- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Man City charged by Premier League
Posted on 2/8/23 at 12:39 pm to ButchJonesFB
Posted on 2/8/23 at 12:39 pm to ButchJonesFB
quote:
when by rule you can only spend as much as you make
Again.
My point is that this rule is stupid and bad for the EPL.
2
Posted on 2/8/23 at 12:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
So your saying that the EPL should put in a hard salary cap to drive competition?
I'm sure the other European leagues would endorse that in a heartbeat since they are constantly out spent by even the lower teams in the EPL
I'm sure the other European leagues would endorse that in a heartbeat since they are constantly out spent by even the lower teams in the EPL
Posted on 2/8/23 at 3:21 pm to ButchJonesFB
quote:
This would never happen but it did with MAN City and they should face punishment for that because it ruins the integrity of the league and has changed history forever. I feel bad for the City fans but to sit here and not acknowledge wrong doing in the slightest is arrogant and ignorant.
You seem like an insufferable douche.
If rules were broken, City should suffer the consequences of breaking those rules.
That said, the rules are asinine. You should be able to spend as much money as your owner can afford. The rules are designed to keep the big teams big and the small teams small.
City spent within their means (admittedly those means are large) and now they are one of the biggest clubs in the world.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 4:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This has Man U at -1.181B and Man City at -979B the past 10 years.
Again, not the timeframe I was referencing and not the timeframe of this investigation. The last 10 years would go back to 2012/2013. The investigation covers 2009 to 2018.
I understand what you're saying, that once City established itself it has operated within its means. But it trounced the rules to get to that point. There isn't much of a point to continuing the discussion if we can't even agree on a timeframe to analyze.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 4:14 pm to theOG
quote:
That said, the rules are asinine. You should be able to spend as much money as your owner can afford. The rules are designed to keep the big teams big and the small teams small.
I agree that the rules favor traditionally big clubs. But allowing unfettered spending can result in dangerous situations where a club is liquidated. Portsmouth is the prime example. Chelsea are lucky Roman forgave its debt, or it would have also been in a tough predicament.
There has to be a middle ground between too many rules and no rules whatsoever.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 4:20 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
I agree that the rules favor traditionally big clubs. But allowing unfettered spending can result in dangerous situations where a club is liquidated.
Sure, but that hasn’t happened with City.
This thread has people saying their spending over the last 14 years has somehow degraded the integrity of the league and that is just nonsense. It’s broadened the reach of the league. It’s given another attractive option for foreign players. It’s given the league another viable CL competitor (even if the trophy has proven elusive).
I’ll go ahead and put it out there that City will see no punishment from these allegations.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 4:27 pm to theOG
quote:
Sure, but that hasn’t happened with City.
Rules apply to everyone. Just because City avoided that situation doesn't mean that everyone else could.
quote:
This thread has people saying their spending over the last 14 years has somehow degraded the integrity of the league and that is just nonsense. It’s broadened the reach of the league. It’s given another attractive option for foreign players. It’s given the league another viable CL competitor (even if the trophy has proven elusive).
I don't think its had any affect on the integrity of the league. But it has affected the competitiveness of the league, for the worse. I think the league needed a shakeup and City becoming a force is not a bad thing, but as I've said earlier in the thread, they went too far and now we're stuck with City winning year in and year out. There has to be a middle ground to ensure parity.
quote:
I’ll go ahead and put it out there that City will see no punishment from these allegations.
I would be shocked if City received no punishment. The Premier League didn't spend four years investigating this if they thought there was little chance that something came from it. I do not think they get booted from the league, but I can see a points deduction happening.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 9:25 am to ButchJonesFB
No way, you mean all those fake sponsors from family members, werent actually real. No way
Shocked ??
Shocked ??
Posted on 2/9/23 at 9:58 am to SeeeeK
Regardless of what happens somehow any punishment will be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and amazingly it will all go away with the wave of a petrowallet
Posted on 2/9/23 at 10:31 am to choppadocta
quote:
any punishment will be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport
This one can't be appealed to the CAS.
This post was edited on 2/9/23 at 10:31 am
Posted on 2/9/23 at 10:40 am to choppadocta
The EPL aren't bound to the CAS. An appeal would be heard by an EPL appointed committee.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:02 am to SEC. 593
Glad to be wrong thank you for the correction but I still think nothing's going to happen to them
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Again.
My point is that this rule is stupid and bad for the EPL.
This goes beyond ignoring a premier league rule.
This is criminal behavior. It's financial fraud.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:28 am to dgnx6
quote:
This goes beyond ignoring a premier league rule.
This is criminal behavior. It's financial fraud.
Even assuming this is all true, it was only done to bypass a rule that is stupid and bad for the EPL
I'm not defending City if they committed fraud. That's not the point of my argument. I'm saying they shouldn't have been put in that position in the first place.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 5:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
At the end of the day the club was living beyond the means of how it operated
The owners use the club as a vessel in a variety of ways
When rules went into place they started to self sponsorship and then hid what they were doing.
The owners use the club as a vessel in a variety of ways
When rules went into place they started to self sponsorship and then hid what they were doing.
This post was edited on 2/9/23 at 11:16 pm
Posted on 2/9/23 at 5:16 pm to theOG
quote:
City spent within their means (admittedly those means are large) and now they are one of the biggest clubs in the world.
quote:
That said, the rules are asinine. You should be able to spend as much money as your owner can afford. The rules are designed to keep the big teams big and the small teams small.
The club didn’t spend with in its means of how it operated the first 12 years of the take over
When your owner is a country with endless resources, it completely tilts any competitive balance
Posted on 2/10/23 at 11:14 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
The club didn’t spend with in its means of how it operated the first 12 years of the take over
I understand that this makes Man U's failure sound better and confirms my argument about legacy teams instituting these rules to keep their stature, but, seriously, who honestly cares?
If you're a fan of a non-legacy club, you're already fricked so it's not like City displaced them.
If you're a fan of a legacy club, you're just puffing your chest that your team used its power to create a rigged system.
Posted on 2/10/23 at 1:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
That argument is so played out
Posted on 2/10/23 at 1:17 pm to StraightCashHomey21
In the end, the oil whores sit behind all these clubs in champions league wins:
Celtic
Villa
Steau b
Red star
Hamburger
Feyenoord
Psv
Forrest 2 cl titles.
All that money spent and still can't get on that list with those clubs
Buwahqhwha frick the empty seats,terror funding sheiks, and man city. Eat a dick count
Celtic
Villa
Steau b
Red star
Hamburger
Feyenoord
Psv
Forrest 2 cl titles.
All that money spent and still can't get on that list with those clubs
Buwahqhwha frick the empty seats,terror funding sheiks, and man city. Eat a dick count
Posted on 2/11/23 at 6:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
who honestly cares?
Pretty much everyone else who had to abide by the rules.
And probably more importantly, clubs like Portsmouth, Blakburn, and Leeds who went into freefall because of financial mismanagement. Its easy to say its no big deal when nothing happened to City, but if CFG pulled out and left the club holding the bag, it would have ceased to exist.
There really is no reason to argue against more realistic measures while still ensuring non-legacy clubs have a chance to spend their way out.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News