Everybody who ever played for this club, supported them, worked for them, was staff for them, etc is currently being completely and totally cancelled and de-personed. Mass harassment and vitriol being spammed at them on all social media platforms from every direction. No way to stop it. No way back. The mob's lust for blood will not satiated until they see someone get Minecrafted over this.Is this really appropriate treatment for a sports team which is being accused of simply breaking financial rules? Normalfags are treating this shit like its an Epstein-level crime, its absurd.
>>158000968SHAMSTER CITY>CLAP CLAP CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPSHAMSTER CITY>CLAP CLAP CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPYOU'RE GOING DOWN WITH THE LEICESTER, DOOOWN WITH THE LEEEEEEISCESTER, YOU'RE GOING DOWN WITH THE LEICESTER
>>158001191>Romania
>>158001564>-stan whatever
>>158000968>announce muhammad jihad solutions as your new sponsor>go to see business>empty shed in the middle of the desertthey deserve all the vitriol in the world for being so fucking retarded
>>158000968sportsball is literally objectively the single most important thing in the world and the only thing that truly matters. they basically wasted everyone's time for a decade and a half so they should be be stripped of all medals, relegated to the 750th tier and memoryholed from existence
>>158000968The Clippers gave one (1) player the kind of corrupt sponsor deal that Man City had all of their players on for 18 years, with far less success to show for it than Man City did, and got absolutely destroyed for it with none of this crying and sympathy.
>>158000968Every sports team is a swiss watch of corruption, bribes, loopholes, legal gymnastics and non-disclosure agreements. When iran attacked the sunnis, a little spring in man city's clockwork broke off causing some guy to not get his payoff and that resulted in the entire structure collapsing catastrophically
>>158000968>Is this really appropriate treatment for a sports team which is being accused of simply breaking financial rules?
>>158000968>agree to follow some rules>break them>get punished for breaking the rules you said you'd followTHIS IS UNFAIRTHEY ARE GANGING UP ON THE SKYBLUESEverton is going to have so many points deducted or this.
>>158001889Fun fact : the "crying and sympathy" is indians and pakistani on arabic payroll.
That's the only way the Red Cartel can compete with them because they can't do shit to them on the pitch. They drummed up this mass hysteria with their sham trial in order to get revenge. Real ballers know City is innocent.
It will have a psychological effect on referees going forward too. Expect MANY decisions to go against City now on the pitch just because they 'deserve' to be cheated against.
>>158002822good lol
>>158000968it's mostly manure customers releasing their built up anger and disappointment over the years
>simply breaking financial rules?Exceptional attempt to downplay systematic and prolonged fraud to satisfy financial rules that they otherwise would have violated masively, OP.>Normalfags are treating this shit like its an Epstein-level crime, its absurd.Why is it absurd?>>158002811You're delusional. I can guarantee that had any of those clubs done what has happened with the Man City owners, there would be no sympathy whatsoever.
Nothing ever happens.
>>158003131>nothing ever happened to ASSE, Bordeaux, Niort and SochauxMaybe this is when other leagues stop being so lenient.Looking at you next, Spain.
>>158003140OP brought up Epstein. No one gets arrested in the US for the Epstein case.
>>158003317Well the people are not going to arrest themselves :^)
>>158003324Tell that to >>158003117>Why is it absurd?
>>158003340You can't answer it either. Why is one of the biggest scandals in the history of English football being treated by some as an irrelevance that should just be brushed aside and ignored?
>"Red Cartel"Is there any quicker way of outing yourself as an absolute plastic?Imagine being sat in the stands and turning around to Barry, 54, who you've sat next to for a decade and has never once offered you a Werther's Original, and trying to explain to him what the "Red Cartel" is.I'm a Championship team supporter btw with not much of a dog in this other than Man City getting absolutely bummed might be really funny
>>158003140If Spain started punishing corruption they'd have to shut down the whole country
>>158003445Now you're making a new question that distanced itself away from Epstein.
>>158003117>had any of those clubs done what has happenedRed Cartel don't need to pump their revenue because they can already spend at the top level because the crooked rules were written to protect and advantage them.
>>158003117>to satisfy financial rulesSo you admit the PSR rules were satisfied then. So where is the case? As far as I can see they're being dragged through the courts to soothe the Premier League's bruised ego due to the non-cooperation.
>>158003445A club spending money to become a top club is not a scandal let alone the biggest scandal ever. It's what all ambitious clubs should be doing. City should be commended for it, not attacked. The fact this is even a story shows you how psyopped most people are by the media, and it shows you how anti-competitive the Premier League is where winners are punished solely for being well run and successful.
>>158000968The phrase "cheaters never win" is a moral proverb that dates back to the early 19th century as a variation of older sayings like "cheats never prosper"
>>158003618Nope. You can't answer the question. Why is the comparison absurd?>>158003628>Red CartelPost ignored.>>158003633Stop playing stupid and deliberately misquoting to satisfy your point. I didn't say that at all.>>158003639So in your opinion all clubs should be falsifying sponsorship deals which are majority bankrolled by the owners to spend more and circumvent PSR.
Good and it should have happened over a decade ago
>>158003670You admitted that Man City complied with PSR.>falsifying sponsorship dealsThey weren't false though, were they? They were genuine and the money was real. Where's the issue?
>>158003692>They weren't false though, were they? They were genuine and the money was real. Where's the issue?You're playing thick, stop it.
>>158000968>manure larping as shitty fan
>>158003670>Why is the comparison absurd?I'd take this original question as a statement that no bongs were arrested for Epstein case.
>>158003692The source of the money is the issue. The attempts to conceal it were even worse.
Corruption should be destroyed completely wherever it is found. It is what separates us humans from the lower races.
>>158003726Why should that be an issue for sustainability? I mean if they were pretending money was coming in and it wasn't and lying about it, that would be an issue. But the sponsorship money was actually coming in and was real revenue, so how is it a breach of PSR?
>>158003692>>158003726>we can't show the payment routes
>>158003739>Man City employee instructs his underling to comply with PSRwow smoking gun
>>158003514Yes, and ?I don't see the problem.
>>158003737>But the sponsorship money was actually coming in and was real revenue, so how is it a breach of PSR?Only £8m was legitimate. The £59.5m was a gross over-inflation to offset against PSR losses.>>158003750You really don't understand this whatsoever.
>>158003773What gives you the right to decide what money is legitimate or illegitimate? Why is it okay for other clubs to bring in sponsorship revenue from morally questionable entities? Spurs spending is bolstered by the fact that they run pop concerts at their stadium. Why is that legitimate revenue for PSR? It has nothing to do with football. The fact is that it is completely irrelevant to the question of a club's sustainability, which is the rule that they are alleged to have breached.
>>158003780>What gives you the right to decide what money is legitimate or illegitimate?The source? If I had a business and issued a sponsorship invoice to someone for £1m, only to say they only need to pay £1,000 and I will pay the remainder, it's a completely sham invoice that grossly overvalues the sponsorship. That is what was happening here.>Spurs spending is bolstered by the fact that they run pop concerts at their stadium. Why is that legitimate revenue for PSR? It has nothing to do with football.It's rental of the stadium which is perfectly legitimate business income. I guess you'll complain about Manchester City doing the same for Oasis next year, right? Oh right, you won't.>The fact is that it is completely irrelevant to the question of a club's sustainability, which is the rule that they are alleged to have breached.It isn't. £830m from the owners was badly concealed as sponsorship money to cover otherwise unsustainable spending.Very funny how massively defensive you are of fraud, by the way.
>>158003750he's not instructing him to comply with PSR, he's instructing him not to put admissions of circumventing PSR in emailskek
>>158003841>it's legitimate when we do it>when you do it, it's unsustainable and illegitimate and DEEPLY shocking, Oh heavens, I think I feel faint ElizabethOkay pal
>>158003857Thanks for conceding you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. It was obvious from your very first post but I'm glad you've admitted it.
>>158003841>830m from the owners was badly concealed as sponsorship money to cover otherwise unsustainable spendingAKA they complied with PSR
>>158003857your cheating club is dead and no amount of hysterical appeals to emotion will prove otherwise
>>158003867The fact is that you and most of the football world is caught up in a mass hysteria event egged on by the media, that nothing will happen to Man City, and that when you look back on this period 18 months from now you will be embarrassed and cringing at your own behaviour.
>>158003863They didn't mate, stop playing dumb.>>158003874And you need to stop coping.
>>158003874Thanks for the waffle. Your cheating club is dead, 18 months from now you will be playing for promotion to League One. Even if you somehow use your arab dictator money to get out of this you will be forever known as the cheating club with a cabinet of stolen trophies. You may play top flight football again one day, but you will never get away from who you really are because now we've ALL seen it.
>>158003888>that money doesn't count>why not?>It just doesn't!>but why?>because your shirt is blue
>>158003896We will always be hated by rivals and called names, it doesn't matter because we do not need their respect or admiration, their eternal seethe is all that is required. As long as they are seething, and you definitely are, then all is well with the world.
>point out a big stain on your shirt>"Akchually there's no stain you're just being hysterical" If this is the best argument city has then have fun at the bottom of the pyramid kek
>>158003906>another appeal to emotion >siege mentality that only works if you're not abject cheaters get used to it, you will be feeling a LOT of emotions soon loooool
>>158003909Investing money into your club isn't a stain or anything to be ashamed of
>>158003901So you're not playing dumb and are legitimately retarded? Fair enough.A Yank anon made a perfect analogy for what's happening: >>157982022>It would be like if Liverpool had a sponsorship deal with some Boston-based company (idk, maybe Dunkin Donuts) officially reported at 50m, but in reality only 5m was coming from Dunkin Donuts and the other 45m was just John Henry transferring cash from Fenway Sports Group's accounts. If you can't understand that then I don't know what else to say.>>158003919It is when you misrepresent it as external income, which is what was happening the entire time.
>>158003919using raghead economics to cook your books most certainly isdodging tax when you inflate payments to managers is worth being ashamed of, but feewwwings won't matter, yours or mine, because tax evasion is a criminal offence. Your team has quite literally been stealing from the country.
>>158003922>It isNope, it still isn't actually. An owner investing money into his club is still completely normal and regular activity and not something to get outraged about.>>158003928I love how weak and pathetic the argument against Man City is that rivals have just given up on it and moved onto a completely different fictional argument about tax and HMRC which is also non-existent and without any grounds.
>>158003922Hey mate, guess what? Liverpool don't need to disguise investment as sponsorship money because their spending is not artificially capped by the PSR rules, like Man City was. Liverpool could spend what they want through whatever money they like without needing to do this because there was not a bureaucratic barrier trying to block them.
>>158003931>HMRC which is also non-existent and without any grounds.kek, we will see about that. £2milliom undeclared income and there's "no grounds". If there's one person you never fuck with it's the taxman. I'm guessing you're a kid and you don't realise how bad tax evasion actually is.FYI pretending something doesn't exist doesn't magically make it not exist anymore. It's called sticking your head in the sand or delusion. Your argument is weakest because it's simply denying reality.
>>158003942If HMRC wants to send the Sheikh a new tax bill, he'll pay it on the day of. The guy has invested over £30bn into the UK over the years.
>>158003931>>158003935It's incredible how stupid the pair of you actually are. You have no counter-arguments or any knowledge to construct the counter-arguments. You're just seething at City's shambolic operation finally being exposed, and are trying everything to suggest City are being persecuted.
>>158003947So... raghead economics, and proving that any financial punishment will be meaningless. Therefore the only meaningful punishment will be in football terms.Your club is dead and you are the picture of a man huffing copium like his life depends on it.
>>158003874>unlike I, who spent that time defending the honor of petromonarchies as if my life depended on it
>>158003960What you have yet to realise is that you cannot punish Manchester City because they have already won.
Sounds like Europeans need socialism in our sports like us
Taken from the Man City website: https://www.mancity.com/news/club/manchester-city-lodge-appeal-63926534>Manchester City Football Club can confirm that at 7pm on Thursday 1st October 2026 the Club lodged its comprehensive Appeal against the opinion of the Premier League Commission, in relation to the Premier League disciplinary matter.>The Club’s firm position is that, on multiple grounds, the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe.>The Club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case.>We will continue to respect due process and are necessarily restricted in what we can say further until all proceedings are complete.Absolutely hysterical nonsense. What is "unsafe" about the decision?
>>158000968>BREAKING: Shock as people in general announce they don't like cheats
>>158000968Perhaps these alleged harrased people should ask Sheikh Mansour for assistance. He seems to be content splashing cash under the table.
>>158004064Unsafe is a legal term that relates to how long a process has taken, because the case is so massive, parts of the evidence were heard months, even years ago prior to the decision.
>>158004133>case takes years to process>complain that the case takes years to processThey're trying to claim time barring again, aren't they
>>158004052The last and final cope. I can't wait for the video of your cabinet being emptied.
>>158004153And then you'll wake up having pissed yourself
>>158004158I'll piss on man cheaty's grave hahahahah
>>158003841>It's rental of the stadium which is perfectly legitimate business income.Would it have been perfectly legitimate business income if they had just signed over partial rights to an oil field in the UAE to the club? If not, then why not?
>>158004187That's an inane comparison.
>>158004203Not an answer.
>>158004212Yes it is, the comparison is completely ludicrous.
>>158004228Not an answer again
>>158004236Of course it wouldn't be legitimate income for a football club.
>>158004187The business income has to be football related. That's why they inflated the sponsorships because that's counted as football related. >How is football-related revenue calculated? >In relation to SCR, football-related revenue relates to a club’s total earnings from football operations. It encompasses both the income that clubs generate themselves and the revenues distributed by the League and other football competitions. >For example, club-generated revenues come from sources including commercial revenues, matchday revenues and net profits from non-football events hosted at their stadiums, such as concerts. >Revenues generated by the League and other football competitions include central payments to clubs (merit money), facility fees and income from domestic, European and international cup tournaments like the FA Cup, EFL Cup, UEFA Club Competitions and the FIFA Club World Cup. So, to answer your question, no it would have immediately broken the rules because an oil field has nothing to do with football.
>>158004257>commercial revenuesThat's what City's deal was, so why doesn't it count as club generated revenue?
>>158004272It's really simple but you will continue to pretend not to understand. The revenue was precisely NOT generated, they "generated" maybe 10% of the actual sponsorship money and then pumped then other 90% with their own moneySo only that 10% were legitimately generated and would be acceptable within the rules
>>158003780>so what if the revenue was sourced from a compromised entity and oddly divorced from prevailing market compsWhy is this confusing to you?
>>158004291You are just refusing to acknowledge their sponsorship money as legitimate for purely arbitrary and vindictive reasons.
>>158004299Must be tiring pushing this gimmick for days on end.
>>158004297Compromised entity? WTF are you talking about lolBut yeah, please answer the question that you quoted in your greentext. So what? What's the answer?
>>158004299Nope. You're pretending not to understand something very basic because your club is dead and you're coping and seething.
>>158003931Then why did they fabricate records on sourcing?
>>158003633You seem to be ignoring the bit about committing fraud to get around it
>>158004311Compromised as in not external, potentially comingled with ownership. Obviously
>>158004307>>158004315There is no reason to consider the sponsorship money "illegitimate" or "not real revenue". It doesn't change anything where it ultimately came from. You think other clubs have people looking into the business practices of their sponsors to see where they got their money from and where that money came from, and all along the chain until you eventually find something to have a problem with
>>158004323>You think other clubs have people looking into the business practices of their sponsors to see where they got their money from and where that money came from, and all along the chain until you eventually find something to have a problem withThey do actually.
>>158004322And?
>>158004319Where's the fraud? Why does it matter where the money comes from? It doesn't make it "not revenue" just because the entity sponsoring had business practices you don't like.
>>158004323your club is dead, you know why, you know what rules you broke, you know nothing you're saying makes sense, and all you can do is cope and seethe like the spastic you are
>>158004331You can argue that the rule was stupid if you want, but that's specifically the rule in question. And their efforts to obscure the source are damning.
>>158004338The fraud is making an obvious financing cash injection appear to be revenue. Basic accounting shit bud
>>158004338You must have a severely empty life to keep this gimmick up.
>>158004338You're the same mong as yesterday aren't you.Either 50 IQ or pretending not to understand?
>>158004352It's not fraud, it's just what they had to do to comply with PSR otherwise they wouldn't be able to spend what they wanted to.>>158004354Why do you keep pretending that my sincere opinions are a "gimmick"? You must be projecting. Your life must be running "gimmicks" on /sp/ because you are an empty person without real positions on anything.
>>158004360Gonna assume this guy is false flagging lol
posts like >>158004360 are coming from VPN shills, just so everyone knows>>158004288>realizethat's why they're keeping up the "pretending not to understand" gimmick, because they're being paid to by sham cheaty
>>158004360>Why do you keep pretending that my sincere opinions are a "gimmick"?Because if they are genuinely your opinions, I am staggered you have the mental capability to operate an electronic device, let alone visit a website.
>>158004373Yeah that's totally me m8
>>158004360>It's not fraud, it's just what they had to do to comply with PSR otherwise they wouldn't be able to spend what they wanted to. Oh my fucking god mate
>>158004374Not an argument.Why does the source of revenue matter for PSR? You can't answer. (Because it doesn't).
>>158004383>Why does the source of revenue matter for PSR?Because otherwise there's no PSR
>>158004383The whole point of PSR is what the source of the money is you thick fuck.Not to mention said 'revenue' is not revenue.
>>158004377You're caught rajesh. Turn off the VPN. You will still get your rupees don't worry
>>158004397No it isn't, it's about how much there is.>>158004398I know for a fact you are the same individual who has probably accused me in other threads about 20 times of being "on a VPN" because you're a paranoid schizophrenic.
I did cap this as potentially the dumbest post in board history. I want to believes
>>158004383It is an argument, you are genuinely mentally retarded. You are mentally incapable of understanding even the basics of business, let alone the complexities of this investigation.>Why does the source of revenue matter for PSR?Because in this case the majority of it was not genuine business revenues, just ADUG inflating invoices to cover player expenses that can be assessed under PSR because otherwise they would have violated it season upon season.>>158004403>No it isn't, it's about how much there is.What the fuck is this even supposed to mean.
>>158004403Explain "realize" then you fraud
>>158004413It's just an alternative spelling of the word and it doesn't make you an American. I often use American spellings on non-flag boards just to not stand out as a Brit. I do actually sometimes use realize myself, but that other poster you quoted was not me, as there would be no point in attempting to pass myself off as an American when everyone can see I'm not. Basically, it doesn't matter who anyone is, only the arguments matter. And Man City won the argument.>>158004410>not genuine business revenuesIt was though lol. The money was real. Who the fuck are you to say what does and doesn't count as proper revenue. If they want to reroute extra money through a sponsorship deal then there's fuck all the Premier League can do about it. It's not City's fault the league left that loophole open.
>>158004405Where's the lie though? I see a lot of people seething and insulting me, but when they try and construct an argument it's always "you just don't get it, that revenue doesn't count because it just doesn't okay!"
>>158004475>because it just doesn't okayIt was already explained multiple times. You're choosing to ignore that either through stupidity or because you know it's pivotal
>>158004465>It's just an alternative spelling of the word and it doesn't make you an American. It means you're not British.>I often use American spellings on non-flag boards just to not stand out as a Brit. I do actually sometimes use realize myselfYou've been poorly educated then and that's probably why something as obvious as this is infinitely confusing for your miniscule brain.Your gimmick is up, we have all seen it, and denying being a shill is an admission of abject retardation
>>158004487>The source doesn't matter>But it does though!>Why?>Because it just does!>But why?>Because you can't do that>But why?>Because you just can't okay!
>>158004493Again, you saw the explanations and comically ignored them. Reiterating your ignorance isn't a compelling argument, it just makes you look stupid or delusional
>>158004490You can choose to spell it realize too, and doing so will not magically transform you into an American. Try it out for yourself and see.>>158004507There were no explanations. Only "but you can't do that!" and no reasons given.
>>158004512You're not british and your opinion will go into the bin where it belongs. Sorry let me translate:Ya'll ain't british, ya'll truth go in the trash!Sorry I forgot you're Indian:SAAAR YOU ARE RETARD SISTER FUCKER SAAR
>>158004512>>158004512>Only "but you can't do that!" and no reasons given.That's incorrect. Explicitly it was explained to you that the point of the regulation was to cap investor financing, and that revenue sourced from investors have to be anchored by market rates and have a clean paper trail. For obvious reasons btw, otherwise there's genuinely no way to cap investor financing. This is not the only context in which these distinctions matter, either. Go look at what's happening with the LA clippers right now.
>>158001752We all know that if it wasn’t companies like that, it would have been 1488bet Online Sijuang Qibong Zhuaou Ltd (total employees: 2) just like it was for every other team.
Why do people come to 4chins and say stuff they don't actually believe to start arguments? Surely there's other things they could be doing.
>>158004534>the point of the regulation was to cap investor financingThis isn't true though. it was to cap spending by linking it to club revenue, hence "sustainability".
>>158004545They're paid to
>>158004548How dp you think that's different at all from what I said retard? If the spending is limited to club revenue, then spending above that revenue must come from where?
>>158004526All I'm really detecting from your posts is that you're mad as fuck, so I'm going to assume there is a healthy chance you are a Manchester United fan. In which case, lol
>>158003459I think it’s literally one poster. Nobody ever mentioned this alleged cartel until about a week ago.
reminder that they weren't even accused of having "fake sponsors" (whatever that means), just that mansour was covering part of the bills for said sponsors.who gives a fuckin shit and what difference does it make, they would be taking out loans if they weren't subsidised anyway
>>158004560They didn't spend above revenue though. They pumped their revenue in line with their spending ambitions. They would not have done any of this if FFP/PSR was not brought in.
>>158004565>I've been beaten, again...>what's next in the flowchart?>say he's a united fan!Nope. Try again Rajesh. Your club is dead.
>>158004576You just summarized the whole case you're trying to disprove. Thank you for saving everyone else the time.
>>158004577Going to assume I was absolutely bang on there.
btw can someone explain to me why it's ok for bayern munich to do exactly the same thing
>>158004585Just like you're assuming your arguments for cheaty's rotten cheating makes sense. You're wrong and deluded on both accounts, but fair enough, you don't get your rupees unless you keep up the act right?
>>158004593It's funny to me that you are unable to process that Man City, one of the best clubs in the world, has fans. Your whole brain is probably malfunctioning right now.
>>158004583Yeah, because it's what happened and I've yet to have anyone explain how or why this breaks PSR. Daily reminder the vast majority of their 'guilty' charges are due to non-cooperation.
>>158004600You might be a city fan, that's very possible. But you're not British and you're not genuine.
>>158004611I am all three, I'm afraid. As much as that makes you cry. I have no idea why it would, or why this has animated you so much. But you can believe what you like, it doesn't bother me.
>>158004608I explained it here. >>158004534Then you admitted that they did exactly that (not for the first time ITT). You fucked your own ass with your tiny dick. Time to put down the bottle and phone noel
>>158004620You still don't get it. It's not for the league to decide what "market rates" are. This is why the APT case was won by City and had to be amended. This whole case is just built on nonsense.
>>158004619You should just admit to being a shill, because if you're really this stupid and your attempts at arguments were genuine, then you are beyond retarded and need a brain scan to see what's left.
mental how I felt genuine sympathy for citeh fans until I read and hear what they're saying then the sympathy goes flying out the window
>>158004631>It's not for the league to decide what "market rates" areThat's something done very often by regulators the world over all the time. It's a piece of evidence that exposes (in conjunction with documentation of flows) when financing or revenue are camouflaged as the other. If you don't know this, you shouldn't be attempting to lecture anyone on the topic. This isn't a some unique case in that regard.
>>158004634Bet you took the vax too didn't you m8Not the brightest spoon in the shed are ya
>>158004642mental how you will never, ever, ever win the cl
>>158004653I accept your concession.
>>158004651Maybe in your shitty country they do that because all your sports are fake and centralised legal entities in which competition is de facto banned outright, but not here.
I dont know why you newfags are saarposting when this is definitely DSL on a vpn
>>158004657Already have. Twice.
>>158004660They definitely do it there for tax evasion, my clueless friend. As i referenced in my previous post, and it went completely over your head
>>158004665Dude, is that who this frickin douchenozzle is? Holy sheiss cody, I can't believe this boner would go to bat for the Manchester Bluetits
>>158004665DSL is a genuine nafri and not capable of constructing sentences or arguments in the extremely annoying way that I can.
>>158004684>admits to baiting
>>158004693This is 4chan, you need to salt things up a little.
>>158004698>I was pretending to be retardedthis is 4chan and if you weren't a newfag you'd know that this is conceding
>>158004698So you've been baiting all along and therefore it WAS a gimmick.
>>158004708My posts are 70% sincerity and 30% insulting people for my own amusement. It is entirely your choice on how to respond or how serious you want to take me.
>>158004681>>158004684See that rustled his feathers pretty good
I SAID MAYBEEEEHHHHHHYOURE GETTING FUCKEN RELEGATEEEEEDDDDDDDAND AFTER AAAALLLLLYOUVE WON FUCK AAAAALLLLLLLLL
>>158004713Concession accepted.City are dead. Cope and seethe.
>>158004722City are winning the league this season. And no punishments can be handed out until the case is over, and City's lawyers are going to drag it out for another three years at least. Make your peace with this fact as it will save you from anger and frustration in the near future.
>>158004718You called him out, fair play.
>>158004735Yea bro get his ass tyler
>>158004733Cope.Seethe.Your team is dead.
City will be relegated for one season, pay some huge fine that won't be an issue and be right back in the EPLthe EPL without City will be reduced to watching Arsenal and Liverpool exit the UCL in the quarters, the other clubs know City makes them money
>>158004795lmfao, absolute delusion
>>158004572>just that mansour was covering part of the bills for said sponsorsI would say about 10% was legitimate, the rest faked to cover the expenses accrued under PSR.
>>158004733your club is dead and it's all because they started laundering £22m in 2009 just to signjoleonlescott
>>158004795>watching a domestic league will be reduced to watching what two clubs do in a continental competitionhow did you learn how to breathe kek
>>158004802>Joleon LescottMy favourite joke from around that timeThere's a new face arriving at the Etihad this summer. Lescott and Tevez are fighting over who gets it
>>158004797what have I said that's wrongif Klopp was still in the EPL then maybethe league's been in decline for a while, it's full of mediocre managers and flop players
>>158004814kek
>>158004801that's not what the pl are alleging, and if it were it would be an actual (not football) crime as it would majorly fuck their sponsorsspeaking of which, i'm supposed to believe no auditors ever caught wind of any of this? it took a shitty german newspaper to uncover a supposed 1bn case of fraud?
>>158004812yes that will be the reputation of the leaguewithout City the EPL in 2026 is Serie A tier
The Saudi government and the bong PM are getting involved. Nothing is going to happen and that is going to be the best outcome.
>>158004835not the heckin CL performances of clubs i don't give a fuck about
>>158004684>>158004665Actually it makes sense that this is DSLHis relatives probably do the exact same with a barbershop and tells HMRC its all business revenue because why does it matter that this money originally came from people trafficking its haircut revenue now.
Why do american owners have to resort to off the pitch lawyer bollocks kekWhy are they soooo bad at sports
>>158004828>that's not what the pl are allegingYes it is.>The Premier League's independent commission has concluded Manchester City's income was overstated by more than £830m between 2009-10 and 2017-18, with owner funding incorrectly recorded as commercial sponsorship income.> i'm supposed to believe no auditors ever caught wind of any of this?The auditors would have been told to accept the figures as they were otherwise they would lose the client.>>158004846>Why do american owners have to resort to off the pitch lawyer bollocks kekLike Manchester City did with the Uefa investigation all those years ago after the initial two year ban?
>>158004841ok cool man but I'm still rightthe smaller clubs simply aren't going to sacrifice revenue for the sake of the third world hordes of the bigger clubs, City will remain in the EPL
>>158004855ok you're a retard, don't reply to me again please
>>158004862>gets proven wrong>"you're a retard"Excellent way to argue there.
>>158004857The clubs can only vote on expulsion. Relegation via points deduction would come from the premier league and the other clubs wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
>>158004857How does man city get revenue for smaller clubs? That wouldn't be offset by them getting a rival out of the way
>>158004877Yeah and I already said they'd be relegated for a season
>>158004243then why is renting out the stadium for completely non-sports related events legitimate income? would a £1bn annuity that pays out like £100m a year be legitimate income?
>>158004257and how is renting out your stadium for concerts at all related to sport?
>>158004886Not necessarily. Always a chance of points deductions over multiple seasons. Nobody really knows what the punishment would be we only know the mechanics of how the punishment would be administered and precedent set by older cases.
>>158004885Broadcasting and player sales?You think whatever shitter gets promoted is going to fill that revenue hole?
>>158004886and they'll be right back up in a season and immediately back into contention for european places. the redshirts would be SEETHING if that's all the punishment these worse-than-epstein cheaters got
>>158004888>>158004895I think you shouldn't have bothered replying again, you've doubled down on your stupidity.It's basically room hire, happens at literally every sporting institution there is.
>>158004895it isn't, just like fiszman's and usmanov's blood money wasn't
>>158004911yeah, and its not sports related revenue lol. so why is it allowed but other business assets owned by the club are not? its not about financial sustainability, its about protecting the big clubs. if it were about financial sustainability, counting completely unrelated business assets would be perfectly valid.
>>158004895>how is a sports stadium related to sportsyank logic everyone
>>158004923You don't understand the terminology you're using, I suggest you don't bother engaging again.
>>158004924you're not renting it out for sports, you're renting it out for music. it's a multi-purpose stadium. >>158004929not an argument
>>158004901>BroadcastingI think you overestimate how popular man city are>player salesOh no so there's one less parasite to rip apart a developing side? How awfulBrighton says thanks for the champs league spot btw
>>158004941And who owns the stadium? The Spurs concert argument applies to when they host NFL matches too. It's all stadium hire.>not an argumentNo, it is an argument because you're the one who falsely equated a stadium to an oil field. You don't even know what you're spouting. Like this for example:>if it were about financial sustainability, counting completely unrelated business assets would be perfectly valid.What is that even supposed to mean?
>>158003670NTA, but the sane argument here is that the league should rewrite its financial rules to not blatantly favor three teams over the rest. Doesn't excuse what City did and they should still be punished for it, but the Premier League also opened the door to this corruption with their own blatantly corrupt rules. They aren't heroes here and Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool aren't honorable clubs for hiding behind laughably-named """fairness""" rules that ban everyone else from competing with them. If this was an American sport, the rules themselves would be as scandalous as the cheating.
>>158004953They are more popular than whoever gets promotedThe current financial rules literally favour the parasitesBrighton, Bournemouth, Brentford etc are defacto prohibited from winning the EPL bar a miracle
>>158004963>And who owns the stadium? The Spurs concert argument applies to when they host NFL matches too. It's all stadium hire.and who would own the oil field or annuity? if the issue is just club ownership of the asset you can't disqualify any assets that are unrelated to sports.>What is that even supposed to mean?it means that business assets are business assets. a multi-use stadium has revenue streams that are sporting and non-sporting. it is completely arbitrary to allow that revenue stream while disallowing other non-sports related revenue streams under the same business umbrella. if financial sustainability is the reason for the rules, they are not ideal for that purpose because they exclude sustainable sources of income (for instance an annuity) and include other sources of income that favor the richest clubs (such as those that own their own, large stadium).
>>158005079>if the issue is just club ownership of the asset you can't disqualify any assets that are unrelated to sports.>it is completely arbitrary to allow that revenue stream while disallowing other non-sports related revenue streams under the same business umbrella.Yes you can for PSR / SCR because the stadium is part of the footballing operations as specified in >>158004257. What relevance does an oil field or a pension scheme have towards the football team?> if financial sustainability is the reason for the rules, they are not ideal for that purpose because they exclude sustainable sources of income (for instance an annuity) and include other sources of income that favor the richest clubs (such as those that own their own, large stadium).You seriously do not understand what you're rambling on about. That's why I said you should just stop.
>>158003857the funny thing is liverpool did it with that weird warrior company that came out of nowhere, gave them a massive sponsorship (when they were droppd by adidas for being shit and had finished 8th), and just happened to be based in boston and also doing the same with fsg's american baseball teams
>>158004816>what have I said that's wrong>checks PL performance in the CL over the past decadethat was quick and easy
>>158005190and the league has been in decline since Liverpool, Chelsea and City won itthe only team that is any decent aside from City is Arsenal, who are far outclassed in Europe and torturous to actually watchChelsea, Liverpool and United are about as good as Milan and will be like that for the foreseeable future
>>158005225i don't think that really holds up. They've had 2 teams in the quarters each of the past 4 years at least, and those were 5 different clubs. A semifinalist each of the past 2 years. Arsenal in the final last year.
>>158005262yeh in the most humiliating final in european history
>>158005153"the rules are the way they are because they are the rules"and i'm saying the rules aren't fit for purpose which was billed as being to prevent a portsmouth situation. that isn't a concern if you have the business assets under the same corporate umbrella that the company can liquidate or creditors can draw from if necessary. >the stadium is part of the footballing operationsbut the rental of that stadium for concerts is not. it is a multi-purpose stadium and not all of the uses are related to sports. allowing those particular unrelated operations but not others is an arbitrary distinction just meant to favor the elite clubs.
>>158005274it wasn't even as humiliating as the year prior.
>>158004941But it's a sports stadium. Just like naming your stadium after a sponsor counts as football related despite not having anything to do with the game itself. It's actually really simple you're just a retarded yank
>>158005262>They've had 2 teams in the quarters each of the past 4 years at leastWhich is exactly what I said? Who besides from Arsenal do you think can touch the top clubs in Europe?>Arsenal in the final last year.With one of the easiest draws of all time that they barely scraped throughAgain the EPL is in a downturn (which includes City tbf) and without City will only spiral quicker
>>158003445Same reason we all love hardened criminal Robin Hood
>>158005306but that's not what you said because as I showed they consistently put teams beyond the quarters, too. I'm not sure if you're a zoomer or not, but by your own admission there's fairly consistent revolving of whoever is at the top of the PL's pile. It's only arsenal at the moment, but it would be completely unshocking if liverpool or chelsea were back at the top in 2 seasons. Spurs were in the CL final in the past decade. Things change, but the PL had and continues to have a deep bench.
>>158005342I said>he EPL without City will be reduced to watching Arsenal and Liverpool exit the UCL in the quarterskey word is *will* here because that is the current level of the EPLbut by your own admission there's fairly consistent revolving of whoever is at the top of the PL's pilethere has not been a revolving door, City has been consistently the best team in the EPL in the last decade with a few interruptions>it would be completely unshocking if liverpool or chelsea were back at the top in 2 seasons.Screencap this because it won't happen, they have mediocre managers and unbalanced teams on a huge wage bill
>>158005389>with a few interruptions >in a sample size of 10i don't think you know what "consistently" means. Because 4 other PL clubs have been to a CL final in that time frame, advancing beyond city in those seasons.
>>158005389also>the key word is "will" here>but i based on it on a statement about trend that I can't back up
>>158005400in pretty much every season City didn't win, those clubs were pushed to the very end and broke records to be able to beat themCity under Pep has raised the standard of the EPL more than any other club has in any other league, the EPL knows this and City will remain in the league>>158005407it's based on how those teams have actually played over the last 2-3 years
>>158005433convenient that this all coincided with PL team revenues blowing past other leagues.
>>158005446You're right and every club's revenue should be audited to the degree City's has been
>>158005461yeah probably, though the media rights obviously lift all boats there. I'm not sure why you think clubs in other leagus are somehow immune to revenue fraud
>>158005433>City under Pep has raised the standard of the EPL more than any other club has in any other leagueHe didn't actually. If anything he took it backwards.
OK I still don't see what City have done wrong?If the non-UAE sponsors had been inflating contracts then that's a different matter (although it's unlikely it would implicate City in any way and it certainly wouldn't be handled by a football court). But I'm to understand this is about Etihad and Etisalat? And none of City's sponsors have ever said they had an issue?>But Mansour was routing money through ADUG and into Etihad and through here but by another back-channel and this email and blah blahI don't care, the sponsorships were found to be at fair market value yes? So why would it matter at all if Mansour was funding his own companies that he already had interests in prior? This is completely normal business practice and if anything it only exaggerates his own tax liability. So why does it matter where the money comes from?This all reeks of american lawyerfare, it has the same stink as when they threw a melty over Bombardier mogging their shitty yank aeroplanes
>>158005536ooh rajesh is having a proper melty
>>158005536>If the non-UAE sponsors had been inflating contracts then that's a different matterWhy?
>>158005536I agree, which is why my conclusion has been that this is simply the league trying to punish Man City for being too successful and not sucking the red cartel's dick. "Independent" panel of Arsenal fans btw.
>>158005536wish i could hear this straight from your sexy ass lips instead of reading it.
>>158005590>saaar I am bloody defending bastard cheaty for free, no rupees for me!something like that
>>158005577>this is simply the league trying to punish Man City for being too successful and not sucking the red cartel's dickRemember the investigations only started after the email hack.
>>158005624Yep, they were being targeted by someone.
City should do what cancelled celebrities do and become the chud club
