle the "little old City" narrative after 15 years of sportswashing.
 
Fr. Todd Unctious said:


Deflect Deflect Deflect. Leaving aside the arguments about the semis being played at Wembley. United and Liverpool would almost certainly sell their allocation no problem in the same circumstances
Click to expand...


Semi-finals in London is a fair point. It's a shit idea that completley undercuts the magic of the final. It's also fair to say most City fans are from Manchester, it's true. There's more United fans here, but we also bring support from fans from elsewhere who'd ensure we'd have no problem selling out a semi.
 
Herman Toothrot said:
Semi-finals in London is a fair point. It's a shit idea that completley undercuts the magic of the final. It's also fair to say most City fans are from Manchester, it's true. There's more United fans here, but we also bring support from fans from elsewhere who'd ensure we'd have no problem selling out a semi.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think what he said is fair enough. Obviously City are not close to being comparable in size to us or Liverpool, I don't think most of their fans would claim to be. So not sure why it's embarrassing for them to not sell out yet another Wembley stadium game with their B team against lower league opposition. Not every team can be one of the biggest in the world.
 
Fr. Todd Unctious said:


Deflect Deflect Deflect. Leaving aside the arguments about the semis being played at Wembley. United and Liverpool would almost certainly sell their allocation no problem in the same circumstances
Click to expand...

What does “since Guardiola took over” have to do with anything?
That’s basically just admitting to the fact their fanbase are glory hunters, since they only got most of their fans when they started sportswashing and winning all the time :lol:
 
Ole'sattheWheel said:
What does “since Guardiola took over” have to do with anything?
That’s basically just admitting to the fact their fanbase are glory hunters, since they only got most of their fans when they started sportswashing and winning all the time :lol:
Click to expand...
Isn't it the opposite? That they don't actually have enough glory hunters to fill the stadium. The Guardiola reference is just putting a time frame on it.. basically that they've been to Wembley three times a season on average in the last decade.

They were selling out the allocation a few years ago, but now don't because they are winning too often and it's too expensive for the traditional fan base. They don't actually have enough glory hunters to pad out the attendance.
 
Fr. Todd Unctious said:


Deflect Deflect Deflect. Leaving aside the arguments about the semis being played at Wembley. United and Liverpool would almost certainly sell their allocation no problem in the same circumstances
Click to expand...

I remember the narrative 10-15 years ago when they started winning.
It was “you’ll see in ten years or so their fanbase will increase tenfold and new generations would turn away from United a support city”.

I argued then (against folk on here too) that would not happen as United are too big. Same with Liverpool and Arsenal. It doesn’t matter if those clubs go 30 years without winning a title their fanbases will always grow exponentially more than city’s everywhere around the world regardless.

Anyway here we are 13 years after their first league title, 7 titles later. United and Arsenal have won feck all in that period yet the city match going/online fanbase is still miles behind United and Arsenals.

And as you say now that’s not come to fruition it’s deflection time. Excuses. “Oh it’s in London” .. “oh they’re working class”.
Answer is simple, their fanbase is minuscule compared to the bigger clubs and it doesn’t matter how many league titles they cheat their way that’ll never ever change.
 
Ludens the Red said:
I remember the narrative 10-15 years ago when they started winning.
It was “you’ll see in ten years or so their fanbase will increase tenfold and new generations would turn away from United a support city”.

I argued then (against folk on here too) that would not happen as United are too big. Same with Liverpool and Arsenal. It doesn’t matter if those clubs go 30 years without winning a title their fanbases will always grow exponentially more than city’s everywhere around the world regardless.

Anyway here we are 13 years after their first league title, 7 titles later. United and Arsenal have won feck all in that period yet the city match going/online fanbase is still miles behind United and Arsenals.

And as you say now that’s not come to fruition it’s deflection time. Excuses. “Oh it’s in London” .. “oh they’re working class”.
Answer is simple, their fanbase is minuscule compared to the bigger clubs and it doesn’t matter how many league titles they cheat their way that’ll never ever change.
Click to expand...
In which case it's us, Liverpool and arsenal who should really be embarrassed, not city., that a team who can't sell out Wembley is winning all the trophies.

Surely that much bigger status can be leveraged more effectively to actually attract the best players and managers and win more. It's not as though City are spending orders of magnitude more than Liverpool, us, arsenal and Chelsea.
 
Ole'sattheWheel said:
What does “since Guardiola took over” have to do with anything?
That’s basically just admitting to the fact their fanbase are glory hunters, since they only got most of their fans when they started sportswashing and winning all the time :lol:
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand what a glory hunter is... You also completely missed the point. The writer is implying and correctly so that our fanbase hasn't grown that much since the takeover.
 
brozonis said:
Yeah, I think what he said is fair enough. Obviously City are not close to being comparable in size to us or Liverpool, I don't think most of their fans would claim to be. So not sure why it's embarrassing for them to not sell out yet another Wembley stadium game with their B team against lower league opposition. Not every team can be one of the biggest in the world.
Click to expand...
It’s because they have a multi billion pound squad. It shows the whole thing up for the farce it is.
 
brozonis said:
In which case it's us, Liverpool and arsenal who should really be embarrassed, not city., that a team who can't sell out Wembley is winning all the trophies.

Surely that much bigger status can be leveraged more effectively to actually attract the best players and managers and win more. It's not as though City are spending orders of magnitude more than Liverpool, us, arsenal and Chelsea.
Click to expand...
United should have done much better, for sure. But even with our huge spending there are certain things we cannot and have not done during that period that city have and can.

But it goes without saying that city have had a massive advantage over those clubs the past 15 years. And I don’t think i need to elaborate on what that is.

In the last five years the transfer outgoings may be similar but it’s better to go back to 2010 till now to get a true reflection of city’s spending.
Their fans like to only focus on recent years as if the spending since 2010 hasn’t put them in this position.
They like to talk about net spend as if some of those transfer outgoings aren’t as suspicious as feck (see Southamptons buys from city. (Chelsea did the same with Burnley last summer)

Arsenal and Liverpools spending since 2010 to city’s is incomparable really. Arsenal and Liverpool have also lost some of their best players during that period. City never ever lose their best players and you can probably guess why that is. “Check Mancini’s bank account”..

United should be embarrassed because we’ve not even competed for the title or got past the cl quarter finals. But Arsenal and Liverpool have done brilliantly to compete over that period at different times. Nothing for those two to be embarrassed about.

They’d had every single advantage over every club for the past 15 years on and off the pitch and they still can’t fill Wembley. For sure the embarrassment lies with them.
 
I'm convinced alot of these journos are attempting to brainwash us and trying to tell us how we should be feeling about the City situation at this point.

The City/Pep praise has definitely been cranked up this season, when the direct opposite should be the case given the charges still aren't resolved.
 
brozonis said:
In which case it's us, Liverpool and arsenal who should really be embarrassed, not city., that a team who can't sell out Wembley is winning all the trophies.

Surely that much bigger status can be leveraged more effectively to actually attract the best players and managers and win more. It's not as though City are spending orders of magnitude more than Liverpool, us, arsenal and Chelsea.
Click to expand...
And how would you know that, through their official bookkeeping?

What thread are we in again?
 
brozonis said:
In which case it's us, Liverpool and arsenal who should really be embarrassed, not city., that a team who can't sell out Wembley is winning all the trophies.
Click to expand...

Has the fact they've been cheating on an industrial scale for 2 decades somehow escaped your attention? :confused:

I seem to remember there's a thread about it on here somewhere....
 
How would City's inability to fill a stadium be related to their ability to sign players with money injected into the club by the owner? And why should other clubs be embarrassed about it? Strange notion.

It has been alleged many times that City pay far more under the table than they report.
 
I can’t shake the feeling that if a club like Everton or Newcastle or Spurs made many cup semi-final appearances you’d see their fans show up and fill the stadium all the time. The city excuses always seems pretty weird to me.
 
Fortitude said:
And how would you know that, through their official bookkeeping?

What thread are we in again?
Click to expand...
Because the FFP charges are mostly about where the money came from, whether it was generated or gifted, as well as some undeclared bonuses to players and staff. It's not about the spending being orders of magnitude more than their rivals; it's about spending that without having generated it in a legitimate way.
 
stevoc said:
Has the fact they've been cheating on an industrial scale for 2 decades somehow escaped your attention? :confused:

I seem to remember there's a thread about it on here somewhere....
Click to expand...
To be honest, I don't care. I don't like FFP; I think it's a case of the big clubs trying to pull up the draw bridge behind them, many of whom benefitted from big investment in earlier years. United, Liverpool, Chelsea. Spurs and Arsenal have spent enough that they should still be competitive with City. The fact that they have not been, is largely due to being badly run, poor signings and worse managers, not a colossal difference in spending.

All this focus on FFP to me seems like fans of big clubs trying to hide their embarrassment at the fact that a smaller team could usurp them so easily.
 
Ludens the Red said:
United should have done much better, for sure. But even with our huge spending there are certain things we cannot and have not done during that period that city have and can.

But it goes without saying that city have had a massive advantage over those clubs the past 15 years. And I don’t think i need to elaborate on what that is.

In the last five years the transfer outgoings may be similar but it’s better to go back to 2010 till now to get a true reflection of city’s spending.
Their fans like to only focus on recent years as if the spending since 2010 hasn’t put them in this position.
They like to talk about net spend as if some of those transfer outgoings aren’t as suspicious as feck (see Southamptons buys from city. (Chelsea did the same with Burnley last summer)

Arsenal and Liverpools spending since 2010 to city’s is incomparable really. Arsenal and Liverpool have also lost some of their best players during that period. City never ever lose their best players and you can probably guess why that is. “Check Mancini’s bank account”..

United should be embarrassed because we’ve not even competed for the title or got past the cl quarter finals. But Arsenal and Liverpool have done brilliantly to compete over that period at different times. Nothing for those two to be embarrassed about.

They’d had every single advantage over every club for the past 15 years on and off the pitch and they still can’t fill Wembley. For sure the embarrassment lies with them.
Click to expand...
Let's go back then from the start of the takeover till today. From Transfermarkt. It's hardly a completely different level to United. An extra net spend of €10m per season.

Income and expenditures​

This is an overview of the clubs' highest transfer incomes and expenditures in the chosen period.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/pre...n_id_bis/2025/nat/0/pos//w_s//intern/0/plus/1

#ClubExpenditureArrivalsIncomeDeparturesBalance
1Manchester CityManchester City€3.12bn426€1.24bn428€-1,883.45m
2Manchester UnitedManchester United€2.55bn289€834.50m301€-1,718.28m
3Chelsea FCChelsea FC€3.48bn511€2.12bn510€-1,366.35m
4Arsenal FCArsenal FC€1.98bn299€744.91m304€-1,230.35m
5Tottenham HotspurTottenham Hotspur€2.00bn378€1.08bn383€-925.29m
6Liverpool FCLiverpool FC€2.16bn323€1.27bn330€-885.11m
 
Last edited:
It was always Abu Dhabi strategy to get the journos on board to ensure the narrative around cheaty could be managed. They are not impartial and therefore need to be ignored like the club they represent!
 
brozonis said:
Because the FFP charges are mostly about where the money came from, whether it was generated or gifted, as well as some undeclared bonuses to players and staff. It's not about the spending being orders of magnitude more than their rivals; it's about spending that without having generated it in a legitimate way.
Click to expand...
When they signed Haaland, for instance, the reported transfer fee was £50m. However, they also paid about as much to Haaland's agent and father, but the official transfer fee is noted as £50m. There have been other stories of players and agents being "gifted" properties in Abu Dhabi, too. That's how City are able to seem as if they don't spend that much more on transfers than other top clubs.

We have an intellectual duty not to take their blatantly false financial reports at face value. If their books say they've spent £3bn, I wouldn't be surprised if the true figure is more like 5 or 6.
 
Last edited:
Dansk said:
When they signed Haaland, for instance, the reported transfer fee was £50m. However, they also paid about as much to Haaland's agent and father, but the official transfer fee is noted as £50m. There have been other stories of players being "gifted" properties in AD and such, too. That's how City are able to seem as if they don't spend that much more on transfers than other top clubs.

We have an intellectual duty not to take their blatantly false financial reports at face value. If their books say they've spent £3bn, I wouldn't be surprised if the true figure is more like 5 or 6.
Click to expand...

It’s amazing people still don’t understand this. It’s industrial scale. How do people think they keep that squad happy? The squad that allows them to sweep up domestic cups with ease!
 
brozonis said:
Because the FFP charges are mostly about where the money came from, whether it was generated or gifted, as well as some undeclared bonuses to players and staff. It's not about the spending being orders of magnitude more than their rivals; it's about spending that without having generated it in a legitimate way.
Click to expand...
So you think they are not capable of more and that what they’ve being pulled up on is the only things they’ve done wrong, or that they’re not capable of other means of foul play?
 
They literally bought Peps brother a football club ffs

purely a coincidence of course I'm sure he followed his heart in choosing them to work for when he had the pick of every single club in the world
 
padr81 said:
Let's go back then from the start of the takeover till today. From Transfermarkt. It's hardly a completely different level to United. An extra net spend of €10m per season.

Income and expenditures​

This is an overview of the clubs' highest transfer incomes and expenditures in the chosen period.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/pre...n_id_bis/2025/nat/0/pos//w_s//intern/0/plus/1

#ClubExpenditureArrivalsIncomeDeparturesBalance
1Manchester CityManchester City€3.12bn426€1.24bn428€-1,883.45m
2Manchester UnitedManchester United€2.55bn289€834.50m301€-1,718.28m
3Chelsea FCChelsea FC€3.48bn511€2.12bn510€-1,366.35m
4Arsenal FCArsenal FC€1.98bn299€744.91m304€-1,230.35m
5Tottenham HotspurTottenham Hotspur€2.00bn378€1.08bn383€-925.29m
6Liverpool FCLiverpool FC€2.16bn323€1.27bn330€-885.11m
Click to expand...
Yeah United have been terrible in that period and have spent a lot, never disagreed with it.

In terms of vast difference in spending I was mainly alluding to Arsenal and Liverpool. See the below bit of my post …

Arsenal and Liverpools spending since 2010 to city’s is incomparable really. Arsenal and Liverpool have also lost some of their best players during that period. City never ever lose their best players and you can probably guess why that is. “Check Mancini’s bank account”..
Click to expand...

The poster claimed United Arsenal and Liverpool should be embarrassed. I agree United should be but not the other two. And that graph shows exactly why.
 
Fortitude said:
So you think they are not capable of more and that what they’ve being pulled up on is the only things they’ve done wrong, or that they’re not capable of other means of foul play?
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone sane/not a City fan thinks these are the only things they’ve done outside the rules, it’s proving it and evidence gathering?

I think PL have gone for the easier wins… easier being relative when you have opposing barristers who argue about sentence construction.
 
Dansk said:
When they signed Haaland, for instance, the reported transfer fee was £50m. However, they also paid about as much to Haaland's agent and father, but the official transfer fee is noted as £50m. There have been other stories of players and agents being "gifted" properties in Abu Dhabi, too. That's how City are able to seem as if they don't spend that much more on transfers than other top clubs.

We have an intellectual duty not to take their blatantly false financial reports at face value. If their books say they've spent £3bn, I wouldn't be surprised if the true figure is more like 5 or 6.
Click to expand...
Transfer fees are between clubs, so that is technically accurate.
 
There should be much more focus on sports washing. Fans from the biggest clubs in the country that are not owned by totalitary regimes should act together, namely united Arsenal and Liverpool. An unpropable Cooperation between us and Liverpool would give it even more credibility and power.
 
We can go around in circles debating this but the essence of the story is that everyone and his auntie knows what has been going on for years under the tables.
It's the holding back to dock them points that's not beneficial to football in general.
Someone needs to act on this as quickly as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.