Premier League 2026-27 (16 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
exor holds like 15% of equity and ~20% of voting rights in stellantis. that sponsorship wasn't even fishy, not for a second. not even inda ran lega serie a questioned its legitimacy. if it was shady we'd already be relegated.
city owners actually controlled those sham companies. and if you read the funny news with the asian chick's stock photo at the bottom of the 17th page, you can see that some of those companies barely gave a shit about optics. some companies didn't even bother to pay the contracted amounts, it's alleged that the abu dhabi united group completed the missing amounts.
they fully knew what they were doing. and the premier league took their time to come up with their press release. i bet they have the receipts.
city owners actually controlled those sham companies. and if you read the funny news with the asian chick's stock photo at the bottom of the 17th page, you can see that some of those companies barely gave a shit about optics. some companies didn't even bother to pay the contracted amounts, it's alleged that the abu dhabi united group completed the missing amounts.
they fully knew what they were doing. and the premier league took their time to come up with their press release. i bet they have the receipts.
This is gonna mean a dark ages for the Prem? 
It will bring a total collapse of the rulebook (FFP / PSR). Lets face it, only clubs like us get punished, this will create a global outcry and reset.
The red cartel lost out on league titles, Champions League qualification, and hundreds of millions in prize money. So rival owners will drag the EPL straight to the Court to sue for lost revenue, paralyzing the league in an internal legal war.
EPL relies on illusion of a level, merit based playing field so if city walk away, every trophy will carry an asterisk, in the eyes of fans, players and rival managers. It turns this piece of shit league into a stages competition where state money buys legal immunity.
After spending years investigating andprosecuting the case, failing to make meaningful penalties stick proves the EPL is structurally incapable of policing its own member clubs. It virtually guarantees immediate, heavy-handed intervention from the Government’s Independent Football Regulator to strip the league of its governance powers entirely. Whats to say the running of Premier league itself ans not clubs might not be regulated. EPL will need to be careful how it strategises its marketing and media.
It destroys the football pyramid ecosystem,
Lower-league teams in the EFL face immediate administration, points deductions, or transfer embargoes for minor accounting errors. Seeing the richest club in the country successfully bypass sanctions creates a deep, toxic divide between the elite top tier and the rest of the football pyramid.
City are found guilty of dozens of counts of non-cooperation and obstructing the league’s investigation. If avoiding major sporting penalties sets a precedent that stonewalling regulators works, every club facing future financial scrutiny will simply refuse to cooperate, deploy endless legal delays, and bleed the league's legal funds dry.
While short-term TV rights stay intact, long-term brand damage is guaranteed. Broadcasters and mainstream corporate sponsors in western markets pay billions for authentic drama. If fans start viewing the EPL as "fixed" or lawless, viewing metrics over a 5-10year horizon will plateau significantly
There is another take, which is how the clubs would wanna form a breakaway league, but i see it as unlikely.
Of course not all of this would happen but these are best case scenarios.
Should City get punished, there are some juicy pros too but not as many or catastophic as above. I think as a whole though, these are good times, i'm glad City are fighting, good luck to them, long may this drama continue.
Would urge you to read this article by James Horncastle. It’s paywalled, but I share it as a gift article.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/76...hared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta
Long story short- City inflated their sponsorship revenues for at least 9 years by a total of at least 830 million pounds. This allowed them to stay within FFP and Premier League PSR rules and allowing them to buy players well beyond what they should have been allowed to purchase.
Everton were penalized over much smaller infractions.
If a company did this, it would be extremely severe securities fraud, and possibly money laundering and tax evasion.
If you and I did this with our personal income and wealth, we would be in prison for a very long time.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/76...hared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta
Long story short- City inflated their sponsorship revenues for at least 9 years by a total of at least 830 million pounds. This allowed them to stay within FFP and Premier League PSR rules and allowing them to buy players well beyond what they should have been allowed to purchase.
Everton were penalized over much smaller infractions.
If a company did this, it would be extremely severe securities fraud, and possibly money laundering and tax evasion.
If you and I did this with our personal income and wealth, we would be in prison for a very long time.
Man City is not publicly traded, none of what was revealed is fraud, money laundering or tax evasion.
If you and I gave our companies more income from our other companjes, we would just pay more income tax.
I would urge you to stop reading the hit pieces, collect the facts and come to your own conclusions.
Did City act unethically and unsportsmanlike? Of course.
Did they break the law? Of course not.
Are they guilty of beach of contract with the prem? Arguable, and imho hard to prove in court.
If you and I gave our companies more income from our other companjes, we would just pay more income tax.
I would urge you to stop reading the hit pieces, collect the facts and come to your own conclusions.
Did City act unethically and unsportsmanlike? Of course.
Did they break the law? Of course not.
Are they guilty of beach of contract with the prem? Arguable, and imho hard to prove in court.
Faking where you get your income from is Fraud 101. It’s the most basic and unsophisticated form of it. I’ll let an actual lawyer like @Seven dispute or concur with me on that.
let's forget taxes and british laws on fraud or money laundering.
i'm on my phone so i won't bother finding the premier league rules and especially the parts city violated. point is that you don't have to commit criminal activities like tax evasion or fraud to breach the regulations of the competition you're participating in.
is dhea legal? yup. can you go to jail for taking it? i don't think so. will they ban you if you take it as a tennis player? of course. imagine something along these lines
city did financial doping. it doesn't have to be illegal to be against the rules. cheating isn't necessarily a crime. it's still cheating. sometimes sports regulations are more strict than laws, nothing new in that.
i'm on my phone so i won't bother finding the premier league rules and especially the parts city violated. point is that you don't have to commit criminal activities like tax evasion or fraud to breach the regulations of the competition you're participating in.
is dhea legal? yup. can you go to jail for taking it? i don't think so. will they ban you if you take it as a tennis player? of course. imagine something along these lines
city did financial doping. it doesn't have to be illegal to be against the rules. cheating isn't necessarily a crime. it's still cheating. sometimes sports regulations are more strict than laws, nothing new in that.
I'm answering the claim that city is guilty of fraud, which is wrong
As for your example, it explicitly says in the rules you can't take dhea as a tennis player.
Qualifying income as sham or fake is an opinion, and its vaildity is debated, it's not black and white like taking dhea.
These are 2 of the main rules city is guilty of breaching:
• From 2009/10 to 2011/12 (Rule L.1 and L.2): Explicitly states that a club must submit annual accounts to the Board that are prepared to give a "true and fair view of the Club's financial position."
• From 2012/13 to 2017/18 (Rule E.3 and E.4): Explicitly mandates that the submitted financial accounts must be entirely accurate and "comply with national accounting standards."
Their point of contention is around the marketing deals which they qualify as equity injections.
As for your example, it explicitly says in the rules you can't take dhea as a tennis player.
Qualifying income as sham or fake is an opinion, and its vaildity is debated, it's not black and white like taking dhea.
These are 2 of the main rules city is guilty of breaching:
• From 2009/10 to 2011/12 (Rule L.1 and L.2): Explicitly states that a club must submit annual accounts to the Board that are prepared to give a "true and fair view of the Club's financial position."
• From 2012/13 to 2017/18 (Rule E.3 and E.4): Explicitly mandates that the submitted financial accounts must be entirely accurate and "comply with national accounting standards."
Their point of contention is around the marketing deals which they qualify as equity injections.
you started with this:
i'll find the rules they most probably broke for you tomorrow
- - - Updated - - -
okay, i found this: https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/3045970
this is from 2023 and details all the rules they allegedly broke. and now they were found guilty on all charges. so there's the pretty long list.
handbooks are available here: https://www.premierleague.com/en/media/publications
i'll find the rules they most probably broke for you tomorrow
- - - Updated - - -
okay, i found this: https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/3045970
this is from 2023 and details all the rules they allegedly broke. and now they were found guilty on all charges. so there's the pretty long list.
handbooks are available here: https://www.premierleague.com/en/media/publications
Last edited:
I don't know enough of the English FA's rules.
But as Man City are a member, they have to adhere to their rules. If these rules stipulate that only a certain percentage of their income can come from the owner and Man City lied about this, that is definitely fraud.
It doesn't matter that Man City are not publicly traded. It doesn't matter that there was no money laundering or tax evasion, these are seperate crimes.
Though I am not a UK lawyer, I noticed that the 2006 Fraud Act is broadly similar to Belgian law and stipulates about fraud:
"The defendant:
In this case all the elements that constitute fraud seem to exist:
- Man City made a false representation in saying they derived the income from other sources;
- This was dishonest as they knew it came from the owner;
- They knew the representation was untrue;
- Their gain was to be able to increase their purchasing power to contend for titles and thus, in the long run, possibly gain a larger fanbase and more income.
- - - Updated - - -
One of my areas of expertise is financial crime and corporate crime.
Sometimes it is pretty black and white, but I cannot imagine that a club the magnitude of Man City, let alone the immense financial powerhouse backing them, has not taken significant steps in muddying the waters.
But as Man City are a member, they have to adhere to their rules. If these rules stipulate that only a certain percentage of their income can come from the owner and Man City lied about this, that is definitely fraud.
It doesn't matter that Man City are not publicly traded. It doesn't matter that there was no money laundering or tax evasion, these are seperate crimes.
Though I am not a UK lawyer, I noticed that the 2006 Fraud Act is broadly similar to Belgian law and stipulates about fraud:
"The defendant:
- made a false representation
- dishonestly
- knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
- with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
In this case all the elements that constitute fraud seem to exist:
- Man City made a false representation in saying they derived the income from other sources;
- This was dishonest as they knew it came from the owner;
- They knew the representation was untrue;
- Their gain was to be able to increase their purchasing power to contend for titles and thus, in the long run, possibly gain a larger fanbase and more income.
- - - Updated - - -
One of my areas of expertise is financial crime and corporate crime.
Sometimes it is pretty black and white, but I cannot imagine that a club the magnitude of Man City, let alone the immense financial powerhouse backing them, has not taken significant steps in muddying the waters.
@43:00
Lost count on the number of times Juventus has been mentioned since the scandal broke out.
City are going to take this until the very end regardless of what the punishment is going to be. This won't end.
Something we should've done for all the damages inflicted on us but we accepted the punishment like cucks because Azzurri at the WC was more important!
Manchester City will claim that key sponsorship deals were funded by the Abu Dhabi government, rather than the club's owners, as part of an appeal after being found to have breached financial rules.
- BBC
Rock solid, can't see this appeal failing.
Edit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj3v4vn3ydw1o
Wasn't really surprised to see the "King in the North" sitting right on the fence. I wonder if it was Arsenal or Chelsea (hopefully soon) what he'd say.
- BBC
Rock solid, can't see this appeal failing.
Edit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj3v4vn3ydw1o
Wasn't really surprised to see the "King in the North" sitting right on the fence. I wonder if it was Arsenal or Chelsea (hopefully soon) what he'd say.
Last edited:
They took the chance they had after Gianni and Umberto died while their successors were already dead (Edoardo and Giovanni Alberto) and John and Andrea were too young to take care of that. What's more, FIAT was close to collapsing at that time so Juventus was the least of the family's worries given the circumstances.