• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

115(+15) vs the world

Forums Unread posts
Brizzle said:
Yes - if historic points deductions or trophy removals aren't an option then I'd rather something like this (especially if it is more than 2-3 windows) is better than a points deduction that doesn't see them relegated.

You can also bet your bottom dollar that if they got relegated, they'd still "sell out" their stadium every game
Click to expand...
I remember the last time United were relegated - they had 50,000+ sell outs every home game because at long last they were actually winning them !
 
Brizzle said:
Yes - if historic points deductions or trophy removals aren't an option then I'd rather something like this (especially if it is more than 2-3 windows) is better than a points deduction that doesn't see them relegated.

You can also bet your bottom dollar that if they got relegated, they'd still "sell out" their stadium every game
Click to expand...
The EPL will probably impose the transfer ban in January 2026, thereby providing City with ample opportunity to secure reinforcements during the summer transfer window.
 
Modo said:
The EPL will probably impose the transfer ban in January 2026, thereby providing City with ample opportunity to secure reinforcements during the summer transfer window.
Click to expand...
I think this is probably the most realistic thing that could happen. There definitely won't receive retrospective action against trophies won, that's just too much admin, and they won't want to jeopardise the cash cow in the long term, I don't foresee a points deduction either, not one that's significant enough to risk them being relegated anyway. For City, if any of the above happens this could theoretically be the best time for it to happen to them, given they are in the midst of a rebuild and not at the height of success.

The whole thing is a farce and the backlash one way or the other will be interesting at best, but I think ultimately everyone will crack on and Chelsea and City will continue to take the piss. If there was any significant danger of catastrophic action happening, they wouldn't both still be spending like there's no tomorrow. I don't buy that they are just looting everything before they have their bubbles burst, I genuinely reckon they already know which way this is likely to go and it won't be significant in the way that every other club wants it to be.
 
Anyone else listening (or listened) to the BBC podcast on 115 (Football on Trial)?

I am 3 out of 4 episodes in - its actually quite good, despite being presented by a lifelong City fan.

Quoted some of the emails Der Spiegel dredged up that state, for example, a sponsorship deal is £15M per year, but of that only £3M is payable by the sponsor with the remainder being sourced from "his highness".

Also the guy who categorically denied, in the CAS appeal against the UEFA ruling, making or authorising any payments to sponsors had an email to one of the sponsors which said "It seems we made a mistake - we paid you £75M, but we were actually due to pay to £82M, so we now owe you a further £7M"
 
tombrown said:
Anyone else listening (or listened) to the BBC podcast on 115 (Football on Trial)?

I am 3 out of 4 episodes in - its actually quite good, despite being presented by a lifelong City fan.

Quoted some of the emails Der Spiegel dredged up that state, for example, a sponsorship deal is £15M per year, but of that only £3M is payable by the sponsor with the remainder being sourced from "his highness".

Also the guy who categorically denied, in the CAS appeal against the UEFA ruling, making or authorising any payments to sponsors had an email to one of the sponsors which said "It seems we made a mistake - we paid you £75M, but we were actually due to pay to £82M, so we now owe you a further £7M"
Click to expand...
In the UEFA case (appeal to CAS), they got around this by having someone from Etihad / ADUG say that it wasn't as described. I've just listened to that episode 3 (didn't know about it before you posted) and I think the real thrust of the reporting in the pod is that DER SPIEGEL believe Simon Pearce perjured himself - City got around it because they found someone prepared to lie. I'll be interested to see if the panel address that point in the current case.
 
Beamrider said:
This is, I think, the inevitable outcome. The PL has had to charge City with everything they thought they MIGHT be guilty of, because City didn't co-operate and provide the information needed to allow the EPL to home in on the issues. With 130 charges, even if City are only found guilty on a few counts, they will try to position things that they were "exonerated" on 90% of the charges and therefore it's a big win.
Reality - any single charge going against them is a loss, and a big one. The only real measure of that loss, in the eyes of a layman, will be the extent of the punishment. And that's where you have to look at the recent precedents, and the points deductions given to Everton and Forest. A fine will not be enough, they need to be docked points, and on a scale that makes their misconduct relative to those other clubs absolutely clear.
And lads, International Week would be a good time to get this all out in the open. We're waiting.
Click to expand...
Would you think they'll wait till after England play their games before they announce their findings
 
tombrown said:
Anyone else listening (or listened) to the BBC podcast on 115 (Football on Trial)?

I am 3 out of 4 episodes in - its actually quite good, despite being presented by a lifelong City fan.

Quoted some of the emails Der Spiegel dredged up that state, for example, a sponsorship deal is £15M per year, but of that only £3M is payable by the sponsor with the remainder being sourced from "his highness".

Also the guy who categorically denied, in the CAS appeal against the UEFA ruling, making or authorising any payments to sponsors had an email to one of the sponsors which said "It seems we made a mistake - we paid you £75M, but we were actually due to pay to £82M, so we now owe you a further £7M"
Click to expand...
FWIW, you might not be aware Tom but the guy presenting the pod (Clive Myrie) is one of the BBC's lead newsreaders. He's pretty sound and has got himself into trouble with them from time to time for speaking his mind, not someone I would expect to be biased.
 
Beamrider said:
FWIW, you might not be aware Tom but the guy presenting the pod (Clive Myrie) is one of the BBC's lead newsreaders. He's pretty sound and has got himself into trouble with them from time to time for speaking his mind, not someone I would expect to be biased.
Click to expand...
Thanks

I'm due to get episode 4 on my drive to the Aran Islands ferry in an hour or so. Looking forward to it
 
Irishanfield said:
Would you think they'll wait till after England play their games before they announce their findings
Click to expand...
Possible, but I'd have thought it would be better to get it out now, and leave as much time as possible for things to settle before the next round of PL games. I'd expect City to be given a few days' advance notice and then for it to be made public. That process may already have started. But it's also possible we're still weeks away from any announcement.
I'm not sure the PL would give a toss about disrupting the England team - that's the FA's remit.
 
Beamrider said:
In the UEFA case (appeal to CAS), they got around this by having someone from Etihad / ADUG say that it wasn't as described. I've just listened to that episode 3 (didn't know about it before you posted) and I think the real thrust of the reporting in the pod is that DER SPIEGEL believe Simon Pearce perjured himself - City got around it because they found someone prepared to lie. I'll be interested to see if the panel address that point in the current case.
Click to expand...
You only heard about it from me, and, les than an hour later, you have just finished episode 3.

So either you skipped straight to that episode or you binged it at 2x speed - either way I could not be married to you. Sorry, but I have to draw the line somewhere.
 
Beamrider said:
Standard of proof in PL disciplinary hearings is "balance of probabilities". That's a low burden of proof. Not like the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
Argument runs as follows:
PL - These emails say this is what you did.
City - We didn't do it.
PL - Can you provide evidence that you didn't?
City - We don't have to. (Code for no we can't, because we did it).
PL - We think you're lying and if you had provided the information we asked for we'd know one way or another. The only reason you didn't provide it is you know it would prove you are lying. [All couched in lawyer speak, obvs).

Panel then has to decide whether City did it on the balance of probabilities - i.e. that they did do what they said they were going to do when they've provided no evidence that they didn't. It's a low burden of proof. Even if they decide in City's favour, they have to concede the non-co-operation charges - City's failure to co-operate means it's not possible to rule against them. They have successfully "no commented" themselves through the tricky bit in classic Line of Duty fashion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I do get that, but I presume the City strategy is at each appeal they’ll find a way of upping the burden of proof so that it reaches a point where a judge says it can’t be proven and downgrades the penalty to stuff all.

I know the grounds for appeal, at least initially are pretty limited, but given the amount of money they’re chucking at lawyers, I don’t see how they don’t find a way to get this downgraded.

I suspect the end point will be the only charge that sticks is the ones around not co-operating, that will result in a fine, which will probably be suspended if they promise to be good boys and girls for 12 months or so.
 
tombrown said:
You only heard about it from me, and, les than an hour later, you have just finished episode 3.

So either you skipped straight to that episode or you binged it at 2x speed - either way I could not be married to you. Sorry, but I have to draw the line somewhere.
Click to expand...
I went straight to 3.
Are YOU accusing ME of having a short attention span? 🙄
 
Beamrider said:
I went straight to 3.
Are YOU accusing ME of having a short attention span? 🙄
Click to expand...
In fairness, you have highlighted my issue. Attention span to read long articles on a screen is severely limited. Attention span to listen to podcasts (even the one Momo hates) is much better.
 
First Half GIF
 
More seriously, I do feel like the longer they take to release the decision, the more likely it is that there will be a really bad outcome for either City or the Premier League.
If it's taking a long time then it suggests the panel is having to be really careful in their reasoning / wording, because they know the shit's going to hit the fan, one way or another.
On the one hand, if it goes against City, we know their PR machine will go into meltdown.
If it goes against the PL, they'll be more prosaic but the other clubs will kick off.
But I don't feel like it's going to be a "minor offences, slap on the wrist" kind of judgement. If it were, I think it would be out already.
 
City won. It's all about saving face now for the PL and they're planning how they can do that without alienating a lot of the clubs and fans I reckon.

Within 24 months another super league will be pushed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dee
  • Locked
Match Thread Southampton (H) - Sat March 8th 15:00 GMT
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
189
Views
5K
Mamma Mia
Mamma Mia
King Binny
    • Like
Dominik Szoboszlai, Liverpool’s Two-in-One Workhorse
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
Modo
Modo
rurikbird
Top 10 wingers in the PL?
2
Replies
48
Views
854
Modo
Modo
6cmRed
  • Locked
Liverpool Echo Man City 115 charges verdict worst-case scenario claim made as Liverpool await decision
Replies
0
Views
5
6cmRed
6cmRed
6cmRed
  • Locked
Liverpool Echo Liverpool receive fresh Man City 115 charges punishment verdict as Premier League wait goes on
Replies
0
Views
41
6cmRed
6cmRed
Back
Top Bottom