How would a 100 point deduction mean back to back relegation? If they got docked 100 points it'd relegate them from the PL, but if you're going to do a 100 point deduction, you may as well just immediately kick them out of the league, but even then, they'd just win immediate promotion from the Championship.They won't get kicked out of the league but they could get say a 100 point deduction. In reality that would probably mean back to back relegation and they'd rebuild from League 1. I think seems pretty fair all around to be honest.
Just wish they'd get a move on and finalise it. Whatever it may be.
The deductions for Forest and Everton surely make this impossible now. They are both absolutely fuming at this and have stated they'll be watching the other investigations closely.Sky's coverage of Man City is laughably biased, they seldom ever mention the charges. Unless of course they know something the rest of us don't. Part of me thinks it's a strategy to drag this out so long that the appetite to see them punished will be diminished and when the inevitable whitewash is announced, people won't be surprised at all and will just roll their eyes rather than go crazy in indignation.
A 100 point deduction would be funny as they'd have to play out a whole Premier League season with no chance of staying up.How would a 100 point deduction mean back to back relegation? If they got docked 100 points it'd relegate them from the PL, but if you're going to do a 100 point deduction, you may as well just immediately kick them out of the league, but even then, they'd just win immediate promotion from the Championship.
If you mean splitting it across two seasons, it's feasible they'd survive that, given 50 points off their current total has them 16th.
Sky are a global commercial organization. Don't for one second imagine the good of the game is what they are concerned with. They will play it in the best way for them not to jeopardize future commercial interests, which likely means keeping state owned clubs on side. If (big if) there is a proper punishment then they may come on strong with it, but don't expect any outcry from them if it is a mere fine and points deduction. They will play it up as a strong punishment. Will be interesting at that point what the 'principled' employees they have (Gary Neville) do at that point.Sky's coverage of Man City is laughably biased, they seldom ever mention the charges. Unless of course they know something the rest of us don't. Part of me thinks it's a strategy to drag this out so long that the appetite to see them punished will be diminished and when the inevitable whitewash is announced, people won't be surprised at all and will just roll their eyes rather than go crazy in indignation.
It'd just be pointless for everyone involved. If you're handing out a points deduction that is guaranteed to relegated a team, you may as well just relegate them from the off and spare whoever finished 18th that season.A 100 point deduction would be funny as they'd have to play out a whole Premier League season with no chance of staying up.
in the unlikely event they won all 38 games they'd finish on 14 points.
It would be the equivalent of Cersei Lannister walking through the streets naked.
We could all chant 'Shame' at them all season.
Well Gary Neville's already the poster boy for selling out so I don't expect much change from him there. Remember him ranting about the indignity of clubs across Europe forming a breakaway league when he's paid as the face of another breakaway league who would lose out if it happened?Sky are a global commercial organization. Don't for one second imagine the good of the game is what they are concerned with. They will play it in the best way for them not to jeopardize future commercial interests, which likely means keeping state owned clubs on side. If (big if) there is a proper punishment then they may come on strong with it, but don't expect any outcry from them if it is a mere fine and points deduction. They will play it up as a strong punishment. Will be interesting at that point what the 'principled' employees they have (Gary Neville) do at that point.
Any opposition to a weak punishment will need to come from grass roots level supporters boycotting games and the other PL clubs making a joint statement (or at least enough of them) that they will not accept it. Failing that the media (none of them) will push for more. Snouts in the trough, all of them.
Because realistically if they started next year on -100 points with any minus transferring over to other seasons they would likely lose a lot of key players (and Pep) + They'd have to reduce wages etc to not breach the rules repeatedly.Why would a 100 point deduction land them in League 1? What am I missing?
Better make it 115 point deduction then.A 100 point deduction would be funny as they'd have to play out a whole Premier League season with no chance of staying up.
in the unlikely event they won all 38 games they'd finish on 14 points.
Make it 200 points and strip them of everything won and I’m on board.Because realistically if they started next year on -100 points with any minus transferring over to other seasons they would likely lose a lot of key players (and Pep) + They'd have to reduce wages etc to not breach the rules repeatedly.
Lets say they got 55 points, that would mean relegation to the championship and then they'd start that season with -45 points which would likely mean a second relegation.
For me that would be the fair way to implement a punishment.
Best post on the thread by farCity are purchased by Abu Dhabi in September 2008. Manchester City placed 9th the season prior. Abu Dhabi get to work buying players who wouldn't otherwise even look in City's direction. 9th place in 2007/'08 becomes 8th place in 2008/'09; the initial steps of the process take a while to bed in, as the old is replaced with the new. City's first big leap takes place the next season with 8th place bested by three positions. They finish the 2009/'10 season in 5th position. We're now in 2010/'11 and City have sacked Hughes and got their first big name coach in Roberto Mancini. They finish 3rd that season and are now a Champions League club. They've been a perennial fixture in the CL places ever since.
There are no cyclic ups or downs, no consequence for poor purchases where normal clubs are lumped with players whose value plummets who they then cannot get off their books because they cannot afford to pay up their contracts willy-nilly and no other club will take them on without subsidy. There is no fear or regard for any of the recognised norms clubs who are not state-owned are hamstrung by. City are a guaranteed lock for a CL place, thus taking it away from any legitimate contender who is then vying with the remainder for 'a go'. The established Old Order are hurt by this, but the remainder are absolutely crushed by it because they have to have more luck than ever before, or take on more financial risk than ever before to try and break this new status quo.
Meanwhile, of the Old Order, not one of them has been a lock in the CL positions as a perennial fixture since 2009/'10
Manchester United have missed out on the CL 5, going on 6 times (once this season concludes).
Liverpool have missed out on the CL 6 times.
Chelsea have missed out on the CL 4, going on 5 times (once this season concludes).
Arsenal have missed out on the CL 6 times.
This is the Old Order, look how many times these so-called behemoths have failed to qualify for the Champions League since City became an indubitable fixture in the competition. Whether you wish to count Chelsea or not, the point remains - Chelsea are more an example of a club with no hope forcing themselves into the conversation, but not overstepping the mark to the point they have broken football.
Now, as stated by numerous people and their painstaking efforts to make clear how damaging what City are doing is, it's not the clubs above who are the most put out by City, it's the teams below them who, without City's permanency would have had a chance to make their play for the top table. Spurs are going to have been the biggest fall guys, but now it's also the likes of Villa as they try and push through the glass ceiling to compete directly with the teams above (and not City).
There is no time in English football history where Old Orders (they used to be dynamic: Wolves, for example, used to be a big dog up to the conclusion of the 1950's) as there have been - or supposedly established - where those teams remained, perennially, at the helm. In fact, most are defined by golden periods followed by fallow times where they cannot compete for the league nor CL (or previously, the European Cup).
Great periods for these sides are attributed to great men doing unbelievably shrewd work within a financial remit that whilst at the higher end, was not obliterating those around them - the clubs ebbed and flowed with the passage of these managers. City are a faceless state, as @Regulus Arcturus Black stated, there is no way for them to fail because they will always have the best in class, will always replace the best with the best and there will never be a lull due to financial instability or uncertainty. In other words, completely and utterly artificial conditions, especially when contrasted with what history has told us about every one of the Old Order, who all, to a club, could/did/have slumped and have had to re-establish themselves once more years down the line.
It's clear that what some see as "Manchester United" is actually an infernal loathing of Alex Ferguson and the brilliance he ushered into the club, which immediately lost its way without him at the top. In the following 10 years, the cluelessness, and more importantly, the consequences of that cluelessness, have not only seen Manchester United fall back into the pack, but for most of the time, be behind them by some distance. The exact same thing befell Liverpool when Dalglish handed over to Souness and sent them flailing, not only off the top spot, but to be out of the running for the title for years. In very short order, both clubs went from halcyon periods with great players to an exodus and squads and managers who hadn't a prayer. This is how the Old Order works and what their pitfalls are. One or two bad managerial hires and they can fall like a house of cards because consequence for poor decisions then comes back to haunt them as a debt that needs paying in full. These old clubs don't just get to wipe the slate clean each season and go again with a brand new set of players if the bad buys don't work out. They are lumped with them and the general bar for the side will steadily diminish. Arsenal experienced exactly the same thing once Wenger stopped shitting gold. The stadium didn't help, but it wasn't their downfall, but it highlights another point and consequence: the either, or. By pouring money into the new stadium, they were going to be hamstrung for years. A conscious decision made to better their stadium meant less money could be pumped into the team, and anyone coming to manage them had to accept that. At City? Nope, we'll redevelop a portion of the city - yes, the literal city - whilst still hiring best in class across all facets on off and the pitch with no fallout whatsoever. Hmm... clearly the same playing field as what everyone else is uuming and ahhing from.
The worst thing of all is City didn't have to cheat as a state is going to be Borg-like in its assimilation by its very nature. It cannot be anything else, which is why it has no place in football, but that's besides the point as this is about cheating to achieve ends as hurriedly and as artificially as one can imagine.
As much as the Old Order could be despised by those who were not part of it, they were not infinite or unmovable. Every single one of them had sizeable lulls multiple times in their histories and provided opportunities for others to take their slice of the pie should they be so fortunate to go upwind at the time of a boon for the game. We'll never know what would have happened without City in the picture, but history tells us, quite clearly, that even the biggest of English clubs has never been too big to not fail, until now. With Ferguson's retirement, there was no guarantee status quo would have remained, but unlike in the past, where new players could gobble up space, things quickly became established in this new, most broken order where the winningest team's biggest concerns are in how to hide their wrongdoing. The footballing side of things, a total formality due to them having no consequences for anything that goes wrong.
115 points deduction for 115 seasons. And Pep has to continue as manager for all of those seasons wearing a novelty wig of his choice.Make it 200 points and strip them of everything won and I’m on board.
Only fitting punishment.It's interesting to see what people think is a fair punishment.
For me they should be kicked out of the football league and made to start again at the very bottom of the non league pyramid.
What City have done is far worse than what a club like Bury have done. Why should get Man City get special treatment?
Ok, now I’m on board.115 points deduction for 115 seasons. And Pep has to continue as manager for all of those seasons wearing a novelty wig of his choice.
As people have alluded to there’s something going on behind the scenes with this. Their influence and reach, relationships within the city and with the government, the reluctance of anyone to point out the 115 charges. You see the body language and demeanour change on Sky when it’s even hinted at. Pundits and journalists don’t want to lose their access and the benefits they get from being part of the machine.It's interesting to see what people think is a fair punishment.
For me they should be kicked out of the football league and made to start again at the very bottom of the non league pyramid.
What City have done is far worse than what a club like Bury have done. Why should get Man City get special treatment?
Sadly I think you're right.As people have alluded to there’s something going on behind the scenes with this. Their influence and reach, relationships within the city and with the government, the reluctance of anyone to point out the 115 charges. You see the body language and demeanour change on Sky when it’s even hinted at. Pundits and journalists don’t want to lose their access and the benefits they get from being part of the machine.
There’s at this point unsubstantiated rumours they’re preparing cease and desist letters to a number of individuals and entities. That doesn’t strike me as the actions of a club about to be charged.
For the amount of cheating and the cumulative effect they should be barred from the league, stripped of all titles and the ownership group removed.
I’m still not wholly convinced that the PL didn’t just get in over their heads with this and decided to show some teeth because of the white papers stuff. They now realise there’s no way to make any of it stick. City’s owners and lawyers are going to dance around them.
I truly hope I’m wrong.
Agreed plus stripped of their titles and anything they won in this period voidedIt's interesting to see what people think is a fair punishment.
For me they should be kicked out of the football league and made to start again at the very bottom of the non league pyramid.
What City have done is far worse than what a club like Bury have done. Why should get Man City get special treatment?
If they're expelled from the Premier League, they'll have to ask the EFL for a place somewhere between the Championship and League Two. They may well say no. Then they'd be left asking the National League, then the Northern Premier League if they say no.The PL cannot relegate City all the way down the football pyramid. They can dock enough points to relegate them to the Championship only, or they can expel them from the PL. But as far as I'm aware they are not under threat of sanction by the FA.
Neither of that will happen though.
Nick Harris has been covering this for a while and he thinks it's 50/50 on whether City are found guilty or not. Plus, when you consider the PL aren't the most competent of organizations and have probably botched the charges (it didn't take UEFA this long)... IMO they'll draw a line under it and vote in the proposed spending cap to restrain clubs going forward (not shocked that there's been little talk on it on this forum). Spending is way more trackable than revenue.
At the end of the day they'll only be guilty in the court of public opinion, of buying their way to success/financial doping depending on who you speak to. Which I don't think they'd deny. And I don't think they care.
I agree, it’s absolutely farcical we’re even in this situation, but I don’t think people have truly yet understood the depth of scandal that would occur. I can’t think of a bigger instance of cheating across any sport ever. That’s why I think there will be nothing done. 4 in a row and 5/6 titles by a team charged by the governing body of the competition they’re playing in. I doubt there is appetite to admit something on this scale has occurred in this league.Sadly I think you're right.
It would also be incredibly damaging for the brand of The Premier League to admit that the most dominant club over the last seven years have cheated their way to the title.
I expect that all they will get is a massive fine and a relatively small points deduction at most.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And I think it is that sort of mess the PL is looking to avoid.If they're expelled from the Premier League, they'll have to ask the EFL for a place somewhere between the Championship and League Two. They may well say no. Then they'd be left asking the National League, then the Northern Premier League if they say no.
I don't think this is happening, but I don't think EFL are obliged to accept them in even if the PL have kicked them out.
Imo (Will never happen obviously)It's interesting to see what people think is a fair punishment.
For me they should be kicked out of the football league and made to start again at the very bottom of the non league pyramid.
What City have done is far worse than what a club like Bury have done. Why should get Man City get special treatment?
I agree. The club should be forcibly liquidated.Imo (Will never happen obviously)
- Transfer ban for as long as they doped (so 16 or so years).
- Owners have the club forcibly taken off them or forced to have oversight of all financials in the future.
- All trophies stripped from them and awarded to the losing finalist or second placed team in case of a league.
- Forced to pay financial compensation to clubs who missed out on spots in the league due to their doping.
- Kicked out of the PL. This is a bit of a difficult one because then you've got at least some top players just running rampant in League Two, which isn't fair on those teams.
I don't think this is harsh in the slightest. They've completely fecked with the whole integrity of the sport for nearly 20 years. It's an absolute shitshow and even after getting caught they're blocking investigations at every corner.
Yeah I agree with virtually all of that.Imo (Will never happen obviously)
- Transfer ban for as long as they doped (so 16 or so years).
- Owners have the club forcibly taken off them or forced to have oversight of all financials in the future.
- All trophies stripped from them and awarded to the losing finalist or second placed team in case of a league.
- Forced to pay financial compensation to clubs who missed out on spots in the league due to their doping.
- Kicked out of the PL. This is a bit of a difficult one because then you've got at least some top players just running rampant in League Two, which isn't fair on those teams.
I don't think this is harsh in the slightest. They've completely fecked with the whole integrity of the sport for nearly 20 years. It's an absolute shitshow and even after getting caught they're blocking investigations at every corner.
I like this option a lot! However the trouble is would the points be the same and the second placed team still second place as you can't guarantee the outcome of the games against 115 charges FC would have been the same had they not been doing their cheating. I'd rather they were voided, a bit like Lance Armstrong's tour de Frances. It'll be too easy to brush under the carpet if they simply award to the second placed team, whereas having multiple years read "void" would result in a level of accountability and warning to any future 115 charges FCsImo (Will never happen obviously)
- Transfer ban for as long as they doped (so 16 or so years).
- Owners have the club forcibly taken off them or forced to have oversight of all financials in the future.
- All trophies stripped from them and awarded to the losing finalist or second placed team in case of a league.
- Forced to pay financial compensation to clubs who missed out on spots in the league due to their doping.
- Kicked out of the PL. This is a bit of a difficult one because then you've got at least some top players just running rampant in League Two, which isn't fair on those teams.
I don't think this is harsh in the slightest. They've completely fecked with the whole integrity of the sport for nearly 20 years. It's an absolute shitshow and even after getting caught they're blocking investigations at every corner.
Pushes stuff further down the road doesn’t work they will ruin everything they have built with the premier league not today or next year but it will happen.I agree, it’s absolutely farcical we’re even in this situation, but I don’t think people have truly yet understood the depth of scandal that would occur. I can’t think of a bigger instance of cheating across any sport ever. That’s why I think there will be nothing done. 4 in a row and 5/6 titles by a team charged by the governing body of the competition they’re playing in. I doubt there is appetite to admit something on this scale has occurred in this league.
Mods - wrong thread perhaps?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This guys v reliable, watch his account closely.
Yeah that wording is the death knell of them ever getting severely punished like they deserve. Like a poster said should be stripped of all titles but sadly that's never gonna happen. They are dopers in the financial sense rather than the other like Lance Armstrong.I'm definitely concerned they're going to bottle it or are being massively pressured by external parties. The knock-on ramifications for what they've done are absolutely colossal and it'd be the biggest scandal in football history really.
They absolutely deserve to be stripped of every single trophy won in this period, but I just cannot see that happening unfortunately. It's too messy for the PL, and Masters saying it will 'resolve itself' is fecking grim wording.
Yeah I have absolutely zero faith in the authorities, complete kick in the teeth for Forest and Everton but Premier League keep their nose in the UAE trough so won't care about protests from either clubIt's just a lack of faith in the authorities to actually deal with it.
Maybe I'm being pessimistic.
Considering they hadn't finished above 8th in the Premier League before the takeover, it's not just league titles they've cost teams, and not even just CL (or Europa) qualification, it's been the difference between entering in group stages or having to go through qualifiers. Then there's the teams they've beaten in cup competitions even when they've not gone on to win it, changing the whole dynamic of the tournament.
They should be done as a club. We should be seeing FC City of Manchester forming and starting in the Manchester League Division Two, ground sharing with Stockport Town.
Brilliant post.
What's the betting all 115 charges FC gets is a fine. Which will mean naff all given the money they have
Look what's happened to Everton and those were more minor breaches yet we are potentially going to see 115 Charges go unpunished/with a pathetic punishment that won't hinder them
Even the PL Facebook page seems heavily celebratory of 115 Charges FC and Haaland. I know it wants to promote to good players and league, but sure let's promote the club that should be punished for effectively cheating
Let's not forget they were supposed to be banned from the CL, yet got that over turned then when they would have been banned went and won it, thus giving them the treble that only United have previously done (albeit United's was legitimate)
They need to use them as an example of what happens if clubs take part in such serious degrees of cheating, and should be getting points deductions in the tens or even hundreds. But they won't because no one wants to stand up to them because they want to be able to keep fingers in pies
It's not just clubs like United/Liverpool etc that are being majorly affected by them going forward you have teams like Aston Villa competing for CL and the money that brings - and AV aren't one of the top tier clubs for finances so it would be massive for them
Anything they've won should be voided, because you can't tell how results would have gone if 115 charges FC weren't involved. They should be stripped of everything they've won since the ownership changed
If nothing happened, where's the deterrent to stop them buying other clubs and doing this, making the league even more broken
Yeah it was sorryMods - wrong thread perhaps?
I can't stand Chelsea but there's big differences between them and City.The entire post glossed over Chelsea. Who destroyed this league back in the day, and since they started spending money we stopped winning. They spent 250 to 300 million back in mid 2000s.....that money is insane NOW. Never mind back then. In the same windows Arsenal spent 40, United 60. Its just that, no offense, most United fans back in the day had blinkers on just because you were still winning owing to Fergie's brilliance and seeing Arsenal stumbling about was easier than tolerating Chelsea's cheating. And I am hitting 40, I still remember how United fans would laugh at any Arsenal fan complaining about Chelsea back then. There is zero chance Chelsea would have won any title, never mind a CL, had they not cheated their way to it.
City are what Chelsea were, except more efficient. And City followed and then fine tuned their cheating in ways Chelsea didn't think of. If a monster like Pep existed back then, Chelsea would have got him and dominated it like City have.
I can't stand Chelsea but there's big differences between them and City.
I don't think there was such a thing as financial fair play back then was there? Chelsea were basically a super charged Blackburn from a decade before, buying the title with outrageous spending power.
City were "allegedly" masking where their income came from, paying double salaries and all sorts of other stuff at a time when financial fair play did exist.
Difference is, not that this condones the PL allowing him in, is that he is an individual and so whilst he is wealthy and somewhat politically influential, it's on a very small scale compared to the UAE owning a club. In a way it was bound to happen as more and more money came in, the issue now simply has to be to stop teams cheating rather than trying to stop states getting involved.FFP not being there isn't here nor there. They still became powers due to a sugar daddy supplying them with money, without which they'd be nothing. They introduced this nonsense at an UNSEEN scale not seen before.
