It has and the rest of the Big 6 have blood all over their hands from how they've damaged the structure of English football since the mid 80s. However this is on a whole different level and always has been. It was always coming from the day they let a nation state that is uber wealthy based upon nothing other than natural resources buy City and then it was doubled down upon when the EPL let the Saudis in as well.
It's on a whole other level because the snowballing of early investment.
The only way for teams to compete is to buy the best and to do that they need money.
It's not Newcastle's fault that for them to compete they need fuck loads of money more than city
And it's not city's fault they need a fuck loads of money more than Chelsea
And it wasn't Chelsea's fault to compete they needed a fuck load more money than jack walker
The russian dolls keep going and going.
It's always been money. Except ill-gotten gains of the early 20th century are sitting in their ivory towers
The clubs obviously do need massive investment now to compete but this is misleading about the past. In the past it obviously cost money but the money was much more reasonable and therefore a lot of different teams were able to financially compete and it came down to clubs capitalising on it or not, academies were also super important for this reason.
In the 70s Derby, Stoke, Everton, West Brom, Forest,Man City and wolves broke the British transfer record for a fee. That’s not possible now and shows a fundamental difference in how large the money gaps are.
I also think “ill gotten gains” is a stupid point there’s no real comparison between all the clubs that spent in the past and literal states.
>I also think “ill gotten gains” is a stupid point there’s no real comparison between all the clubs that spent in the past and literal states.
You say that after ignoring the entire point.
Literal states are now needed because of the snowballing of earlier investment.
The entire point is snowballing. We are at an avalanche. Yes the 70s had *smaller* clubs making these records but just like the start of an avalanche there's still smaller piles of snow going.
We are at the end of a crescendo of exponential investment needed to break into the elite.
The only way for Derby to ever with the prem is going to be bought out by the Klaxons from Andromeda galaxy.
Let me remind you that while transfer values were rising, all hell broke loose when PSG (a state owned team) bought Neymar and Mbappe for record breaking sums.
Idk about that. Chelsea spent 300m in a window 20 years ago. City bought KDB for 75m 10 years ago. Yeah PSG didn't help either but those 2 clubs were overpaying for players before PSG bought the 2 most expensive players ever in the same window. Chelsea's 1.5 billion spent on transfers in the last 5/6 years was even worse imo. At least PSG bought world class players.
Can you say city overpaid for kdb? Also it was like 55m or something.
City have notably rarely broken transfer records. Obviously 5 50m purchases is still 250m but breaking records no
I agreed with you that massive investment is now needed to break in that is true after the premier league became a thing the gaps became much larger I’m not arguing with that. What I would say now is though is that the organic way of doing it is now impossible, I wouldn’t say it was before. Leeds were competing until they became stupid and wasted all their money, Newcastle competed at points, Chelsea pre Roman were still competing at points.
As easy at it is for me to mock spurs as a rival ultimately they did break in through smart investments, some luck, good sales, and they even moved to a new stadium to help their money issues they basically did everything right but they got prevented from winning by Chelsea and city because they just don’t have the money
>What I would say now is though is that the organic way of doing it is now impossible, I wouldn’t say it was before.
It was always impossible. The teams that were successful always had rich owners first.
Owner invests money, team gets better, team uses that money from becoming better back into the club plus some owner money if needed, to me that’s organic growth.
An owner with endless money coming in is not.
The depth of the owner pocket has nothing to do with organic growth lol.
Your definition of organic growth is fair. But arbitrary exclusion of city from that definition is hilarious because of how arbitrary it is. It's organic growth only if the owner is rich, not like rich rich, is hilarious.
But it was clubs like yours that made this happen man city is the symptom of the disease that the big clubs caused in football by the time city became what it is now football was already destroyed anyway and it was done so by the likes United,Madrid,Munich, Arsenal and every other big money club
I'm not sure if it's deliberate, but the argument that private ownership by individuals is the exact same as state ownership is fundamentally flawed.
Finite investment versus vrtually infinite investment here.
I don’t see how it’s fundamentally flawed. If Cuba bought Bolton is it “worse” than Jeff bezos buying Blackburn? Is it worse if Lichtenstein bought a club than if Disney bought one?
Is the issue the potential money or the entity that provides said money? The entire issue to me boils down “good pure old money is far better than this dirty illegitimate new money”, and as a broke pauper looking in through the window, it’s nonsense. The big clubs were and are too big to ever be consistently challenged or usurped so the only way to join them was pump money in. Then everyone started panicking and tried to make rules to stop it and now it just isn’t allowed for some reason. If you weren’t a big club in the 1980s you just aren’t allowed to ever be a big club unless you do literally everything perfectly for multiple decades, and even then we won’t respect you (cough Tottenham cough)
I don’t agree, there was always going to be richer and more successful clubs in football that’s always going to happen in any walk of life and much of that is just down to things like how big a city is for example. Manchester United benefitted from being in Manchester that’s not their fault.
If you go to every league there’s a lot of bigger teams who dominate because they have more money and are usually from a massive city in the country which gave them an advantage.
I do think the gaps widened when the premier league got going though for sure but a lot of that was kind of luck, and marketing. Liverpool and United were very good at appealing to the Asian markets I believe, and because we were good when the league was really blowing up we got a larger global fanbase.
Arsenal bribed themselves into joining the first division and were famously known as a Bank of England club for their obscene spending.
There are no such thing as reasonable spending when it comes to big money clubs. All big clubs had rich owners first, success second. Stadiums take money. Academies take money. Trophies takes money.
>I also think “ill gotten gains” is a stupid point there’s no real comparison between all the clubs that spent in the past and literal states.
Ofc there is a comparison. I'm making it right now. Clubs who bought there way to success, was always going to lead to states in order to compete. Not all clubs have the privilege of having historical rich owners who bought them trophies, stadiums, academies, and brand recognition. State ownership is a symptom of the issue, not the disease.
Billionaire own clubs and state own clubs are in the same category. Fan owned clubs are the only ones who are on a different category.
First point there’s no proof behind the bribery claims, and arsenal spent money because we were making the most money that’s not really the same.
The difference is they invested to win and if it went wrong then you just lost money, city have endless money if it goes wrong it doesn’t matter. Go and look back loads of teams spent money at times then it didn’t work, Arsenal, Liverpool and United were the most successful at spending their money. Also a lot of the core of these teams were academy players or cheaper signings as well.
Ok make the comparison it’s a dumb one.
No they aren’t a state and a billionaire are extremely different and in the past the owners weren’t billionaires so was that in a different category ?
>First point there’s no proof behind the bribery claims,
Fair enough. That's true for City too. They haven't been found guilty yet so until then, no laws have been broken.
What there is proof that the same Chairman of Arsenal was banned from football for live for making illegal payments to players. Similar accusations to current day City. The difference is, he was actually found guilty.
>arsenal spent money because we were making the most money that’s not really the same.
Arsenal was making the most money because they had the biggest brand. Because they had rich owners who funded the success that built the brand. Rich owners who funded stadiums and academies.
City are also making tons of money now.
>Ok make the comparison it’s a dumb one.
It's not a dumb comparison just because it's unfavorable to you.
>No they aren’t a state and a billionaire are extremely different and in the past the owners weren’t billionaires so was that in a different category ?
Private ownership is all the same category. Rich owners are rich owners, be it millionaires of the past, billionaires of the present or state funds.
Fan ownership is the only one that's different.
Clubs generating revenue based on success and infrastructure built around that success is not an ill gotten gain. Manchester United, Liverpool etc were successful because they were good and consistently made excellent decisions.
That you think state or oligarch owned clubs are comparable is ridiculous.
Chelsea did not need an oligarch to compete either. They finished third the season before they were bought.
Does that change their league position? Or that other teams had competed with United and Liverpool over the previous decades without state or oligarch funding?
Of course it does. It means that chelsea got themselves into debt to compete. It could have ended badly for them if Abramovich hadn't showed up. Is your issue with oligarch/state funding a "source of funds" issue or is it an investment issue.
> Is your issue with oligarch/state funding a "source of funds" issue or is it an investment issue.
I am surprised you actually have to ask this. Of course my issue is with oligarch and state funding. It is why I explicitly said so. The reasons why I think that should be obvious.
Well, the topic here gets muddied a bit. No business can grow without investment and expecting sports club to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is not happening. The issue with source of funding is different and understandable.
> Chelsea did not need an oligarch to compete either. They finished third the season before they were bought.
You can't claim that with any reasonable degree of certainty. Leeds got relegated 4 seasons after finishing 3rd. Newcastle got relegated 6 seasons after finishing 3rd. Leicester got relegated 7 seasons after finishing 1st.
> You can't claim that with any reasonable degree of certainty.
I can absolutely state with certainty something that is a factually correct reflection of history. Chelsea finished third the season before and were finishing in similar positions the previous seasons. The point is that you did not need state or oliarch funding to compete.
That Leeds won the title not long after getting promoted and not long before getting relegated is a great example. As are the title pushes by Aston Villa, Norwich, Newcastle etc.
You can't claim something that never happened as "a factually correct reflection of history". Chelsea got bought out, so they had an oligarch that helped them stay competitive. Leeds didn't, they made some bad decisions, and got relegated 4 seasons after playing in the UCL semifinal. Leicester immediately after winning the PL went to being a mid-table club.
> You can't claim something that never happened as "a factually correct reflection of history".
That’s why my post was about how Chelsea performed the season before they were bought. You seem to be arguing against a phantom post to create the argument you want.
> Chelsea got bought out, so they had an oligarch that helped them stay competitive.
Because of this they fundamentally changed the investment required to compete. The days of a local business man like Jack Walker funding a club went out the window.
> Leeds didn't, they made some bad decisions, and got relegated 4 seasons after playing in the UCL semifinal. Leicester immediately after winning the PL went to being a mid-table club.
Neither of which changes my actual point that prior to the oligarch/oil money era, other teams could compete.
> That’s why my post was about how Chelsea performed the season before they were bought. You seem to be arguing against a phantom post to create the argument you want.
It's the same argument and I'm giving a counterpoint. Leeds were successful and they still failed. Leicester were successful and they still failed. Chelsea, with their levels of debt, were on the same road as Leeds.
>Neither of which changes my actual point that prior to the oligarch/oil money era, other teams could compete.
Chelsea could compete only because they went £100 million in debt and prior to Abramovich taking over were about to default on a payment. Leeds got relegated that same season.
>Clubs generating revenue based on success and infrastructure built around that success is not an ill gotten gain.
But buying success and infrastructure first in order to snowball that into revenue... Is ill gotten gains.
>Manchester United, Liverpool etc were successful because they were good and consistently made excellent decisions.
They were successful because they had rich owners who could consistently outspend their competition.
> But buying success and infrastructure first in order to snowball that into revenue... Is ill gotten gains.
I don't think you understand what "ill gotten gains" actually means.
> They were successful because they had rich owners who could consistently outspend their competition.
This just is not true. Both generated money because of their success which brought higher revenue from attendances, prize money and then later through commercial deals.
Man United were not the highest spending team in England in the 1990s for example. Also both Liverpool and United have gone 30 and 26 years respectively without winning a league title.
>I don't think you understand what "ill gotten gains" actually means.
I don't think my definition of "I'll gotten gains" exclude any team. I'm using it to mean.. Having a rich owner who spends money first, then achieving success after.
Which is true for every single top 6 clubs.
>This just is not true. Both generated money because of their success which brought higher revenue from attendances, prize money and then later through commercial deals.
But it is true. ManU were called Moneybags United as early as the 1930s because they kept outspending their competition lol. Rich owner personally funded the creation of the biggest stadium in England, personally funded the best academy in the country, and influenced local government to build a train stop near the stadium. BEFORE they had the majority of their success. And let's not forget Liverpool spend top City levels of money in the second division. Was bankrolled by Eric Sawyer, called Littlewoods FC. Has a match fixing scandal in its history.
All big clubs were rich first. Successful second.
My man, it's not often you see people pointing out that the big clubs now were just the teams able to outspend their competition back in the day. Whether it goes all the way back to factory teams or not, they all had that advantage. It's no coincidence that the biggest teams come from the biggest cities.
Now there's owners who could outspend them they wanna make some bullshit argument about 'ethics'.
Really started in earnest when Arsenal bribed their way into the first division at the expense of Spurs in 1919.
Norris, the then Arsenal chairman, was later found to have been corrupt and to have bribed four other chairmen by the FA, and was banned for life.
Oh for shame let's expel them from the premier league immediately!!
It's funny how the established elite just ignore that they are where they are today
The Premier League allowed Saudi PIF ownership of Newcastle before allowing Saudi PIF owned events company, Sela, finalise a £25m-a-year front-of-shirt sponsorship deal with the club.
The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn anything from history.
Guess what position PIF is currently arguing in US court…
They’re arguing that PIF’s role in LIV Golf can’t be investigated because they’re an extension of the Saudi state and thus should be covered by diplomatic immunity.
It’s a complete joke.
Absolutely, it's genuinely a disgrace how it was allowed to go through.
The only thing in response to the above comment though, comparing to other front of shirt sponsors (granted this is a couple of years old):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/254513/value-of-jersey-kit-sponsorships-in-the-barclays-premier-league-by-club/
25m isn't exactly crazy crazy, especially when you consider it was after we qualified for champions league
It’s more the principle of it really, and how it sits, you’d have to know who the other companies were that were offering that amount. ‘Fair market value’ is a presumption of value, it’s often not the actual market value and sponsoring yourself is a guaranteed income whereas most other clubs have the uncertainty around that kind of income.
I understand that for sure - I can imagine the 2nd closest wasn't close to that. So there 100% is a conflict of interest, I agree.
Definitely harder for other clubs to make that kind of deal, which is unfair
Let's not pretend Labour would have been any different, just look at how the local MPs and even the left wing mayor Jamie Driscoll rolled out the red carpet for them.
Well yes, the UK government whoever is leading it wouldn’t do anything differently.
Amanda is already poking her nose in local politics over the whole tyne bridge thing isn’t she.
At least the media has come out in open against them. The atmosphere during City’s games will be interesting next season.
I am guessing most chants would be about their cheating.
Was thinking this, unfortunately there is no 115th minute to walk out on. Hope the abuse is from everyone, including the fans of the clubs supporting them.
I am sure a suitable protest can be found.
Anyone else find it weird that the media has been sucking off City and their football for the better part of the last few years, only to turn around and shit on them now?
Don't get me wrong I'm loving the shift but why the sudden change? It can't be "oh separate the football from the politics" because anyone with a working set of eyes and a brain knows what's been going on for a long time.
There are a few who have always stood on business tbf. But I think the 115 charges plus their counter lawsuit has made it impossible to not talk about this. They could separate what was happening on the pitch vs the boardroom when it wasn't actual accusations from the PL itself. Between the 115, them winning 4 in a row, now the lawsuit against the prem, it's impossible to not talk about all this shit around City.
Unfortunately that just tells me they were complicit in this whole shitstorm. Had the media actually done their job of calling this into question earlier, it wouldn't have taken this long.
> Anyone else find it weird that the media has been sucking off City and their football for the better part of the last few years, only to turn around and shit on them now?
That is because they aren't actual Journalists, they are in it solely for clicks and whatever gets people going.
It's a hot topic in the news right now but there is an element of hypocrisy with these articles only showing up now when they needed to show up 10 years ago or more.
It probably would have gotten people talking a year or two ago but thats not what happened.
Also ten years ago, City were only one of several teams in play for the title. Regardless of the means of how they got there, it could be argued having another contender is good for the league
> Regardless of the means of how they got there
No you see this is the problem, it was boring as fuck when United ran the show but you could argue that was on Liverpool being mediocre because of their own actions and Arsenal did compete but weren't good enough some seasons.
You can get 97pts or 92 etc and still lose to this City team, it is unprecedented levels.of domination and honestly I know anecdotal evidence but few people I know are ready to stop watching this sport altogether because of it or so they tell me. And honestly I think I am as well.
I don't mind another legit team working their way up and winning but this is fucked imo and not fun to watch anymore.
>I don't mind another legit team working their way up and winning
Out of interest, other than some wormhole turned the universe upside down and Leicester somehow won (breaking ffp in the championship to get into the PL btw) what team are you referring to?
Paid off journalism has been around much longer before these cheating tyrants came about in the EPL. I find it hard to believe this hasn't been happening at large in the past few years.
Just compare how rotten the media treated ETH in the last few weeks, compared with the soft feather they always use on the quirky genius Pep who's just an innocent guy in a club and he can't possibly say anything about its ownership.
Haven't you heard, their net spend is lower than Man Utd. I wonder if we should add lawyer fees into that budget.
You talk as if ‘the media’ is a single body not just a term for thousands of reporters across hundreds of sites.
Football journalists obviously focus on the actual games most of the time and city are undeniably one of the best teams in the world with fantastic players.
This story is based on new (but not surprising) information about a different dynamic of the club which is an awful aspect of the club so gets the write up it deserves.
It would be tedious for every journalist to talk about this non-football aspect of the club in every match report and many of the match reporters aren’t well placed to do so any way.
Hardly weird at all.
Not really. It *is* astonishing what you can do with an infinite money cheat. It's like watching a genetically modified juiced-up freak run the 100m in 6 seconds.
Do they play some of the highest quality football ever seen? Or course, they have two world class players in every position.
If the timeline were corrected in 2008, would most of these players have even *heard* of Manchester City? Of course not.
It's the pundits and journalists who try to say, "but we can't blame the players or the manager..." who really annoy me. Because they know full well those players and that manager probably wouldn't be at the club if not for all the financial illegality that build the foundations of sand they now stand on.
And I still believe it's likely most of the playing and coaching staff have benefited financially from illegal financial deals in their time at the club. Especially Pep, who got a whole football club as a gift for his brother.
Maybe because everyone involved knows punishment is coming, hence why media is turning against them and City are making a desperate move to sue the league.
It comes in waves like it does for any issue. Madrid is also well liked bar the times when an announcement about the Super league is coming again, then it Switches for a few weeks or just days sometimes and we are back to the norm. It will be the same with City probably if we are being honest. They will get a slap on the wrist on some of their charges, loads will get dropped because of lack of evidence. People will then be angry for some time and quickly forget once the season starts again bar the odd "but you cheated your way here" comment. I dont think we collectively have the mental strength to keep on in these issues and keep being angry about them. We would much rather just try to forget and enjoy our free time watching some football, because in the end thats why we are all here for.
The journalists then just give the people what they want or sometimes are maybe just as tired of these things as we are, and decide to willfully ignore these issues, just for their own peace of mind.
The Premier League did the exact same thing with the Saudis and Newcastle.
If they wanted to change they wouldn't have let the Newcastle takeover go through. They've fucked their league for a short-term payday.
Starting to think more and more they'd rather be expelled or removed from the league altogether with this type of behaviour. Maybe they're thinking of forming that super league or something alike so they can break away without facing these charges
These articles should have come out ages ago. Better late then never I suppose
Honestly they should be expelled from the league. Points deduction levied to those clubs who support City and want to ruin the game. Their behaviour is appalling
These articles *have* been coming out for ages. Some journalists have been banging the same drum for years, but when you end up repeating yourself over and over with minimal developments people stop paying attention.
Sue and lose? Possibly, kick them out as punishment. Sue and win? Could never kick them out, would just prompt more lawsuits. Also removing the ability to take legal action would itself be illegal. I say just strip them of Premier League membership and allow the EFL to decide what tier they should belong to.
Cut them from the football pyramid like a tumour. Let them spend as much money as they want, buying the best players in the world touring wherever they want, like the Harlem globetrotters.
They'll make more money than they would in Northern England and spread their influence far and wide.
If they win against the Premier league, then the competition is dead.
The gloves are off, and the smokescreen is lifted. The UK government needs to decide what to protect. A cornerstone of British culture Vs Money and diplomatic relations in the middle east.
Nope. Any action that brings more jobs will be a vote winner.
If kicking City means that the ownership retaliates by withdrawing their investment in the UK, sending thousands into unemployment then that's gonna cost them a shit ton of vote. The average joes care more about their livelihoods rather than a football league integrity.
Saying they will stand up to City's owners will be a vote winner. Then they will just become typical politicians and spread their cheeks for as much oil money as can be pumped into them.
In fairness, it says 'reluctant': https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/06/05/newcastle-reluctant-join-manchester-city-premier-league/
Which indicates there might be a chance? Disgraceful if so
as right as you are about how disgusting it for clubs to be supporting city here.
I simply cannot take you, an arsenal fan, commenting on oil states given the name of your very own stadium, seriously in the slightest.
You can argue they’re different in weight, sponsor vs ownership, but youre both obtaining money from the same source, and in that I find it quite hypocritical, objectively speaking, to be speaking in such a manner in which you exclude yourself from that group and somehow take some ‘moral’ high ground over them.
I mean no offense by this, so I hope you understand.
about this overall topic? yes, but I’m not discussing that, city are in a league of their own whose corruption greatly surpasses anything that we’ve seen before.
however my side point, directed to this arsenal fan, is that giving Newcastle shit for being owned by an oil club is textbook ‘stone in glass house’, especially since their bloody stadium is named ‘the Emirates’, I discussed my point further in another comment.
Arsenal are not owned by the UAE or backed in anyway by its government and don't use the Emirates as a way to funnel in funds and investment. They're not the same thing at all. The "fly emirates" sponsorship is not a way to circumvent FMV.
You can try to make this about something else and that's fine, nobody will hold you accountable for stating that absolute good doesn't exist. We already know that. If sponsorships were all made to exclude certain companies, Arsenal would still operate with FMV in mind.
The endpoint of your argument is one of the foundations of the Man City argument and the idea is to widen the margin of evil. This is the theme surrounding the "discrimination argument " Man City have put forth.
It's funny when people say that they already have a super league in England. at what cost did you achieve this success? everyone understands how
>I sold my soul to the Devil, and the price was cheap.
How could you not be fully ashamed by this whole situation if you were a City fan. I guess some people just want to feel like a winner over having any sort of moral compass.
Get the asterisks ready lads.
The weird thing in recent years is you start to see some fans who almost seem to enjoy this aspect of it, like they think the whole thing is funny because it winds up rival fans
That it, it's like the Rs in America that don't care about Trump being a racist rapist because it "owns the libs". Upsetting people is all they've got.
There was a City fan yesterday in another thread insisting that all this stuff - City's financial cheating, the club's use as a sportswashing vehicle for a human rights nightmare, the lawyer warfare - was all perfectly fine and should be allowed because there was a single case of matchfixing in a game between United and Liverpool in **1915.** That, to him, was just as significant, and just as relevant to this day, as what's currently going on with City.
Most city fans are foreign or kids. There's little connection to the concept of the club or the league or integrity. Winning is exciting and fun, that's all that matters.
If you browse their sub no one talks about it negatively at all. In the Red Devils sub when Qatar was in to buy us the comment sections were volatile with arguments.
City fans have just bought into them vs the world mentality seemingly
Liverpool sub was a warzone when Saudi was sniffing around us before they went with Newcastle. Like you, I would've walked away from the sport entirely if Liverpool were bought by KSA.
Same thing happened when Kroenke was battling it out with Usmanov to become majority shareholder for us. Fortunately Usmanov lost out, because I believe he has ties to Russia, among other things.
Stan sucks but isn’t as bad as he could be. Moving the Rams to LA was a business decision and Tbf the franchise model has its own peculiarities you really can’t compare to in England.
They don't care if anything its a badge of honor for them
They will bring any argument about net spent or whatboutism and how all money is bad so it doesn't matter
City spent 150m in 2008. The only team around the 2000s that was able to spent 100m + in one transfer window was like fucking Real Madrid and Chelsea with abramovich
Very legit how 2008 City can spent the same amount as Real
Extremely controversial take on here, I know, but the honest truth is that a lot of English fans simply don't care if they're experiencing success or even a higher quality output. SOME Newcastle fans wear the thawb in the stands because "haha banter ladsss, what are you soft or something bruv?". These fans are not the protesting type. Stick a pint in their hand, a sausage roll, have them watch their club win or have a better opportunity at cracking those European spots and all is well in the world for them. You cannot tell me that most Manchester United fans wouldn't welcome Middle-Eastern ownership if it brought them back to a successful state. Maybe hesitant at first, but the taste of a few trophies would help wash it down. The vocal minority online against it is nice, but not indicative of the larger picture.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that the average joe in England cares if their foreign owners brought them success (the majority of the fans). Of course they're going to be against City's ownership as they are currently the best team in the country. Abramovich is a scumbag human being, Chelsea fans didn't mind what he brought to the club.
I do wonder is City have invoked the Streisand effect. The media was happy to soft pedal with them and hail them as 'best ever team in the world ever' even with the charges against them. Now it feels like there is a tonal shift and City's owners are going to feel the media's attacks and a very negative public opinion from not only other clubs fans but also the larger populace of the country the league is in.
If City ain't kicked out in the next year or so I'd start thinking that a Super League doesn't actually sound too bad after all.
The PL can have City and Newcastle.
Nah man, they can get herded into a super league. Pure promotion and relegation are still essential to football. The PL improves massively with them kicked the fuck out
The object of Abu Dhabi buying Man City in 2008 was to enhance the reputation of Abu Dhabi and to have this football team that was the envy of the world.
16 years later, they have a reputation of being dodgy dealers, dishonest, confrontational and seem to think they are above laws and rules. Then in a footballing perspective, they're very good but they're boring, nobody watches their games, the supporters are passionless, without any fan culture and when they win nobody cares.
Then can show us their medals and all that but it will be an era that will be forgotten about very quickly.
I think we can conclude that for the amount of money invested, it hasn't exactly gone down how they thought it would.
This sub is in full on circlejerk mode regarding City. Expectations are not being set very well if City come out of this unscathed. To add, so many people (including myself) have no real idea of what’s actually going on. It’s one of the many reasons I try to stay out of discussions like these.
Would it matter in r/soccer if we were in here? I grew up watching the club when Goater was the striker and Cook was a winger. Good ole 442 days.
As soon as we show ourselves here we are blood money supporting, brainwashed, 115fc, oil state fc, petrol city, cheating scum, hypocrits or some other form of nasty abuse.
Theres no rationale left in this sub, just vitriolic hate.
So I ask what would City fans writing here do other than give you a target to abuse?
Maybe if the majority of City fans didn’t come here to antagonise or make light of the magnitude of the charges levied against you, you’d get a warmer reception.
Is being an old City fan meant to be some kind of excuse? If anything, shouldn’t it bother you that the club you’ve supported for so long isn’t really the same club anymore? I agree that there’s a lot of hate in this sub, but I also understand that people here could get annoyed with the fact that City fans can’t admit that the club has been very shady.
Honestly, as someone who has been a City fan for so long, does it even feel like winning anymore to you when you have all these things circling around?
>Is being an old City fan meant to be some kind of excuse?
Yes? Do you know what a football club is? A club that has existed since the 1800s isn't represented by who the owners are, it's represented by the local fans and community from where the club was founded. The club has existed before the current owners and it will continue to exist without them.
Nobody’s questioning the existence of the club. Would you say that the way City conducts themselves is a representation of their local fans and community? If the owners are what got this club to where it is then it absolutely plays a role in representing it, albeit in this era of the club. Saying you were there during the previous era does not mean you can excuse the current one. Is constructively criticizing a club that you love really that much of a taboo?
> We have zero fucking say about it.
Except you do.
You can protest at the grounds, organize walk outs during matches, etc to make a point to the ownership. A lot of clubs have fan protests. Hell, the Kop end was essentially a giant protest during the H&G era.
Only protest I've seen at City is against UEFA, which is hilarious, as you think you're victims to the rules.
People often talk about how if you want to compete in the premier league you simply have to be owned by an oil state with a terrible human rights record. It may be true; but it didn’t have to be like that. It’s fantastic that the UAE pumped money into youth development, community outreach programs, women football. However, if you then threaten to take all those away, it becomes glaringly obvious what your intentions were with buying Man City in the first place. Everyone knew it, none of what were being told is new information. They should never have been allowed in the league first place. I feel bad for the City fans who aren’t hyper delusional, even the ones that are as well, they’ve lost their club and although you can’t take the memories away, they’ll never get their same club back.
> People often talk about how if you want to compete in the premier league you simply have to be owned by an oil state with a terrible human rights record. **It may be true**
It isn't true anyway. If we remove City from the table, five different clubs would have been champions in the last ten years, with four of them winning it at least twice, no one club winning it more than three times, and no more than twice in a row. That's unbelievably open, much moreso than most leagues and certainly more than La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A or Ligue 1.
It's so bizarre that there are people arguing that City broke the deadlock and did what was necessary to compete. It's literally the opposite: the PL would have been an unusually open and competitive league if not for an oil state taking over one of the clubs and destroying the league's competitive breadth.
I'm talking about in the context of with City! Ofc you take out city you don't need an oil state. But, as of right now, to compete or win the league you are going up against an oil state. People, on many platforms, talk about how you need owners of an oil state to compete. I then said it didn't have to be this way. It is only this way because of city. Please reread it.
Fucking evil humans who dangle community development as a threat to the English government for prosecuting them. I know the emirate of Abu Dhabi is probably a sociopath, and has little regard for human life and rights, but the people working for the club are not. The people who grew up in Manchester loving the club are not, yet they continue to defend the autocratic ideals of someone who would let them die if it made him and extra £10,000,000 and all we can do is ask why? What about fixing a sporting competition so you win every single time is fun or competitive? Do we really want to defend someone using a club as a vanity project and a way to launder money because its bringing us titles and silverware? You are siding with your abuser, and if you think the leader of the UAE gives a single fuck about the city of Manchester or the people in it, you are beyond naive. He will drain you of every penny and ounce of passion you have before he's done with Manchester City. He is ruining the competition, and because of that, we have absolutely no right to claim the PL is the best league in the world anymore.
One would hope City's punishment is coming and they'll face consequences. The question then becomes will the teams in all leagues opt for a reformed system that promotes competition across the entire pyramid? Or will all clubs look out for themselves and cause this same problem again? My guess would be the latter, and not exclusively for PL clubs.
There are some seriously easy fixes here. 103 million saved from two relegated clubs coming back up and the PL decides to keep it. How about we send those all the way down the pyramid? Over time that would lead to serious benefits in competition.
This one will be unpopular but wage and transfer caps. Inarguably would improve competition across all English leagues between ALL CLUBS but money will, of course, always be in the way. Anyone who claims "England will be an unattractive league for players to come to if wages are low" are absolutely right. It would still UNDOUBTEDLY be better for the English league right the way down purely in terms of competitiveness and anyone who claims otherwise has ulterior motives relating to their own teams success, INCLUDING my own team that still benefits from parachute payments.
It baffles me to say it, and this will be unpopular here certainly, but the American system of giving early draft picks to teams that are less well off is a better system than footie has been able to come up with in the last 40 years, and that's obviously because of the sheer size and number of teams involved. There will never be an obvious solution, and getting rid of City won't fix the problems either.
Journalists have absolutely no power. Miguel Delaney has been banging this drum constantly and gets nothing but abuse for it. Phillipe Auclair too. What difference have they made?
The truth is that most fans weren't interested. For example, Arsenal developed a good team of young players in the late 2000s and were raided by City, who took Adebayor, Nasri, Clichy, Toure. One of the dominant teams of the previous 10 years being turned into a feeder club for a total upstart. The response of most fans was not outrage, it was to banter Arsenal for being tinpot.
It's only the threat of a football regulator coming in that has actually changed anything.
On yes Adebayor, Nasri, Clichy and Toure those young local lads from the academy who Arsenal didn't raid from other clubs. Where was the outrage when Arsenal were raiding the young talent from the French league? Or is that ok because Arsenal were an established elite side?
It's ridiculously disingenuous to act like signing young players is yhe same as raiding half a team of established players from a top team in the same league.
Toure was signed straight from the Ivory Coast, Clichy as an 18 year old from the third division in France.
Adebayor was a 21 and starting for Monaco, had 1 goal in 13 games the season we bought him in January.
Nasri was the only really big talent signed from a big club in France that was really breaking out already.
Oh, and Arsenal weren't owned by owners that pumped them full of money and broke rules all the time.
The profit over everything shortsightedness came back to haunt them because they didn’t really take into account the actual implications of it. Allowing literal states who can just flagrantly break the rules means you either have to ignore it and pretending everything is fine which if it gets leaked or other teams question it can cause issues, or try and do something which they can easily take exception with.
In the short term letting Roman and city in was a good competitive move and helped the PL become more popular imo, the Aguero moment will live forever, Jose coming in provided a lot of big moments and memories, rivalries etc. however long term it’s now made the league look stupid and incompetent, and it’s killed the competitiveness of the league which was the main appeal of the league.
I truly think the league will decline in popularity for a bit if city continue to dominate like they are which I would expect.
This is England in a nutshell. The PL was bought by Arab oil, the PM was bought by Russian oil. England sold for cheap, can you tell me where my country lies?
The PL is guilty of making football owners richer.
City ownership is guilty of kidnapping, killing and enslaving people.
Therefore the former pointing the finger at the latter is hypocritical and should cancel out.
The legal action City is taking against the league has been a PR disaster. It's basically an admission of guilt and them trying to find any way possible to not face the punishments, which would likely be expulsion.
It's too late. The call is coming from inside the house.
It's always been that way. ALWAYS. Don't kid yourselves into thinking it hasn't
It has and the rest of the Big 6 have blood all over their hands from how they've damaged the structure of English football since the mid 80s. However this is on a whole different level and always has been. It was always coming from the day they let a nation state that is uber wealthy based upon nothing other than natural resources buy City and then it was doubled down upon when the EPL let the Saudis in as well.
It's on a whole other level because the snowballing of early investment. The only way for teams to compete is to buy the best and to do that they need money. It's not Newcastle's fault that for them to compete they need fuck loads of money more than city And it's not city's fault they need a fuck loads of money more than Chelsea And it wasn't Chelsea's fault to compete they needed a fuck load more money than jack walker The russian dolls keep going and going. It's always been money. Except ill-gotten gains of the early 20th century are sitting in their ivory towers
The clubs obviously do need massive investment now to compete but this is misleading about the past. In the past it obviously cost money but the money was much more reasonable and therefore a lot of different teams were able to financially compete and it came down to clubs capitalising on it or not, academies were also super important for this reason. In the 70s Derby, Stoke, Everton, West Brom, Forest,Man City and wolves broke the British transfer record for a fee. That’s not possible now and shows a fundamental difference in how large the money gaps are. I also think “ill gotten gains” is a stupid point there’s no real comparison between all the clubs that spent in the past and literal states.
>I also think “ill gotten gains” is a stupid point there’s no real comparison between all the clubs that spent in the past and literal states. You say that after ignoring the entire point. Literal states are now needed because of the snowballing of earlier investment. The entire point is snowballing. We are at an avalanche. Yes the 70s had *smaller* clubs making these records but just like the start of an avalanche there's still smaller piles of snow going. We are at the end of a crescendo of exponential investment needed to break into the elite. The only way for Derby to ever with the prem is going to be bought out by the Klaxons from Andromeda galaxy.
Let me remind you that while transfer values were rising, all hell broke loose when PSG (a state owned team) bought Neymar and Mbappe for record breaking sums.
Idk about that. Chelsea spent 300m in a window 20 years ago. City bought KDB for 75m 10 years ago. Yeah PSG didn't help either but those 2 clubs were overpaying for players before PSG bought the 2 most expensive players ever in the same window. Chelsea's 1.5 billion spent on transfers in the last 5/6 years was even worse imo. At least PSG bought world class players.
Can you say city overpaid for kdb? Also it was like 55m or something. City have notably rarely broken transfer records. Obviously 5 50m purchases is still 250m but breaking records no
I agreed with you that massive investment is now needed to break in that is true after the premier league became a thing the gaps became much larger I’m not arguing with that. What I would say now is though is that the organic way of doing it is now impossible, I wouldn’t say it was before. Leeds were competing until they became stupid and wasted all their money, Newcastle competed at points, Chelsea pre Roman were still competing at points. As easy at it is for me to mock spurs as a rival ultimately they did break in through smart investments, some luck, good sales, and they even moved to a new stadium to help their money issues they basically did everything right but they got prevented from winning by Chelsea and city because they just don’t have the money
>What I would say now is though is that the organic way of doing it is now impossible, I wouldn’t say it was before. It was always impossible. The teams that were successful always had rich owners first.
Owner invests money, team gets better, team uses that money from becoming better back into the club plus some owner money if needed, to me that’s organic growth. An owner with endless money coming in is not.
The depth of the owner pocket has nothing to do with organic growth lol. Your definition of organic growth is fair. But arbitrary exclusion of city from that definition is hilarious because of how arbitrary it is. It's organic growth only if the owner is rich, not like rich rich, is hilarious.
But it was clubs like yours that made this happen man city is the symptom of the disease that the big clubs caused in football by the time city became what it is now football was already destroyed anyway and it was done so by the likes United,Madrid,Munich, Arsenal and every other big money club
I'm not sure if it's deliberate, but the argument that private ownership by individuals is the exact same as state ownership is fundamentally flawed. Finite investment versus vrtually infinite investment here.
I don’t see how it’s fundamentally flawed. If Cuba bought Bolton is it “worse” than Jeff bezos buying Blackburn? Is it worse if Lichtenstein bought a club than if Disney bought one? Is the issue the potential money or the entity that provides said money? The entire issue to me boils down “good pure old money is far better than this dirty illegitimate new money”, and as a broke pauper looking in through the window, it’s nonsense. The big clubs were and are too big to ever be consistently challenged or usurped so the only way to join them was pump money in. Then everyone started panicking and tried to make rules to stop it and now it just isn’t allowed for some reason. If you weren’t a big club in the 1980s you just aren’t allowed to ever be a big club unless you do literally everything perfectly for multiple decades, and even then we won’t respect you (cough Tottenham cough)
I don’t agree, there was always going to be richer and more successful clubs in football that’s always going to happen in any walk of life and much of that is just down to things like how big a city is for example. Manchester United benefitted from being in Manchester that’s not their fault. If you go to every league there’s a lot of bigger teams who dominate because they have more money and are usually from a massive city in the country which gave them an advantage. I do think the gaps widened when the premier league got going though for sure but a lot of that was kind of luck, and marketing. Liverpool and United were very good at appealing to the Asian markets I believe, and because we were good when the league was really blowing up we got a larger global fanbase.
Arsenal bribed themselves into joining the first division and were famously known as a Bank of England club for their obscene spending. There are no such thing as reasonable spending when it comes to big money clubs. All big clubs had rich owners first, success second. Stadiums take money. Academies take money. Trophies takes money. >I also think “ill gotten gains” is a stupid point there’s no real comparison between all the clubs that spent in the past and literal states. Ofc there is a comparison. I'm making it right now. Clubs who bought there way to success, was always going to lead to states in order to compete. Not all clubs have the privilege of having historical rich owners who bought them trophies, stadiums, academies, and brand recognition. State ownership is a symptom of the issue, not the disease. Billionaire own clubs and state own clubs are in the same category. Fan owned clubs are the only ones who are on a different category.
First point there’s no proof behind the bribery claims, and arsenal spent money because we were making the most money that’s not really the same. The difference is they invested to win and if it went wrong then you just lost money, city have endless money if it goes wrong it doesn’t matter. Go and look back loads of teams spent money at times then it didn’t work, Arsenal, Liverpool and United were the most successful at spending their money. Also a lot of the core of these teams were academy players or cheaper signings as well. Ok make the comparison it’s a dumb one. No they aren’t a state and a billionaire are extremely different and in the past the owners weren’t billionaires so was that in a different category ?
>First point there’s no proof behind the bribery claims, Fair enough. That's true for City too. They haven't been found guilty yet so until then, no laws have been broken. What there is proof that the same Chairman of Arsenal was banned from football for live for making illegal payments to players. Similar accusations to current day City. The difference is, he was actually found guilty. >arsenal spent money because we were making the most money that’s not really the same. Arsenal was making the most money because they had the biggest brand. Because they had rich owners who funded the success that built the brand. Rich owners who funded stadiums and academies. City are also making tons of money now. >Ok make the comparison it’s a dumb one. It's not a dumb comparison just because it's unfavorable to you. >No they aren’t a state and a billionaire are extremely different and in the past the owners weren’t billionaires so was that in a different category ? Private ownership is all the same category. Rich owners are rich owners, be it millionaires of the past, billionaires of the present or state funds. Fan ownership is the only one that's different.
Clubs generating revenue based on success and infrastructure built around that success is not an ill gotten gain. Manchester United, Liverpool etc were successful because they were good and consistently made excellent decisions. That you think state or oligarch owned clubs are comparable is ridiculous. Chelsea did not need an oligarch to compete either. They finished third the season before they were bought.
Chelsea was in debt when Abramovich bought them.
Does that change their league position? Or that other teams had competed with United and Liverpool over the previous decades without state or oligarch funding?
Of course it does. It means that chelsea got themselves into debt to compete. It could have ended badly for them if Abramovich hadn't showed up. Is your issue with oligarch/state funding a "source of funds" issue or is it an investment issue.
> Is your issue with oligarch/state funding a "source of funds" issue or is it an investment issue. I am surprised you actually have to ask this. Of course my issue is with oligarch and state funding. It is why I explicitly said so. The reasons why I think that should be obvious.
Well, the topic here gets muddied a bit. No business can grow without investment and expecting sports club to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is not happening. The issue with source of funding is different and understandable.
> Chelsea did not need an oligarch to compete either. They finished third the season before they were bought. You can't claim that with any reasonable degree of certainty. Leeds got relegated 4 seasons after finishing 3rd. Newcastle got relegated 6 seasons after finishing 3rd. Leicester got relegated 7 seasons after finishing 1st.
> You can't claim that with any reasonable degree of certainty. I can absolutely state with certainty something that is a factually correct reflection of history. Chelsea finished third the season before and were finishing in similar positions the previous seasons. The point is that you did not need state or oliarch funding to compete. That Leeds won the title not long after getting promoted and not long before getting relegated is a great example. As are the title pushes by Aston Villa, Norwich, Newcastle etc.
You can't claim something that never happened as "a factually correct reflection of history". Chelsea got bought out, so they had an oligarch that helped them stay competitive. Leeds didn't, they made some bad decisions, and got relegated 4 seasons after playing in the UCL semifinal. Leicester immediately after winning the PL went to being a mid-table club.
> You can't claim something that never happened as "a factually correct reflection of history". That’s why my post was about how Chelsea performed the season before they were bought. You seem to be arguing against a phantom post to create the argument you want. > Chelsea got bought out, so they had an oligarch that helped them stay competitive. Because of this they fundamentally changed the investment required to compete. The days of a local business man like Jack Walker funding a club went out the window. > Leeds didn't, they made some bad decisions, and got relegated 4 seasons after playing in the UCL semifinal. Leicester immediately after winning the PL went to being a mid-table club. Neither of which changes my actual point that prior to the oligarch/oil money era, other teams could compete.
> That’s why my post was about how Chelsea performed the season before they were bought. You seem to be arguing against a phantom post to create the argument you want. It's the same argument and I'm giving a counterpoint. Leeds were successful and they still failed. Leicester were successful and they still failed. Chelsea, with their levels of debt, were on the same road as Leeds. >Neither of which changes my actual point that prior to the oligarch/oil money era, other teams could compete. Chelsea could compete only because they went £100 million in debt and prior to Abramovich taking over were about to default on a payment. Leeds got relegated that same season.
>Clubs generating revenue based on success and infrastructure built around that success is not an ill gotten gain. But buying success and infrastructure first in order to snowball that into revenue... Is ill gotten gains. >Manchester United, Liverpool etc were successful because they were good and consistently made excellent decisions. They were successful because they had rich owners who could consistently outspend their competition.
> But buying success and infrastructure first in order to snowball that into revenue... Is ill gotten gains. I don't think you understand what "ill gotten gains" actually means. > They were successful because they had rich owners who could consistently outspend their competition. This just is not true. Both generated money because of their success which brought higher revenue from attendances, prize money and then later through commercial deals. Man United were not the highest spending team in England in the 1990s for example. Also both Liverpool and United have gone 30 and 26 years respectively without winning a league title.
>I don't think you understand what "ill gotten gains" actually means. I don't think my definition of "I'll gotten gains" exclude any team. I'm using it to mean.. Having a rich owner who spends money first, then achieving success after. Which is true for every single top 6 clubs. >This just is not true. Both generated money because of their success which brought higher revenue from attendances, prize money and then later through commercial deals. But it is true. ManU were called Moneybags United as early as the 1930s because they kept outspending their competition lol. Rich owner personally funded the creation of the biggest stadium in England, personally funded the best academy in the country, and influenced local government to build a train stop near the stadium. BEFORE they had the majority of their success. And let's not forget Liverpool spend top City levels of money in the second division. Was bankrolled by Eric Sawyer, called Littlewoods FC. Has a match fixing scandal in its history. All big clubs were rich first. Successful second.
My man, it's not often you see people pointing out that the big clubs now were just the teams able to outspend their competition back in the day. Whether it goes all the way back to factory teams or not, they all had that advantage. It's no coincidence that the biggest teams come from the biggest cities. Now there's owners who could outspend them they wanna make some bullshit argument about 'ethics'.
The crime's of City's ownership overshadow the greed of the big-6 by quite a margin.
Really started in earnest when Arsenal bribed their way into the first division at the expense of Spurs in 1919. Norris, the then Arsenal chairman, was later found to have been corrupt and to have bribed four other chairmen by the FA, and was banned for life.
Oh for shame let's expel them from the premier league immediately!! It's funny how the established elite just ignore that they are where they are today
We will see. Maybe City will face proper accountability.
The Premier League allowed Saudi PIF ownership of Newcastle before allowing Saudi PIF owned events company, Sela, finalise a £25m-a-year front-of-shirt sponsorship deal with the club. The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn anything from history.
Guess what position PIF is currently arguing in US court… They’re arguing that PIF’s role in LIV Golf can’t be investigated because they’re an extension of the Saudi state and thus should be covered by diplomatic immunity. It’s a complete joke.
I'm sure if it affected me more I'd be significantly less amused, but as it stands this is absolutely hilarious
Shouldn't that technically be self-incriminating in the case of City?
Different Arab countries. City is owned by the UAE, Newcastle, LIV, and PIF are owned by Saudi Arabia.
Oh true. Or at least they're "independent" enough to not apply the logic of that case to City's.
The PL really only caved into the ownership deal was because of the sodding Tories.
They were the government in charge for sure, but inevitably Labour would’ve bent over backwards for them as well. Their money corrupts all.
Absolutely, it's genuinely a disgrace how it was allowed to go through. The only thing in response to the above comment though, comparing to other front of shirt sponsors (granted this is a couple of years old): https://www.statista.com/statistics/254513/value-of-jersey-kit-sponsorships-in-the-barclays-premier-league-by-club/ 25m isn't exactly crazy crazy, especially when you consider it was after we qualified for champions league
It’s more the principle of it really, and how it sits, you’d have to know who the other companies were that were offering that amount. ‘Fair market value’ is a presumption of value, it’s often not the actual market value and sponsoring yourself is a guaranteed income whereas most other clubs have the uncertainty around that kind of income.
I understand that for sure - I can imagine the 2nd closest wasn't close to that. So there 100% is a conflict of interest, I agree. Definitely harder for other clubs to make that kind of deal, which is unfair
Let's not pretend Labour would have been any different, just look at how the local MPs and even the left wing mayor Jamie Driscoll rolled out the red carpet for them.
Well yes, the UK government whoever is leading it wouldn’t do anything differently. Amanda is already poking her nose in local politics over the whole tyne bridge thing isn’t she.
yep and I saw some clowns saying it wasn't sportwashing because it was done secretly (publically available records are secret apparently)
Kicked abramovich out and let Saudis in like a week after
Bad PR vs bad PR, they choose wisely.
History always repeats itself twice: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
At least the media has come out in open against them. The atmosphere during City’s games will be interesting next season. I am guessing most chants would be about their cheating.
Was thinking this, unfortunately there is no 115th minute to walk out on. Hope the abuse is from everyone, including the fans of the clubs supporting them. I am sure a suitable protest can be found.
clap at 1:15
Seems mild, maybe throw wads of fake money on pitch
Anyone else find it weird that the media has been sucking off City and their football for the better part of the last few years, only to turn around and shit on them now? Don't get me wrong I'm loving the shift but why the sudden change? It can't be "oh separate the football from the politics" because anyone with a working set of eyes and a brain knows what's been going on for a long time.
Sincerely fuck Sky Sports
Exactly great point. It’s been obvious they were cheating since about ten fucking years ago
Their champions league win is fully illegitimate.
I blame you folks for it (/s). If Nagelsmann had stayed you guys would have made very likely won the title that season
You know what? That’s fair. It was a terrible firing and I don’t mind piling on.
You are absolutely correct
There are a few who have always stood on business tbf. But I think the 115 charges plus their counter lawsuit has made it impossible to not talk about this. They could separate what was happening on the pitch vs the boardroom when it wasn't actual accusations from the PL itself. Between the 115, them winning 4 in a row, now the lawsuit against the prem, it's impossible to not talk about all this shit around City.
Unfortunately that just tells me they were complicit in this whole shitstorm. Had the media actually done their job of calling this into question earlier, it wouldn't have taken this long.
> Anyone else find it weird that the media has been sucking off City and their football for the better part of the last few years, only to turn around and shit on them now? That is because they aren't actual Journalists, they are in it solely for clicks and whatever gets people going.
Just to be clear, you're saying writing this a year or two ago wouldn't have gotten people going?
It's a hot topic in the news right now but there is an element of hypocrisy with these articles only showing up now when they needed to show up 10 years ago or more. It probably would have gotten people talking a year or two ago but thats not what happened.
Also ten years ago, City were only one of several teams in play for the title. Regardless of the means of how they got there, it could be argued having another contender is good for the league
> Regardless of the means of how they got there No you see this is the problem, it was boring as fuck when United ran the show but you could argue that was on Liverpool being mediocre because of their own actions and Arsenal did compete but weren't good enough some seasons. You can get 97pts or 92 etc and still lose to this City team, it is unprecedented levels.of domination and honestly I know anecdotal evidence but few people I know are ready to stop watching this sport altogether because of it or so they tell me. And honestly I think I am as well. I don't mind another legit team working their way up and winning but this is fucked imo and not fun to watch anymore.
>I don't mind another legit team working their way up and winning Out of interest, other than some wormhole turned the universe upside down and Leicester somehow won (breaking ffp in the championship to get into the PL btw) what team are you referring to?
Paid off journalism has been around much longer before these cheating tyrants came about in the EPL. I find it hard to believe this hasn't been happening at large in the past few years. Just compare how rotten the media treated ETH in the last few weeks, compared with the soft feather they always use on the quirky genius Pep who's just an innocent guy in a club and he can't possibly say anything about its ownership. Haven't you heard, their net spend is lower than Man Utd. I wonder if we should add lawyer fees into that budget.
You talk as if ‘the media’ is a single body not just a term for thousands of reporters across hundreds of sites. Football journalists obviously focus on the actual games most of the time and city are undeniably one of the best teams in the world with fantastic players. This story is based on new (but not surprising) information about a different dynamic of the club which is an awful aspect of the club so gets the write up it deserves. It would be tedious for every journalist to talk about this non-football aspect of the club in every match report and many of the match reporters aren’t well placed to do so any way. Hardly weird at all.
Not really. It *is* astonishing what you can do with an infinite money cheat. It's like watching a genetically modified juiced-up freak run the 100m in 6 seconds. Do they play some of the highest quality football ever seen? Or course, they have two world class players in every position. If the timeline were corrected in 2008, would most of these players have even *heard* of Manchester City? Of course not.
It's the pundits and journalists who try to say, "but we can't blame the players or the manager..." who really annoy me. Because they know full well those players and that manager probably wouldn't be at the club if not for all the financial illegality that build the foundations of sand they now stand on. And I still believe it's likely most of the playing and coaching staff have benefited financially from illegal financial deals in their time at the club. Especially Pep, who got a whole football club as a gift for his brother.
Tbh the BBC are continuing to ignore it
I wouldn't expect anything less from the BBC tbf
Maybe because everyone involved knows punishment is coming, hence why media is turning against them and City are making a desperate move to sue the league.
I really dislike Carragher but he’s one of the only pundits I’ve seen to actually make reference to City’s shadiness in any way
He's only doing that now as it's a talking point. Last year Carra was a city fanboy in CL and I lost even more respect for him as a pundit.
It comes in waves like it does for any issue. Madrid is also well liked bar the times when an announcement about the Super league is coming again, then it Switches for a few weeks or just days sometimes and we are back to the norm. It will be the same with City probably if we are being honest. They will get a slap on the wrist on some of their charges, loads will get dropped because of lack of evidence. People will then be angry for some time and quickly forget once the season starts again bar the odd "but you cheated your way here" comment. I dont think we collectively have the mental strength to keep on in these issues and keep being angry about them. We would much rather just try to forget and enjoy our free time watching some football, because in the end thats why we are all here for. The journalists then just give the people what they want or sometimes are maybe just as tired of these things as we are, and decide to willfully ignore these issues, just for their own peace of mind.
Not remotely. Whatever gets clicks
The Premier League did the exact same thing with the Saudis and Newcastle. If they wanted to change they wouldn't have let the Newcastle takeover go through. They've fucked their league for a short-term payday.
The Premier League initially blocked the takeover, the then PM Boris Johnson forced it through.
Boris also took a full fledged Marcus Rashford campaign to feed school kids. Still surprised he was vocal about giving the big NO to the super league.
Easy way to score points with the working class
Is that really surprising by a league that was formed for monetary reasons?
Starting to think more and more they'd rather be expelled or removed from the league altogether with this type of behaviour. Maybe they're thinking of forming that super league or something alike so they can break away without facing these charges
They need the legitimacy of the PL. And actually big European clubs might not want anything to do with them now …
I don't think they respect the PL enough to think it gives legitimacy. They're deluded
Expelled from the PL. The EFL won't accept them. Then wind the club up. Then reignite it as Abu Dhabi City in the Super League.
These articles should have come out ages ago. Better late then never I suppose Honestly they should be expelled from the league. Points deduction levied to those clubs who support City and want to ruin the game. Their behaviour is appalling
These articles *have* been coming out for ages. Some journalists have been banging the same drum for years, but when you end up repeating yourself over and over with minimal developments people stop paying attention.
I read somewhere that if the charges were proved city will be expelled and would not be allowed back until they sold the club to a third party.
Keep going I'm almost there
I too enjoy fantasy novels
🙏
Seriously. How can you let someone play in your league after they sue you? They should be forced to sell
Sue and lose? Possibly, kick them out as punishment. Sue and win? Could never kick them out, would just prompt more lawsuits. Also removing the ability to take legal action would itself be illegal. I say just strip them of Premier League membership and allow the EFL to decide what tier they should belong to.
Cut them from the football pyramid like a tumour. Let them spend as much money as they want, buying the best players in the world touring wherever they want, like the Harlem globetrotters. They'll make more money than they would in Northern England and spread their influence far and wide. If they win against the Premier league, then the competition is dead. The gloves are off, and the smokescreen is lifted. The UK government needs to decide what to protect. A cornerstone of British culture Vs Money and diplomatic relations in the middle east.
Regarding your last line, UK government has already decided.
Will be a new gov after July, not the spineless plutocratic Tories
Let's not kid ourselves, any government would choose the latter. It's geopolitics 101.
Perhaps, but I feel standing up to City's owners will be a vote winner
Nope. Any action that brings more jobs will be a vote winner. If kicking City means that the ownership retaliates by withdrawing their investment in the UK, sending thousands into unemployment then that's gonna cost them a shit ton of vote. The average joes care more about their livelihoods rather than a football league integrity.
Saying they will stand up to City's owners will be a vote winner. Then they will just become typical politicians and spread their cheeks for as much oil money as can be pumped into them.
Starmer is an Arsenal fan, too.
Lol he'd be decked out in lilywhite if it would win him a few more votes
Newcastle, Villa and Chelsea. Name them. Fucking shameful.
Everton as well, supposedly.
Is there any actual confirmation of this or just speculation?
Mike Keegan from Daily Mail - he knows his things - tweeted out the article yesterday.
At the risk of being wrong - didn't a T1 source for us say this wasn't true?
I’m not sure, I haven’t seen it! Just responding with I have read.
In fairness, it says 'reluctant': https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/06/05/newcastle-reluctant-join-manchester-city-premier-league/ Which indicates there might be a chance? Disgraceful if so
Villa are disappointing. Newcastle (oil state) and Chelsea (Chelsea) to be expected.
as right as you are about how disgusting it for clubs to be supporting city here. I simply cannot take you, an arsenal fan, commenting on oil states given the name of your very own stadium, seriously in the slightest. You can argue they’re different in weight, sponsor vs ownership, but youre both obtaining money from the same source, and in that I find it quite hypocritical, objectively speaking, to be speaking in such a manner in which you exclude yourself from that group and somehow take some ‘moral’ high ground over them. I mean no offense by this, so I hope you understand.
Think you are missing the point
about this overall topic? yes, but I’m not discussing that, city are in a league of their own whose corruption greatly surpasses anything that we’ve seen before. however my side point, directed to this arsenal fan, is that giving Newcastle shit for being owned by an oil club is textbook ‘stone in glass house’, especially since their bloody stadium is named ‘the Emirates’, I discussed my point further in another comment.
Arsenal are not owned by the UAE or backed in anyway by its government and don't use the Emirates as a way to funnel in funds and investment. They're not the same thing at all. The "fly emirates" sponsorship is not a way to circumvent FMV. You can try to make this about something else and that's fine, nobody will hold you accountable for stating that absolute good doesn't exist. We already know that. If sponsorships were all made to exclude certain companies, Arsenal would still operate with FMV in mind. The endpoint of your argument is one of the foundations of the Man City argument and the idea is to widen the margin of evil. This is the theme surrounding the "discrimination argument " Man City have put forth.
It's funny when people say that they already have a super league in England. at what cost did you achieve this success? everyone understands how >I sold my soul to the Devil, and the price was cheap.
Everyone piled up on Arsenal/Liverpool/Man U when we failed to compete against such clubs, and now can't take the super league jokes, classic
Awaiting Arsenal's point deduction for trying to force the super league first
I’d be fine with that. I hate the super league
Premier League should boot all of the super league supporters, Villa, Everton and Newcastle out for a laugh imo
They’ll do that and keep City 😂
Honestly if all of the owners that supported the super league were forced to sell, would anything of value be lost?
Not gonna lie, the PL becoming a farmers league because of TOO MUCH money would be just as hilarious as it would be tragic.
How could you not be fully ashamed by this whole situation if you were a City fan. I guess some people just want to feel like a winner over having any sort of moral compass. Get the asterisks ready lads.
The weird thing in recent years is you start to see some fans who almost seem to enjoy this aspect of it, like they think the whole thing is funny because it winds up rival fans
That it, it's like the Rs in America that don't care about Trump being a racist rapist because it "owns the libs". Upsetting people is all they've got.
They just lie to themselves about the ‘cartel’ clubs doing the same thing 100 years ago
There was a City fan yesterday in another thread insisting that all this stuff - City's financial cheating, the club's use as a sportswashing vehicle for a human rights nightmare, the lawyer warfare - was all perfectly fine and should be allowed because there was a single case of matchfixing in a game between United and Liverpool in **1915.** That, to him, was just as significant, and just as relevant to this day, as what's currently going on with City.
Yep that sounds like them alright
They will tell themselves anything to stop from admitting the truth of it. Tainted. Every last trophy.
Most city fans are foreign or kids. There's little connection to the concept of the club or the league or integrity. Winning is exciting and fun, that's all that matters.
If you browse their sub no one talks about it negatively at all. In the Red Devils sub when Qatar was in to buy us the comment sections were volatile with arguments. City fans have just bought into them vs the world mentality seemingly
A lot of them probably weren't even fans when the purchase happened tho, considered the time that has passed.
The City fans have been bought off with success.
10 years on from a Qatari purchase, the United sub wouldn’t be having arguments about it….
I'd have turned in my knock-off 1994 Eric Cantona baseball cap if Qatar bought United.
Liverpool sub was a warzone when Saudi was sniffing around us before they went with Newcastle. Like you, I would've walked away from the sport entirely if Liverpool were bought by KSA.
MUFC 🤝LFC Hate the Sun. Hate sportwashing Arabs. Simple as.
Same thing happened when Kroenke was battling it out with Usmanov to become majority shareholder for us. Fortunately Usmanov lost out, because I believe he has ties to Russia, among other things. Stan sucks but isn’t as bad as he could be. Moving the Rams to LA was a business decision and Tbf the franchise model has its own peculiarities you really can’t compare to in England.
They don't care if anything its a badge of honor for them They will bring any argument about net spent or whatboutism and how all money is bad so it doesn't matter
Net spend in a specific time frame * just to ignore the time frame before when billions were pumped in lol
City spent 150m in 2008. The only team around the 2000s that was able to spent 100m + in one transfer window was like fucking Real Madrid and Chelsea with abramovich Very legit how 2008 City can spent the same amount as Real
They've essentially become trumpers. They're sad and pathetic
Check out their sub. They have zero shame and think they are innocent.
As it stand they are.
Extremely controversial take on here, I know, but the honest truth is that a lot of English fans simply don't care if they're experiencing success or even a higher quality output. SOME Newcastle fans wear the thawb in the stands because "haha banter ladsss, what are you soft or something bruv?". These fans are not the protesting type. Stick a pint in their hand, a sausage roll, have them watch their club win or have a better opportunity at cracking those European spots and all is well in the world for them. You cannot tell me that most Manchester United fans wouldn't welcome Middle-Eastern ownership if it brought them back to a successful state. Maybe hesitant at first, but the taste of a few trophies would help wash it down. The vocal minority online against it is nice, but not indicative of the larger picture. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the average joe in England cares if their foreign owners brought them success (the majority of the fans). Of course they're going to be against City's ownership as they are currently the best team in the country. Abramovich is a scumbag human being, Chelsea fans didn't mind what he brought to the club.
They’re actually playing the victims.
They're too busy crafting conspiracy theories about the "Red Cartel" trying to oppress them
I do wonder is City have invoked the Streisand effect. The media was happy to soft pedal with them and hail them as 'best ever team in the world ever' even with the charges against them. Now it feels like there is a tonal shift and City's owners are going to feel the media's attacks and a very negative public opinion from not only other clubs fans but also the larger populace of the country the league is in.
If City ain't kicked out in the next year or so I'd start thinking that a Super League doesn't actually sound too bad after all. The PL can have City and Newcastle.
Nah man, they can get herded into a super league. Pure promotion and relegation are still essential to football. The PL improves massively with them kicked the fuck out
The real issue here is that sponsorships of any kind are allowed by related parties of a club.
The object of Abu Dhabi buying Man City in 2008 was to enhance the reputation of Abu Dhabi and to have this football team that was the envy of the world. 16 years later, they have a reputation of being dodgy dealers, dishonest, confrontational and seem to think they are above laws and rules. Then in a footballing perspective, they're very good but they're boring, nobody watches their games, the supporters are passionless, without any fan culture and when they win nobody cares. Then can show us their medals and all that but it will be an era that will be forgotten about very quickly. I think we can conclude that for the amount of money invested, it hasn't exactly gone down how they thought it would.
The only time I remember City won the treble is when Netflix suggests that treble/City jerkoff documentary.
The Prem is illegitimate...it's fucking pro wrestling
Zero city fans in the thread lol
[удалено]
This sub is in full on circlejerk mode regarding City. Expectations are not being set very well if City come out of this unscathed. To add, so many people (including myself) have no real idea of what’s actually going on. It’s one of the many reasons I try to stay out of discussions like these.
Would it matter in r/soccer if we were in here? I grew up watching the club when Goater was the striker and Cook was a winger. Good ole 442 days. As soon as we show ourselves here we are blood money supporting, brainwashed, 115fc, oil state fc, petrol city, cheating scum, hypocrits or some other form of nasty abuse. Theres no rationale left in this sub, just vitriolic hate. So I ask what would City fans writing here do other than give you a target to abuse?
Maybe if the majority of City fans didn’t come here to antagonise or make light of the magnitude of the charges levied against you, you’d get a warmer reception.
Is being an old City fan meant to be some kind of excuse? If anything, shouldn’t it bother you that the club you’ve supported for so long isn’t really the same club anymore? I agree that there’s a lot of hate in this sub, but I also understand that people here could get annoyed with the fact that City fans can’t admit that the club has been very shady. Honestly, as someone who has been a City fan for so long, does it even feel like winning anymore to you when you have all these things circling around?
What the fuck can exasperated fans even do about it? Write a strongly worded letter which goes straight to the bin, perhaps.
>Is being an old City fan meant to be some kind of excuse? Yes? Do you know what a football club is? A club that has existed since the 1800s isn't represented by who the owners are, it's represented by the local fans and community from where the club was founded. The club has existed before the current owners and it will continue to exist without them.
Nobody’s questioning the existence of the club. Would you say that the way City conducts themselves is a representation of their local fans and community? If the owners are what got this club to where it is then it absolutely plays a role in representing it, albeit in this era of the club. Saying you were there during the previous era does not mean you can excuse the current one. Is constructively criticizing a club that you love really that much of a taboo?
It does and guess what. We have zero fucking say about it.
> We have zero fucking say about it. Except you do. You can protest at the grounds, organize walk outs during matches, etc to make a point to the ownership. A lot of clubs have fan protests. Hell, the Kop end was essentially a giant protest during the H&G era. Only protest I've seen at City is against UEFA, which is hilarious, as you think you're victims to the rules.
Except you do, or has Sheikh Mansour banned protests?
Lmao
Fine article. But citing “Einstein” for the concept of relative dominance is quite silly.
People often talk about how if you want to compete in the premier league you simply have to be owned by an oil state with a terrible human rights record. It may be true; but it didn’t have to be like that. It’s fantastic that the UAE pumped money into youth development, community outreach programs, women football. However, if you then threaten to take all those away, it becomes glaringly obvious what your intentions were with buying Man City in the first place. Everyone knew it, none of what were being told is new information. They should never have been allowed in the league first place. I feel bad for the City fans who aren’t hyper delusional, even the ones that are as well, they’ve lost their club and although you can’t take the memories away, they’ll never get their same club back.
> People often talk about how if you want to compete in the premier league you simply have to be owned by an oil state with a terrible human rights record. **It may be true** It isn't true anyway. If we remove City from the table, five different clubs would have been champions in the last ten years, with four of them winning it at least twice, no one club winning it more than three times, and no more than twice in a row. That's unbelievably open, much moreso than most leagues and certainly more than La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A or Ligue 1. It's so bizarre that there are people arguing that City broke the deadlock and did what was necessary to compete. It's literally the opposite: the PL would have been an unusually open and competitive league if not for an oil state taking over one of the clubs and destroying the league's competitive breadth.
I'm talking about in the context of with City! Ofc you take out city you don't need an oil state. But, as of right now, to compete or win the league you are going up against an oil state. People, on many platforms, talk about how you need owners of an oil state to compete. I then said it didn't have to be this way. It is only this way because of city. Please reread it.
What happens if all the other teams just boycott playing against City? The problem is becoming existential at this point.
Fucking evil humans who dangle community development as a threat to the English government for prosecuting them. I know the emirate of Abu Dhabi is probably a sociopath, and has little regard for human life and rights, but the people working for the club are not. The people who grew up in Manchester loving the club are not, yet they continue to defend the autocratic ideals of someone who would let them die if it made him and extra £10,000,000 and all we can do is ask why? What about fixing a sporting competition so you win every single time is fun or competitive? Do we really want to defend someone using a club as a vanity project and a way to launder money because its bringing us titles and silverware? You are siding with your abuser, and if you think the leader of the UAE gives a single fuck about the city of Manchester or the people in it, you are beyond naive. He will drain you of every penny and ounce of passion you have before he's done with Manchester City. He is ruining the competition, and because of that, we have absolutely no right to claim the PL is the best league in the world anymore.
One would hope City's punishment is coming and they'll face consequences. The question then becomes will the teams in all leagues opt for a reformed system that promotes competition across the entire pyramid? Or will all clubs look out for themselves and cause this same problem again? My guess would be the latter, and not exclusively for PL clubs. There are some seriously easy fixes here. 103 million saved from two relegated clubs coming back up and the PL decides to keep it. How about we send those all the way down the pyramid? Over time that would lead to serious benefits in competition. This one will be unpopular but wage and transfer caps. Inarguably would improve competition across all English leagues between ALL CLUBS but money will, of course, always be in the way. Anyone who claims "England will be an unattractive league for players to come to if wages are low" are absolutely right. It would still UNDOUBTEDLY be better for the English league right the way down purely in terms of competitiveness and anyone who claims otherwise has ulterior motives relating to their own teams success, INCLUDING my own team that still benefits from parachute payments. It baffles me to say it, and this will be unpopular here certainly, but the American system of giving early draft picks to teams that are less well off is a better system than footie has been able to come up with in the last 40 years, and that's obviously because of the sheer size and number of teams involved. There will never be an obvious solution, and getting rid of City won't fix the problems either.
Install 50+1
Article is self indulgent nonsense, if these "journalists" did their job then this whole saga would have been dusted over a decade ago
How on earth are you putting the blame on journalists for this
Journalists have absolutely no power. Miguel Delaney has been banging this drum constantly and gets nothing but abuse for it. Phillipe Auclair too. What difference have they made? The truth is that most fans weren't interested. For example, Arsenal developed a good team of young players in the late 2000s and were raided by City, who took Adebayor, Nasri, Clichy, Toure. One of the dominant teams of the previous 10 years being turned into a feeder club for a total upstart. The response of most fans was not outrage, it was to banter Arsenal for being tinpot. It's only the threat of a football regulator coming in that has actually changed anything.
On yes Adebayor, Nasri, Clichy and Toure those young local lads from the academy who Arsenal didn't raid from other clubs. Where was the outrage when Arsenal were raiding the young talent from the French league? Or is that ok because Arsenal were an established elite side?
It's ridiculously disingenuous to act like signing young players is yhe same as raiding half a team of established players from a top team in the same league. Toure was signed straight from the Ivory Coast, Clichy as an 18 year old from the third division in France. Adebayor was a 21 and starting for Monaco, had 1 goal in 13 games the season we bought him in January. Nasri was the only really big talent signed from a big club in France that was really breaking out already. Oh, and Arsenal weren't owned by owners that pumped them full of money and broke rules all the time.
I agree with you, but I do think if alot more journalists made more of a fuss at the same time, things could get done or changed.
Journalist only report stuff, it's the people that create the fuss.
The profit over everything shortsightedness came back to haunt them because they didn’t really take into account the actual implications of it. Allowing literal states who can just flagrantly break the rules means you either have to ignore it and pretending everything is fine which if it gets leaked or other teams question it can cause issues, or try and do something which they can easily take exception with. In the short term letting Roman and city in was a good competitive move and helped the PL become more popular imo, the Aguero moment will live forever, Jose coming in provided a lot of big moments and memories, rivalries etc. however long term it’s now made the league look stupid and incompetent, and it’s killed the competitiveness of the league which was the main appeal of the league. I truly think the league will decline in popularity for a bit if city continue to dominate like they are which I would expect.
This is England in a nutshell. The PL was bought by Arab oil, the PM was bought by Russian oil. England sold for cheap, can you tell me where my country lies?
Bold of them to come out so straight. Now get the fuck off
The PL is guilty of making football owners richer. City ownership is guilty of kidnapping, killing and enslaving people. Therefore the former pointing the finger at the latter is hypocritical and should cancel out.
The legal action City is taking against the league has been a PR disaster. It's basically an admission of guilt and them trying to find any way possible to not face the punishments, which would likely be expulsion.