City Launch Legal Challenge Against PL Charges & Barrister

[zuricity]

They had somebody on TS earlier, only caught tail end of it, but whoever it was basically said the Forest appeal will more likely drag on beyond the end of the season.

And said we won't know who gets relegated on the final day!!!!!

Fucked up or what..........

It has come to this has it not . The perpetrators of FFP , long gone from the mess they left behind . All to stop new investment and to keep themselves at the top end of the trough when it's feeding time. Rags, scouse , Arse were all in at the beginning their Directors involved in FFP. Perpetrators conveniently disappear and leave two women in charge at the PL ! I genuinely believe the PL adminstrators don't know how they can get out of the problems caused by prevous adminstrators.

[Mase]

Tony Bellew calls for City to be relegated to the Conference.

Weird fat scouse twat

[CTID Hants]

Tony Bellew calls for City to be relegated to the Conference.

Weird fat scouse twat

I was listening (TS breakfast), he kept on banging about 10 point for them and 4 for forset who apparently broke more rules than them. Only at the very end did he acknowlede the reduction to six, 'but still forest done more wrong than us'......

That's when he mentioned us and going to the conference, saying it like it was a nailed fact that (a) we will be found guilty (b) its the only possible outcome us being sent to the conference.

Utter cunt, from a shithole city.

[patrickblue]

Tony Bellew calls for City to be relegated to the Conference.

Weird fat scouse twat

I was listening (TS breakfast), he kept on banging about 10 point for them and 4 for forset who apparently broke more rules than them. Only at the very end did he acknowlede the reduction to six, 'but still forest done more wrong than us'......

That's when he mentioned us and going to the conference, saying it like it was a nailed fact that (a) we will be found guilty (b) its the only possible outcome us being sent to the conference.

Utter cunt, from a shithole city.

All he kept saying was victim, victim, victim.

Typical scouser really.

[Im_Spartacus]

I have a feeling this situation with Nottingham Forest may turn the tide of opinion relating to 'Financial Sustainability'

On social media and elsewhere, we'll all have seen the rabid frothing at the mouth about Man City driven a lot by the media and jumped on by half wits who don't have a brain in their heads. City are seen as the villain, and invariably the comments I've seen are that the 'top 6' are immune and nobody will do anything about them.

Of course now, we have the dawning realisation from fans in light of the Forest situation, that FFP isn't actually what they have been led to believe. I know we have been saying since the takeover on this site, that we would probably slip through but that we'd be the last club able to benefit from owner investment to get us to the top. I also know that we had many conversations about the fact that the real losers in FFP would be the likes of Everton (a club I specifically named due to being big enough to be attractive to an overseas owner like City), whom would never be able to now do what City have done. Essentially locked into mid-table obscurity forever.

The most common argument I've faced when trying to discuss this on social medial, is that City fans are talking shite about why FFP exists, as it wasn't just United, Arsenal and Liverpool who voted for it, but the rest of the PL clubs including Everton......surely if it was so obviously anti-competetive, the likes of Everton wouldn't have voted for it.

Now with Forest we have our answer to that loud and clear.

The Premier league clubs who voted FFP in, all did so with their own agenda - owners of clubs 10-15 years ago voted based on what was best for them. A future where reduced investment was promised. Not because these club owners ever had any aspirations of challenging at the top of the table, but because it would become increasingly difficult to dislodge any of them from the Premier League for much longer than a year, as it would become increasingly impossible for a Championship club to bridge the gap if they are limited to making a 35m loss in their first year in the PL, which in this day and age could be spent easily on a single player.

We've seen a few exceptionally well run and managed clubs like Bournemouth, Brighton and Brentford establish themselves since then, however with what's happened with Forest, we've seen that it's almost impossible to overhaul your playing squad in your first year of the Premier League, and not fall foul of the rules.Their statement said as much, and was a brilliant response from the club to the absolute BS we're seeing around FFP, and I hope serves as a wakeup call to fans that City aren't the bad guys in all this - we're just the most high profile example of what FFP was designed to prevent.

If we use the example of a club that gets lucky and goes up, perhaps a year or two early, through the playoffs with a sub standard squad that's not ready for the Premier League, you're pretty much fucked. There's absolutely zero point trying to invest to compete, because if you do happen to stay up, you're going to get hit with a fucking points deduction and relegated in your 2nd year.

Mike Ashley is a great case in point - back in the day his interest would have been cementing a place in the PL so he could milk the club dry and spend the least amount possible maintaining the status quo - this is the cartel dream the red clubs sold to the rest of them.....let us continue at the top, you can continue to keep your noses in the trough. Effectively today now we see the results of that when he sells out, the club wins the lottery, but can't spend any fucking money. He effectively sold Newcastle's entire future down the river voting for FFP, and even their fans today don't see it - too quick to blame City for all their troubles for some reason.

We're starting to see the beginning of the end of FFP now, I'm sure of it - because it will surely have to become obvious to the wider public that FFP was pure self interest from top to bottom, that smaller clubs are being fucked up the arse and deterred from having any ambition. They surely have to begin to see that it's bad for everybody, that those who voted for it then get taken over, are stuck with the legacy decision of their greedy previous owner.

If we end up in a situation where relegation can't be decided because of an appeal by Forest, this is going to be a fucking disaster for the Premier League.

[nottsblue]

I have a feeling this situation with Nottingham Forest may turn the tide of opinion relating to 'Financial Sustainability'

On social media and elsewhere, we'll all have seen the rabid frothing at the mouth about Man City driven a lot by the media and jumped on by half wits who don't have a brain in their heads. City are seen as the villain, and invariably the comments I've seen are that the 'top 6' are immune and nobody will do anything about them.

Of course now, we have the dawning realisation from fans in light of the Forest situation, that FFP isn't actually what they have been led to believe. I know we have been saying since the takeover on this site, that we would probably slip through but that we'd be the last club able to benefit from owner investment to get us to the top. I also know that we had many conversations about the fact that the real losers in FFP would be the likes of Everton (a club I specifically named due to being big enough to be attractive to an overseas owner like City), whom would never be able to now do what City have done. Essentially locked into mid-table obscurity forever.

The most common argument I've faced when trying to discuss this on social medial, is that City fans are talking shite about why FFP exists, as it wasn't just United, Arsenal and Liverpool who voted for it, but the rest of the PL clubs including Everton......surely if it was so obviously anti-competetive, the likes of Everton wouldn't have voted for it.

Now with Forest we have our answer to that loud and clear.

The Premier league clubs who voted FFP in, all did so with their own agenda - owners of clubs 10-15 years ago voted based on what was best for them. A future where reduced investment was promised. Not because these club owners ever had any aspirations of challenging at the top of the table, but because it would become increasingly difficult to dislodge any of them from the Premier League for much longer than a year, as it would become increasingly impossible for a Championship club to bridge the gap if they are limited to making a 35m loss in their first year in the PL, which in this day and age could be spent easily on a single player.

We've seen a few exceptionally well run and managed clubs like Bournemouth, Brighton and Brentford establish themselves since then, however with what's happened with Forest, we've seen that it's almost impossible to overhaul your playing squad in your first year of the Premier League, and not fall foul of the rules.Their statement said as much, and was a brilliant response from the club to the absolute BS we're seeing around FFP, and I hope serves as a wakeup call to fans that City aren't the bad guys in all this - we're just the most high profile example of what FFP was designed to prevent.

If we use the example of a club that gets lucky and goes up, perhaps a year or two early, through the playoffs with a sub standard squad that's not ready for the Premier League, you're pretty much fucked. There's absolutely zero point trying to invest to compete, because if you do happen to stay up, you're going to get hit with a fucking points deduction and relegated in your 2nd year.

Mike Ashley is a great case in point - back in the day his interest would have been cementing a place in the PL so he could milk the club dry and spend the least amount possible maintaining the status quo - this is the cartel dream the red clubs sold to the rest of them.....let us continue at the top, you can continue to keep your noses in the trough. Effectively today now we see the results of that when he sells out, the club wins the lottery, but can't spend any fucking money. He effectively sold Newcastle's entire future down the river voting for FFP, and even their fans today don't see it - too quick to blame City for all their troubles for some reason.

We're starting to see the beginning of the end of FFP now, I'm sure of it - because it will surely have to become obvious to the wider public that FFP was pure self interest from top to bottom, that smaller clubs are being fucked up the arse and deterred from having any ambition. They surely have to begin to see that it's bad for everybody, that those who voted for it then get taken over, are stuck with the legacy decision of their greedy previous owner.

If we end up in a situation where relegation can't be decided because of an appeal by Forest, this is going to be a fucking disaster for the Premier League.

Spot on Sparty.

Can totally confirm in Nottingham that opinion is starting to change and the penny is rapidly dropping that they have been sold a lie in the true purpose of FFP. That it isn't about fair play and ensuring clubs don't collapse, more it was a tool to ensure the status quo was maintained.

Sad that it has taken so long for everyday football fans to realise what has happened under their noses, but at least it has started.

[patrickblue]

Indeed, spot on.

As you say, the most common argument, is that City fans are talking shite about why FFP exists, as it wasn't just United, Arsenal and Liverpool who voted for it, but the rest of the PL clubs including Everton......surely if it was so obviously anti-competitive, the likes of Everton wouldn't have voted for it.

And it's the simplest to counter.

As you've said, most owners are going to vote for anything that limits their liability and stops pressure on them to spend. And most did.

[Im_Spartacus]

Indeed, spot on.

As you say, the most common argument, is that City fans are talking shite about why FFP exists, as it wasn't just United, Arsenal and Liverpool who voted for it, but the rest of the PL clubs including Everton......surely if it was so obviously anti-competitive, the likes of Everton wouldn't have voted for it.

And it's the simplest to counter.

As you've said, most owners are going to vote for anything that limits their liability and stops pressure on them to spend. And most did.

I thought it would be the easiest argument to counter, but in reality its needed 10 years and a Newcastle and a Forest to highlight 2 different scenarios where extreme wealth is prevented from investing in their squad, and to see who benefits from that?

The problem is, as this has taken so long to come through, we now have an entirely new generation of fans upto 30 years old, who have grown up unaware that football existed before Man City, and are completely oblivious to the fact that we are not part of the 'cartel' - all the comments that 'City will get away with this because they have money' - completely loses sight of the fact that we were always the fucking target of FFP from day 1.

It sadly goes to show both the public's stupidity, and also the brainwashing the red agenda media has performed in turning City into the bad guy.

[salford city]

Indeed, spot on.

As you say, the most common argument, is that City fans are talking shite about why FFP exists, as it wasn't just United, Arsenal and Liverpool who voted for it, but the rest of the PL clubs including Everton......surely if it was so obviously anti-competitive, the likes of Everton wouldn't have voted for it.

And it's the simplest to counter.

As you've said, most owners are going to vote for anything that limits their liability and stops pressure on them to spend. And most did.

I thought it would be the easiest argument to counter, but in reality its needed 10 years and a Newcastle and a Forest to highlight 2 different scenarios where extreme wealth is prevented from investing in their squad, and to see who benefits from that?

The problem is, as this has taken so long to come through, we now have an entirely new generation of fans upto 30 years old, who have grown up unaware that football existed before Man City, and are completely oblivious to the fact that we are not part of the 'cartel' - all the comments that 'City will get away with this because they have money' - completely loses sight of the fact that we were always the fucking target of FFP from day 1.

It sadly goes to show both the public's stupidity, and also the brainwashing the red agenda media has performed in turning City into the bad guy.

That last paragraph is the most pertinent in all of this. Sad in the main that the rest of football outside of the original SLY cartel have not seen ffp for what is was. We've said it forever on here and so whilst I can sympathise with the fans of the clubs that are starting to realise the real affect of these schemes, I also think fuck em for signing up and letting the cartel clubs get away with it in the first place.

[MIAMCFC]

Indeed, spot on.

As you say, the most common argument, is that City fans are talking shite about why FFP exists, as it wasn't just United, Arsenal and Liverpool who voted for it, but the rest of the PL clubs including Everton......surely if it was so obviously anti-competitive, the likes of Everton wouldn't have voted for it.

And it's the simplest to counter.

As you've said, most owners are going to vote for anything that limits their liability and stops pressure on them to spend. And most did.

I thought it would be the easiest argument to counter, but in reality its needed 10 years and a Newcastle and a Forest to highlight 2 different scenarios where extreme wealth is prevented from investing in their squad, and to see who benefits from that?

The problem is, as this has taken so long to come through, we now have an entirely new generation of fans upto 30 years old, who have grown up unaware that football existed before Man City, and are completely oblivious to the fact that we are not part of the 'cartel' - all the comments that 'City will get away with this because they have money' - completely loses sight of the fact that we were always the fucking target of FFP from day 1.

It sadly goes to show both the public's stupidity, and also the brainwashing the red agenda media has performed in turning City into the bad guy.

That last paragraph is the most pertinent in all of this. Sad in the main that the rest of football outside of the original SLY cartel have not seen ffp for what is was. We've said it forever on here and so whilst I can sympathise with the fans of the clubs that are starting to realise the real affect of these schemes, I also think fuck em for signing up and letting the cartel clubs get away with it in the first place.

Murdock may as well have bought the scum, he has kept them relevant for over a decade. SLY has two puppets and have sadly added Ian Wright to complete the original clubs who have caused more drama than everyone put together. I mean let’s all forget George Grahams departure due to bungs and all that was pushed under the carpet……

[Nickyboy]

What is winding me up is that City are getting lumped in by other fans with the 'Sly 6' because of the super league nonsense and dumb c**ts on twitter saying FFP is there to 'protect' us - completely ignoring the fact we voted against FFP

[blues2win]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... lity-rules

Premier League have now charged Leicester City who have fired back.

[Mase]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13099398/leicester-charged-by-premier-league-over-alleged-breach-of-profitability-and-sustainability-rules

Premier League have now charged Leicester City who have fired back.

They all voted for it. They all deserve it

[carolina-blue]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13099398/leicester-charged-by-premier-league-over-alleged-breach-of-profitability-and-sustainability-rules

Premier League have now charged Leicester City who have fired back.

They all voted for it. They all deserve it

The Hatefull 8 or 10 or 19 all cunts -if I remember only Sheffield Utd abstained - yer right they all deserve it ,

[nottsblue]

Seems there is likely to be a couple more clubs who will fall foul of this. We haven’t heard the end of this I reckon

[Mase]

When we get off the tears from all the other fans is going to be class!!

[zuricity]

FFP was introduced in 2009 and implemented a few years later.

In 2009, Stoke ,Sunderland, Blackburn , Wigan , Birmingham, Hull and Portsmouth were in the Premier League voting on issues that affect the future of the league.
Where are they now ? Why are Business decisions allowed to be made on behalf of a club by members that by default, have to leave the club ?

The PL must return to the fold under control of the FA and not media barons and members of the group of 14.

[Im_Spartacus]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13099398/leicester-charged-by-premier-league-over-alleged-breach-of-profitability-and-sustainability-rules

Premier League have now charged Leicester City who have fired back.

They all voted for it. They all deserve it

I can't remember if Leicester were part of the league when the rules were dreamed up, but even if they were, again we have a situation voted for by a previous regime of a club over a decade and a half ago that wasn't contemplating their future change of ownership.

The implications here though, added to the Forest one are going to be very interesting.

The notion that a club's fate should be decided on the pitch, is going out of the window here and that's going to really start to piss fans of all clubs off, it's already starting to wear thin and there are enough questions now coming up that FFP is starting to be exposed for the nonsense it is - and the likes of Forest, Leicester, Everton are all just collateral damage in what was essentially established to stop City.

I think we can all agree that 'some' rules which genuinely protect clubs from shit owners are needed, but the punishments of points deductions are just not feasible in reality. We can't have 20% of clubs in the league having points randomly deducted mid-season, nor can we start having questions about the fairness of a specific deduction/tariff, as this will always cause appeals like Everton and Forest have already done. We become an accounting league, not a football league.

I mean lets look at the reality here - lets assume City are found guilty of at least some of what is alleged, lets just speculate for a moment that its a 50 point deduction that in effect relegates us, and causes us not to qualify for the CL......the implications beyond that are really problematic.

It would be impossible within a short timeframe, for Manchester City to divest itself of the contracts it has committed to based on its forecast revenue for the following year. So, if City all of a sudden lose $100m prize money and TV revenue in the year they find themselves outside the Premier league, and 2 they find themselves outside of the CL, how can it be reasonable that the club shed $100m in expenditure on player contracts to address that?

You get a snowball situation that could in itself cause a financial catastrophe if the club tried to comply, because lets say you sell a player to get him off the wage bill, you had to pay out that player's contract AND sell below market value - in fact rather than saving $5m off the wage bill, you've probably just actually caused a loss on the balance sheet of $20m from selling that player.

I think this puts the PL in a very interesting legal area........because essentially the conduct of the PL would now be directly causing the club to make financial losses, which (aside from the very questionable legality of causing a business to crystallise a loss) in turn makes it impossible to comply with their rules, which in turn means we get punished again, and again and again until we've sold all our best players and returned to the middle of the pack.

[nottsblue]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13099398/leicester-charged-by-premier-league-over-alleged-breach-of-profitability-and-sustainability-rules

Premier League have now charged Leicester City who have fired back.

They all voted for it. They all deserve it

I can't remember if Leicester were part of the league when the rules were dreamed up, but even if they were, again we have a situation voted for by a previous regime of a club over a decade and a half ago that wasn't contemplating their future change of ownership.

The implications here though, added to the Forest one are going to be very interesting.

The notion that a club's fate should be decided on the pitch, is going out of the window here and that's going to really start to piss fans of all clubs off, it's already starting to wear thin and there are enough questions now coming up that FFP is starting to be exposed for the nonsense it is - and the likes of Forest, Leicester, Everton are all just collateral damage in what was essentially established to stop City.

I think we can all agree that 'some' rules which genuinely protect clubs from shit owners are needed, but the punishments of points deductions are just not feasible in reality. We can't have 20% of clubs in the league having points randomly deducted mid-season, nor can we start having questions about the fairness of a specific deduction/tariff, as this will always cause appeals like Everton and Forest have already done. We become an accounting league, not a football league.

I mean lets look at the reality here - lets assume City are found guilty of at least some of what is alleged, lets just speculate for a moment that its a 50 point deduction that in effect relegates us, and causes us not to qualify for the CL......the implications beyond that are really problematic.

It would be impossible within a short timeframe, for Manchester City to divest itself of the contracts it has committed to based on its forecast revenue for the following year. So, if City all of a sudden lose $100m prize money and TV revenue in the year they find themselves outside the Premier league, and 2 they find themselves outside of the CL, how can it be reasonable that the club shed $100m in expenditure on player contracts to address that?

You get a snowball situation that could in itself cause a financial catastrophe if the club tried to comply, because lets say you sell a player to get him off the wage bill, you had to pay out that player's contract AND sell below market value - in fact rather than saving $5m off the wage bill, you've probably just actually caused a loss on the balance sheet of $20m from selling that player.

I think this puts the PL in a very interesting legal area........because essentially the conduct of the PL would now be directly causing the club to make financial losses, which (aside from the very questionable legality of causing a business to crystallise a loss) in turn makes it impossible to comply with their rules, which in turn means we get punished again, and again and again until we've sold all our best players and returned to the middle of the pack.

I think your last paragraph is actually what the American owners of the red shirts want. Always was. Nothing whatsoever to do with fairness and integrity and protecting the PL or any other other bullshit they say FFP was designed for. Pure nastiness and greed on their part, simple as that

[Im_Spartacus]

Yeah I've long pondered how this plays out when someone gets relegated, because it could easily cause a spiral that a club couldn't get out of.

It would be funny though if they gave us a 60 point deduction and we bagged 95 and stayed up. I personally think this is the only way out for the PL, to apply something like a 50 point deduction and let City deal with it on the pitch so we have a chance to stay up on merit.

If they relegated us directly, I don't think the PL could survive the legal implications, and they would cause the breakup of football as we know it, as I can't see any other outcome than a Super League - which would be odd, as it would essentially create the thing the cartel wanted to exclude us from in the first place!