MAN CITY

Could anyone tell me what difference it makes whether the owners of Man City or the the Saudi government put those millions into Man City, surely its against the rules? The Saudi goverment have too many fingers in the pie, they could be complicit in this fraudulant activity!

Because you can't sponsor your own team. I think they'll be fine with that part (we do it as well with the visit Malaysia stuff) the issue is the sponsorship has to meet "fair market value" which it doesn't

Because you can't sponsor your own team. I think they'll be fine with that part (we do it as well with the visit Malaysia stuff) the issue is the sponsorship has to meet "fair market value" which it doesn't

Cheers Marvin

Isn't this the point though?

The Saudis at Newcastle have the money to get them to win the league. But they can't because of the rules. They've had to sell their best players over the last two summers because of the rules.

I don't like the rules. I think any club should be allowed to spend what they want to get them to where they want to go. These rules are only there because Man Utd and Liverpool didn't want anyone to join their exclusive club.

But the rules are there and any club who has broken them has to be punished.

Sadly the more I hear, the more I think this will go on for a long time yet.

It came about after initially Chelsea, and then Man City basically made a mockery of it with the owners ploughing money in.

The rules have made it so that, if a team can generate the cash long after the owner gets bored, as far as I know that’s ok. The issue is, that’s not a quick solution and therefore they’ve done things to dodge the rules.

This will be going on for some time yet

Isn't this the point though?

The Saudis at Newcastle have the money to get them to win the league. But they can't because of the rules. They've had to sell their best players over the last two summers because of the rules.

I don't like the rules. I think any club should be allowed to spend what they want to get them to where they want to go. These rules are only there because Man Utd and Liverpool didn't want anyone to join their exclusive club.

But the rules are there and any club who has broken them has to be punished.

Sadly the more I hear, the more I think this will go on for a long time yet.

Unai emary is saying other clubs inflated incomes to beat ffp....if its true it would need to be investigated and then what? There's more and more worms coming out of the can...

Isn't this the point though?

The Saudis at Newcastle have the money to get them to win the league. But they can't because of the rules. They've had to sell their best players over the last two summers because of the rules.

I don't like the rules. I think any club should be allowed to spend what they want to get them to where they want to go. These rules are only there because Man Utd and Liverpool didn't want anyone to join their exclusive club.

But the rules are there and any club who has broken them has to be punished.

Sadly the more I hear, the more I think this will go on for a long time yet.

Unai emary is saying other clubs inflated incomes to beat ffp....if its true it would need to be investigated and then what? There's more and more worms coming out of the can...

A can of worms indeed, Allan. I’m sure a number of clubs aren’t sleeping soundly right now, but it’s man Citeh who have been found out, so they have to be dealt with in their own merit

Like you, I think the ‘appeal’ announced today could well tie up any resolution/sanctions fir some time (maybe years) to come

What a crying shame Citeh couldn’t just accept they did wrong (going on the wording of the Premier League ‘guilty’ statement) and reach a settlement that ensured the better interests of the Premier League itself and football as a whole

I think any club that gets a supueryrich owner who is willing to splash the cash should be allowed too.Better than having clubs going in to debt or bust.

I think any club that gets a supueryrich owner who is willing to splash the cash should be allowed too.Better than having clubs going in to debt or bust.

You would think so.
I’m shocked so many people are behind protecting the big three’s interest.

I think any club that gets a supueryrich owner who is willing to splash the cash should be allowed too.Better than having clubs going in to debt or bust.

You would think so.
I’m shocked so many people are behind protecting the big three’s interest.

I honestly don’t think they are; it’s more a case of ‘the Rules in place’ and Citeh’s deliberate and (not so) sophisticated circumnavigation of them!

That’s the bit I think most Citeh ‘apologists’ are simply not getting and is in keeping with ‘modern’ thinking that ‘Rules is for everyone else’!

If there was any truth in your statement, whoever threw the most money would win all the trophies? What is the point if one team wins the majority of trophies each year?
You have to have balance otherwise many more clubs would go bankrupt.
Each year there will be a winner of each competition.
Teams will be promoted as will teams be relegated.
The teams who spend what they can’t afford will crash down the leagues or go into bankruptcy.

On a lighter note…

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Isn't this the point though?

The Saudis at Newcastle have the money to get them to win the league. But they can't because of the rules. They've had to sell their best players over the last two summers because of the rules.

I don't like the rules. I think any club should be allowed to spend what they want to get them to where they want to go. These rules are only there because Man Utd and Liverpool didn't want anyone to join their exclusive club.

But the rules are there and any club who has broken them has to be punished.

Sadly the more I hear, the more I think this will go on for a long time yet.

Unai emary is saying other clubs inflated incomes to beat ffp....if its true it would need to be investigated and then what? There's more and more worms coming out of the can...

A can of worms indeed, Allan. I’m sure a number of clubs aren’t sleeping soundly right now, but it’s man Citeh who have been found out, so they have to be dealt with in their own merit

Like you, I think the ‘appeal’ announced today could well tie up any resolution/sanctions fir some time (maybe years) to come

What a crying shame Citeh couldn’t just accept they did wrong (going on the wording of the Premier League ‘guilty’ statement) and reach a settlement that ensured the better interests of the Premier League itself and football as a whole

Chris whatever happens there needs to be co-operation between both parties otherwise can see the shieks digging in and draw this out as long as possible at great cost to premier league! Must remember if clubs decided to sue them they have right to contest each clubs claims? Been suggested can have a joint action just can't see how that works as there's so many clubs involved and amounts of compo will be different to every club inc city! Add etiad could sue premier league that could change things aswell
Ps now FA want to get involved but will wait until current situation is finished! Another form getting out.

Last edited by pembroke allan on Fri Oct 02, 2026 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think any club that gets a supueryrich owner who is willing to splash the cash should be allowed too.Better than having clubs going in to debt or bust.

You would think so.
I’m shocked so many people are behind protecting the big three’s interest.

I honestly don’t think they are; it’s more a case of ‘the Rules in place’ and Citeh’s deliberate and (not so) sophisticated circumnavigation of them!

That’s the bit I think most Citeh ‘apologists’ are simply not getting and is in keeping with ‘modern’ thinking that ‘Rules is for everyone else’!

Exactly. Nobody likes the rules but they are still the rules.

I don't particularly like the rule where managers get booked for leaving their technical area, but it was right that BBM got punished with a yellow card for doing that in the first game of the season.

I think any club that gets a supueryrich owner who is willing to splash the cash should be allowed too.Better than having clubs going in to debt or bust.

You would think so.
I’m shocked so many people are behind protecting the big three’s interest.

I honestly don’t think they are; it’s more a case of ‘the Rules in place’ and Citeh’s deliberate and (not so) sophisticated circumnavigation of them!

That’s the bit I think most Citeh ‘apologists’ are simply not getting and is in keeping with ‘modern’ thinking that ‘Rules is for everyone else’!

Exactly. Nobody likes the rules but they are still the rules.

I don't particularly like the rule where managers get booked for leaving their technical area, but it was right that BBM got punished with a yellow card for doing that in the first game of the season.

Lol. What a comparison. Love it.

I think any club that gets a supueryrich owner who is willing to splash the cash should be allowed too.Better than having clubs going in to debt or bust.

You would think so.
I’m shocked so many people are behind protecting the big three’s interest.

I honestly don’t think they are; it’s more a case of ‘the Rules in place’ and Citeh’s deliberate and (not so) sophisticated circumnavigation of them!

That’s the bit I think most Citeh ‘apologists’ are simply not getting and is in keeping with ‘modern’ thinking that ‘Rules is for everyone else’!

Firstly I don’t dispute that Man City broke the rules. What I’m saying is fair play to them I hope their actions bring much needed change to equal the playing field for everyone.

So Sven I have a question do the current rules give us more chance of winning the premier league or less chance if Elon musk decided to leave all his money to us?

With everyone being so appalled by city led by the media it reminds me of when they led us all to agree to taking away legal aid for the average guy. We all slept walk into that supporting the changes before we woke up and realised we screwed our selves over.

The point is, facilities, development and community projects were never ring fenced. They’ve got world class facilities as a result of having rich owners, so we would be able to have the same.

They can’t just suddenly act like a big club, it should take years to first get the facilities that the best players want to use, then the coaches, the trophy’s and the fans. The point of it is so when an owner decides to cut the finances, the club isn’t crippled and collapsed

I think any club that gets a supueryrich owner who is willing to splash the cash should be allowed too.Better than having clubs going in to debt or bust.

You would think so.
I’m shocked so many people are behind protecting the big three’s interest.

I honestly don’t think they are; it’s more a case of ‘the Rules in place’ and Citeh’s deliberate and (not so) sophisticated circumnavigation of them!

That’s the bit I think most Citeh ‘apologists’ are simply not getting and is in keeping with ‘modern’ thinking that ‘Rules is for everyone else’!

Firstly I don’t dispute that Man City broke the rules. What I’m saying is fair play to them I hope their actions bring much needed change to equal the playing field for everyone.

So Sven I have a question do the current rules give us more chance of winning the premier league or less chance if Elon musk decided to leave all his money to us?

With everyone being so appalled by city led by the media it reminds me of when they led us all to agree to taking away legal aid for the average guy. We all slept walk into that supporting the changes before we woke up and realised we screwed our selves over.

Firstly, I also hope this brings a ‘big’ change to the Rules, but Citeh were bound by the ‘existing’ ones, so that’s why they have an issue

Secondly, the current Rules are effectively ‘against’ us (as a club) because they don’t allow our owner to spend the money he has to take the club forward faster, on an assumption that he would, if he could (a completely separate discussion)

Thirdly, people who want club’s to abide by the Rules are right to be appalled by Citeh’s actions; they were illegal, deliberate, calculated, and had the effect their owners wanted and they’re now in denial

Let’s not forget the Saudi’s are ‘money-washing’ sport in general, as they seek to monopolise the big sports and the big events. Football, golf, boxing, motorsports, and cricket, are all being targeted by their Public Investment Fund (PIF); although the golf (LIV) is currently in rapid decline, as the money isn’t as fluid as it once was due to changing economic conditions

Seriously, what is there not to be appalled at?

There’s a massive irony in how Manchester’s former mayor built his entire reputation. He brought in huge foreign investment to rebuild a run-down city centre into a proper European hotspot, and everyone applauded him all the way into high office.
You didn't see rival mayors from London, Liverpool, Leeds, or Birmingham crying about "fair play" formulas to tie his hands and protect the established order.

Bring that same logic into football, though, and the established cartel loses its mind.

City definitely broke the rules they signed up to and will get punished, but if you think they’re getting a catastrophic penalty, you're going to be disappointed.
There's way too much money and power involved for the league to blow up its own product. US hedge funds might think they’ve won this round, but FFP—or whatever they rename it next—is going to have to change. You can’t keep protecting clubs that load themselves with mountain-loads of debt while hammering actual investment.

My dislike of the US hedge fund model overloads my dislike of government-owned clubs. Football has eaten itself; there are so few victors.

There’s a massive irony in how Manchester’s former mayor built his entire reputation. He brought in huge foreign investment to rebuild a run-down city centre into a proper European hotspot, and everyone applauded him all the way into high office.
You didn't see rival mayors from London, Liverpool, Leeds, or Birmingham crying about "fair play" formulas to tie his hands and protect the established order.

Bring that same logic into football, though, and the established cartel loses its mind.

City definitely broke the rules they signed up to and will get punished, but if you think they’re getting a catastrophic penalty, you're going to be disappointed.
There's way too much money and power involved for the league to blow up its own product. US hedge funds might think they’ve won this round, but FFP—or whatever they rename it next—is going to have to change. You can’t keep protecting clubs that load themselves with mountain-loads of debt while hammering actual investment.

My dislike of the US hedge fund model overloads my dislike of government-owned clubs. Football has eaten itself; there are so few victors.

It's in nobody's interest to give them a punishment that will put the future of the club in doubt. I'm sure it's only a minority that would want that.

However, unless they somehow manage to overturn the verdict, I'll be amazed if some sort of relegation isn't imposed. Maybe a transfer ban too.

I agree the rules need to be changed.

Another thing is that I highly doubt they're the only club who have made their sponsorship incomes appear more than they are. Others clubs will have done it, maybe not on the same scale - but nonetheless it does open up the possibility of more clubs being charged in the future.

There’s a massive irony in how Manchester’s former mayor built his entire reputation. He brought in huge foreign investment to rebuild a run-down city centre into a proper European hotspot, and everyone applauded him all the way into high office.
You didn't see rival mayors from London, Liverpool, Leeds, or Birmingham crying about "fair play" formulas to tie his hands and protect the established order.

Bring that same logic into football, though, and the established cartel loses its mind.

City definitely broke the rules they signed up to and will get punished, but if you think they’re getting a catastrophic penalty, you're going to be disappointed.
There's way too much money and power involved for the league to blow up its own product. US hedge funds might think they’ve won this round, but FFP—or whatever they rename it next—is going to have to change. You can’t keep protecting clubs that load themselves with mountain-loads of debt while hammering actual investment.

My dislike of the US hedge fund model overloads my dislike of government-owned clubs. Football has eaten itself; there are so few victors.

It's in nobody's interest to give them a punishment that will put the future of the club in doubt. I'm sure it's only a minority that would want that.

However, unless they somehow manage to overturn the verdict, I'll be amazed if some sort of relegation isn't imposed. Maybe a transfer ban too.

I agree the rules need to be changed.

Another thing is that I highly doubt they're the only club who have made their sponsorship incomes appear more than they are. Others clubs will have done it, maybe not on the same scale - but nonetheless it does open up the possibility of more clubs being charged in the future.

Ned unai emery said there was clubs that inflated prices to gain more cash flow to avoid ffp rules! We know villa and Chelsea inflated fees for 2 players kellyman being one £19m way over inflated... dod say yesterday wouldn't be surprised if premier league have to investigate what he said? But maybe they'll just ignore it otherwise could spiral out of control

As I saw on a clip on talksport and always agreed. This " flair play " is for the top clubs stopping other clubs joining the top table. This will destroy the premier league and set up a Europe Super league. So before you start having a go at Man City - just think you are supporting Liverpool and Man U and if the bluebirds had Musk as our owner we will never get there.

As I saw on a clip on talksport and always agreed. This " flair play " is for the top clubs stopping other clubs joining the top table. This will destroy the premier league and set up a Europe Super league. So before you start having a go at Man City - just think you are supporting Liverpool and Man U and if the bluebirds had Musk as our owner we will never get there.

You’re not wrong, and neither was Simon Jordan in his ascertain that the Rules are both wrong and at the behest of the ‘traditional’ big clubs

However, Simon Jordan also agreed that Man Citeh broke the existing Rules, the ones they were bound by, and like them or loathe them, they deserve to be punished heavily (whatever that might mean)

It’s not hard. The Rules in place were not only broken, but they were covered up and then that club (Citeh) went out if their way not to cooperate with the appropriate authorities, so it’s nothing to do with ‘supporting’ any specific club, is it?

I understand your point but the main point is fair play was used to keep clubs in their place, and let Liverpool plastics continue. Yes they broke the rules and covered up but they knew the corruption the "elite " clubs were up to.

I understand your point but the main point is fair play was used to keep clubs in their place, and let Liverpool plastics continue. Yes they broke the rules and covered up but they knew the corruption the "elite " clubs were up to.

So that makes it okay?

I am not a Man City supporter but if it was my club bluebirds - yes definitely. I hate Liverpool and the crap we get. If musk or the Arabs took us , I would support 100%

I understand your point but the main point is fair play was used to keep clubs in their place, and let Liverpool plastics continue. Yes they broke the rules and covered up but they knew the corruption the "elite " clubs were up to.

So that makes it okay?

100% ok in my eyes.

People still not getting it are they

This isn't about keeping the big clubs big

This is about state ownership vs buisness man ownership

The state has over 300b backing and is literally using man city as a political tool

If they were allowed to spend as much as they like then no one would catch them and the premier league would end up like the French league with psg

Notice how this didn't happen when Chelsea got taken over and started winning the league?

They were giving out sham contracts in fact Mancini had 2 contracts one with Man city and the other was working with the uae which was more than double the contract he was on at city and it required him to only work 4 days of the year, the findings show that uae are related to mansour and are funding man city and none of this is being declared

Not to mention refs being on the uae payroll when in their league and also officiating man city games (Michael Oliver being one of a few)
And that is a conflict of interest

I'll admit those big clubs don't like man city in their gang but stop the bs, Man city voted when the rules were revised in favour of these rules along with the rest of the league and they still broke them

35 of the charges were man city actively blocking the investigation which shows how dodgy they are

There's so much more to this than people realise

People still not getting it are they

This isn't about keeping the big clubs big

This is about state ownership vs buisness man ownership

The state has over 300b backing and is literally using man city as a political tool

If they were allowed to spend as much as they like then no one would catch them and the premier league would end up like the French league with psg

Notice how this didn't happen when Chelsea got taken over and started winning the league?

They were giving out sham contracts in fact Mancini had 2 contracts one with Man city and the other was working with the uae which was more than double the contract he was on at city and it required him to only work 4 days of the year, the findings show that uae are related to mansour and are funding man city and none of this is being declared

Not to mention refs being on the uae payroll when in their league and also officiating man city games (Michael Oliver being one of a few)
And that is a conflict of interest

I'll admit those big clubs don't like man city in their gang but stop the bs, Man city voted when the rules were revised in favour of these rules along with the rest of the league and they still broke them

35 of the charges were man city actively blocking the investigation which shows how dodgy they are

There's so much more to this than people realise

Arsenal won the premiership last year and no one could say Man City were favourites this year so sorry your argument is weak more about the 6 not wanting others to join the party.

People still not getting it are they

This isn't about keeping the big clubs big

This is about state ownership vs buisness man ownership

The state has over 300b backing and is literally using man city as a political tool

If they were allowed to spend as much as they like then no one would catch them and the premier league would end up like the French league with psg

Notice how this didn't happen when Chelsea got taken over and started winning the league?

They were giving out sham contracts in fact Mancini had 2 contracts one with Man city and the other was working with the uae which was more than double the contract he was on at city and it required him to only work 4 days of the year, the findings show that uae are related to mansour and are funding man city and none of this is being declared

Not to mention refs being on the uae payroll when in their league and also officiating man city games (Michael Oliver being one of a few)
And that is a conflict of interest

I'll admit those big clubs don't like man city in their gang but stop the bs, Man city voted when the rules were revised in favour of these rules along with the rest of the league and they still broke them

35 of the charges were man city actively blocking the investigation which shows how dodgy they are

There's so much more to this than people realise

Arsenal won the premiership last year and no one could say Man City were favourites this year so sorry your argument is weak more about the 6 not wanting others to join the party.

You're just ignoring everything I said

IF man city were allowed to spend whatever they wanted then the league would belong to them

And this is more about the state ownership than anything else

It would be like having the uk government owning a football club in another country and pretending it's just one business man who owns it

Calling my argument weak and just repeating the same " it's just to keep the big clubs big" is childish

We all hate the big clubs but you have to realise this is even bigger than them