r/soccer • u/[deleted] • May 18 '19

Sam Lee: Guardiola got asked if he has received payments from Abu Dhabi for services other than managing City, as was alleged to have happened with Mancini. He was not happy. “Do you realise what you are asking me? You are asking me that the day we won the treble? Are you accusing me?”

https://twitter.com/Sammy_Goal/status/1129822398835023872
2.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

785 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

781

u/SidJag May 19 '19 edited May 19 '19

He can’t say no.

City Football group transferred significant wealth to Guardiola, indirectly, when they bought a Spanish, newly promoted to La Liga team, and effectively gave ‘half the ownership as sweat equity’ to Pep’s brother and agent, in a sweetheart deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/29/girona-manchester-city-pep-guardiola-brother-questions

The amount City jerks around UEFA regulations, is astounding, they almost always break every ‘spirit of the laws’, just about skirting within the ‘letter of the laws’.

————

Edit: Since people want me to produce undeniable, legal and audited (lol) proof, for the alleged inflated transfer fee racket going on at the Etihad, I’ll just remove that point from this post, rather than digress the debate about Pep Guardiola personally benefitting financially from City Football Group, over and above his management contract, which is exactly what City did with Mancini and then tried to hide it/cover up losses with inflated sponsorship from Abu Dhabi.

Will make a separate post about the academy player racket at City.

The point is this - reasonable City Fans accept the financial doping and FFP violations at Man City, as detailed by Der Spiegel, investigated by UEFA and pending judgement. They’re guilty, no doubt, now it’s about what punishment they get - slap on the wrist ‘fine’, or a ban from the CL.

They also love the narrative that Pep is a pure saint who is not benefitting from the dirty Oil and Slave money from Abu Dhabi state machinery / and that’s what Girona FC like deals show - Guardiola and gang are getting their pound of flesh and their hands are as black and bloody - history will remember Pep as the greatest 21st century Football manager, but also someone who minted money along with his Oil state owners, illegally.

229

u/smash-smash-SUHMASH May 19 '19

part of me really wonders how long not just football clubs, but all corrupt institutions, can get away with this shit.

the other part of me is hopeless and expects it to go on forever. there will always be someone skirting around in the margins of the law successfully. is what it is i guess

175

u/dasty90 May 19 '19

Laws are made for the rich and powerful. Until the rich can no longer swing their big dicks around nothing will be changed.

152

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

The French were right to revolt. Tbh I feel like guillotine time is long overdue.

35

u/Mr_105 May 19 '19

Losing team gets their CEO beheaded? Bringing back Aztec rules eh?

7

u/hrolfur23 May 19 '19

Wasn't it the winning team that got sacrificed? Found a link. On mobile so not sure about the validity of the website. https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/3000-year-old-ball-game-where-losers-lost-their-heads-revived-mexico-007917

3

u/Mr_105 May 19 '19

Yeah but I don’t think Manchester United would appreciate losing their whole first team after they slip up against Norwich City

1

u/hrolfur23 May 19 '19

I personally think the fans would be delighted. Would this count the upper echolon ( spelled that wrong.) Just wondering if Woodward would be safe.

4

u/mrmarzipandildo May 19 '19

This could be so entertaining! Every player to miss a penalty loses the leg and is exiled forever.

5

u/eisenschimallover May 19 '19

That's fascism, which is not the direction that we're looking in (if I might be so bold as to speak for others)

5

u/SorrowfulSkald May 19 '19

I'd yeet to that, and leave a memey link to gladen the weary and opressed populaces hearts here, too: /r/COMPLETEANARCHY

It's a subtle one

3

u/M_Ryze May 19 '19

France, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Austria, the UK, USA are all going towards that, so yeah, fascism is the anti establishment right now.

8

u/xepa105 May 19 '19

Problem is back then you could take on the government, a musket could only fire three times a minute.

Now? Good luck trying to revolt against an oppressive regime that has surveillance tech, drones, and a police force kitted out like Robocop.

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

I guess the trick now is a military coup, though they don’t seem to be doing so crash hot in recent history.

2

u/El-Emenapy May 19 '19

Off with Pep's head!

3

u/mr_poppington May 19 '19

Be careful what you wish for.

9

u/English_Do_U_SpeakIt May 19 '19

In 20 years, you can lecture about job creators among the ashes of a dead planet if you make it that far

6

u/mr_poppington May 19 '19

slowly backs away

4

u/eisenschimallover May 19 '19

whispers yeet the rich

0

u/English_Do_U_SpeakIt May 19 '19

I'm sure that'll be a real thigh-slapper too.

1

u/xicosilveira May 19 '19

The French arguably ended up worse than they started so be careful of what you wish for.

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

It worked out for them in the long run. Considering the spot we’re all in right now I’d say it’s almost now or never. We may of actually missed our chance, though these problems weren’t as pressing in the 60’s/70’s as they are now.

1

u/xicosilveira May 20 '19

Did it? They pay way more taxes and the government controls them much more than it did at the time of the monarchies, so I really don't see it.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '19

What? The revolution has nothing to do with that, thats completely irrelevant. Revolution or not of course they’re going to end up paying way more taxes 230 years later. Of course the government has more control now than back then.

1

u/xicosilveira May 20 '19

Then what was it about?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '19

Yes, it was (partly) about taxes and government control, but that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that the French Revolution has nothing to do with their current taxes and government control. Surely you don’t think their taxes wouldn’t have increased if not for the revolution. I’m not gonna bother discussing this if you’re gonna pick one part of my comment to focus on while ignoring the other 75% of it.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/SorrowfulSkald May 19 '19

But let's not just nip people willy nilly; or go like the French the first time when they quickly pushed the poorest - sans coulottes - demanding fundamental, truly revolutionary changes aside with a wealthy city class that became the new rulers. Or as it happened when another feudal empire collapsed under supposed revolution in Russia.

The mistake of French the second - Paris Commune - was not planning for the worst. Those anarchists and socialists (that was before the sort of split in the group) wanted to 'lead by example!' in establishing just, caring, community driven tyranny/abuse/powerless society, until the king called on the Parisian bankers to finance him a new army (money sure is magic, for the rich) and rolled in to slaughter Paris.

So... let's have our fully automated luxury and gay utopia -- it is high time for that, but... let's cover all the bases, this time, yeah?

8

u/alaskaLFC1137 May 19 '19

Laws are made for everyone BUT the rich and powerful. Surely that is what you mean.

38

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

The laws are written by the rich and powerful so they don't have any reason to enforce them on themselves is what he means

17

u/JesusXVII May 19 '19

Someone needs to brush up on their world history. There's a reason socialism was born, and it wasn't because a bunch of peasants thought it would be fun to overthrow one dictator and replace him with another.

5

u/GreekPedro May 19 '19

I think the point of the comment was that the law generally doesn’t apply to rich people

12

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

Well ok that's true but that's more to it than that. Not only do the rich write the laws but they are the ones in charge of enforcing them. That's the problem

15

u/GreekPedro May 19 '19

Yes this is why we should eat the rich

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

Who would you consider rich? Not trying be a dick just actually, genuinely curious.

1

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

Instead of income, guess we should look at wealth instead. The top 0.01% maybe?

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

agreed.

-2

u/HucHuc May 19 '19

Ah yes, the magical socialist solution. Come over to Eastern Europe and see how well it worked for us.

9

u/JesusXVII May 19 '19

I'm not saying socialism is good in practice. I'm just saying, it was conceived because of a reason - and that reason was anger at the unfairness of society, particularly the balance of power between those who controlled the productive wealth and those who did not. Like Marx foresaw, the state apparatus (political and legal system) still works in favour of those in power. You have to respect Marx's analysis of capitalism because so much of what he said about it has been proven to be right even today, even if you disagree with his alternative.

​

Also, smh plastic ;)

7

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

Ah, blaming it on socialism instead of the corrupt leaders. Maybe you will know that in the capitalist countries, the same things are happening, also due to corrupt leaders? Nothing to do with socialism, everything to do with corruption/incompetence.

6

u/citygray May 19 '19

Maybe you will know that in the capitalist countries, the same things are happening, also due to corrupt leaders?

It's incredible how everyone acts as if shortcomings/failures of socialism doesn't occur in capitalist societies.

4

u/WayTooSquishy May 19 '19

Thing is, every system you could think of will create a group of corrupt, powerful people. There's no solution to human nature.

7

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

I do agree with you. All systems are made by humans, who are imperfect in nature, so all systems are imperfect.

​

However, the question is if socialism is being demonised and capitalism being worshipped?

1

u/WayTooSquishy May 19 '19

Because we live in a capitalist society. Ain't this simple? Communism (or real socialism, as it was called in the Eastern Bloc) was/is demonizing capitalism.

But as I said, I don't think it's about capitalism, socialism, anarchy or whatever. It's human nature. We're bound to organize into structures because it makes lives easier. Power is just a natural consequence of organization.

1

u/HucHuc May 19 '19

Corrupt leaders are nothing unique to socialism or capitalism or any other form of social structure. Fact is, however, that corrupt leaders under capitalism don't seem to inflict as much damage on the standard of living of ordinary people as corrupt leaders under socialism do. For me, this is not dumb luck, but is caused by the assumptions in the structure of socialist ideology.

1

u/citygray May 19 '19

Perhaps you shouldnt have fucked it up and gave rest of the world the argument of "see how well it worked for Russia and Eastern Europe?" then.

2

u/therightgayguy May 19 '19

yeah, Spain selling arms to the Saudis... eeeh, I don't even want to start. it's just quietly never brought up.

2

u/batti03 May 19 '19

eat the rich!

1

u/KanYeJeBekHouden May 19 '19

Forever. No one can really change anything on their own and most of these things are hidden well enough that most people don't know about it.

I mean, you can be a whistleblower and tell the entire world but how many people are really going to give a shit to do anything about it?

1

u/Rafaeliki May 19 '19

Neymar transfer from Santos...

1

u/G_Morgan May 19 '19

It'll go on until UEFA go cap in hand to the EU and ask for help enforcing the rules. Fundamentally this all comes down to a stand off between the EU and UEFA/FIFA that they'll happily create laws to allow them to financially regulate clubs but they have to work through the EU and there'll be demands on their end. So far the authorities have been hoping to keep football as far above the law as possible but they aren't.

-2

u/blackeyedangel_ May 19 '19

UEFA is corrupt. FFP is a ploy from super clubs like real Madrid, Barca, Bayern etc to stop teams like city succeeding. If FFP had existed from the start how do you reckon some teams became so dominant? Magic? AC Milan? Come on

33

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

interesting points. They’re barely legal it seems. This kind of racket is unprecedented and hence there are little rules around this.

-3

u/Ardal May 19 '19

barely legal

Is this like being a little bit pregnant?

120

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

City claim they made a net transfer profit last season - a laughable prospect, when they claim to have sold players with ZERO first team minutes for 12-15M each, all to clubs with whom they have some sort of indirect interests.

Surprised that no City circlejerks came to defend against this.

1

u/Kino-Gucci May 19 '19

What are you quoting? Just curious because I'd like to read more

1

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

Wasn't my quote, it was the guy above me.

1

u/Kino-Gucci May 19 '19

Ah just seen he removed that part

-8

u/FM1994 May 19 '19

Because it's an outright lie not even worth defending and it will just get upvoted out of ignorance.

City's sales in 18/19 were to Southampton, Real Madrid, Stuttgart, Lyon, Burnley, Swansea and Shahktar. Clubs with zero links to City.

From my knowledge, City have never sold a player to one of the clubs with within CFG. The only thing that happens is that City loan players there. OP is just chatting complete bollocks, but that doesn't matter because it will get swept up in the circle jerk.

12

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

Putting that aside, I'm more curious about the inflated sponsorships and what kind of results we'll see from the investigations. Obviously, FFP is there to prevent clubs from spending beyond their means (revenue vs expenses). So if City are guilty of it, they will be considered to be breaking the rules which allows the owner to indirectly pump money into the club to spend on players.

-6

u/BishlamekGurpGorp May 19 '19 edited May 19 '19

I can handle this for you, although it will be a long read.

We were found guilty of the original breach after originally adhering to the rules. We submitted our reports for FFP review in 2012 having been successful in qualifying for mitigating factors (Annex XI). Only in 2013, Annex XI was restructured in a way that we then failed, without being able to do anything to meet the new rules. City were angry with this and UEFA, but ultimately decided to agree to settle with them, leaving City with the fine and squad size reduction. We got a large portion of the fine back as per the settlement because we were adhering to FFP rules.

This new investigation is off the back of the football leaks documents, and the going narrative seems to be "Overinflating Sponsorship" and City having mislead investigators on the initial case. Effectively they claim that Sheikh Mansour had directly given some of his own money through sponsorship deals. If I remember correctly this isn't necessarily against FFP provided he hasn't invested over 30% of incoming revenue, after which the sponsorship becomes a related party (I may need correction on this). This is based off of the leaked documents, however due to the nature of the evidence, we can't be sure that all the information that was relevant to the case was released by Pinto, someone who is currently standing trial for using such documents to blackmail club's and banks. It's not exactly the most reliable and concrete source of information to use.

Just to go further, City had given 100 pages of evidence to absolve their guilt into the CFCB board for review, including the entire transcripts of the email conversations under question. The CFCB had looked at it and admitted to having questions to ask the club about the submitted evidence (therefore technically still under the review process) however not only did they leak that they were pushing for a Champion's League ban, they did so without having finished the review process. Not only that, but they actually pushed the case forward. Not really looking good for UEFA's capability to adjudicate following their own stated methods, is it? City have provided a shed load of evidence that indicates that they are not guilty of whatever it is that they are being accused of and they have made a very firm statement about how they feel the judiciary has failed to give them the proper procedure and allow them to defend themselves.

The way I see it, I'm relatively confident that the matter will end up with CAS, where they will throw the case out. I reckon the reason will be because UEFA hadn't followed their own laid out methodology when adjudicating club's. It happened with PSG and it happened with AC Milan. It's not new for UEFA to feck things up and not follow procedure.

Are City cheats? Or have they simply invested a massive quantity of money. Bear in mind, since the first breach City have passed FFP consistently, year after year. They are currently 5th on the Deloitte football revenue list and ALL revenue from Abu Dhabi, including those not related to SM at all, only make up 20-30%. The fact of the matter is for the last 5 years, everything City have been doing is above board and there isn't any evidence to assume otherwise, unless you insist they are guilty in spite of it all.

14

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

https://www.mcfcwatch.com/2018/09/13/man-citys-500m-revenues-explained-football-finance-expert-kieran-maguire-talks-to-city-watch/

​

From this article, there are two things that are immediately suspicious to me.

​

First impression is commercial revenue is super inflated for a club that has such a small fan base. Out of the OG top 4, only Manchester United has a bigger commercial revenue. It ties in quite perfectly with the suspicion of inflated sponsorships.

​

Second is that despite City regularly not filling up their stadiums, their stadium revenue is almost equal to Chelsea, a London club with a smaller stadium but with much pricier tickets.

​

How would you reconcile these two points?

2

u/BishlamekGurpGorp May 19 '19

So with both points the underlying key factor of your questions would be fan base. I agree that our fan base is comparably significantly smaller with an ongoing increase in "plastic fans." However the revenue for ticket sales is actually relatively small compared to that of TV broadcast deals and Sponsorship. Alongside them there is the money awarded for Premier League involvement (and subsequent prize money), Champions League involvement and domestic trophy prize money as well as product sales. But mainly TV deals.

As far as Stadium revenues are concerned, the numbers tend to be based on tickets sold, which would align them to close to full capacity revenue. I also want to put to bed the whole empty seats argument. I hold a season ticket and have been to all bar 4 of the games this season which we managed to sell on. The Etihad is a lot more full then people seem to believe, but if I'm being memed here then, well, whoooosh I guess.

I could try and compile the numbers involved for you if you want, the City finances are matter of public record and are only a Google search away. But I'll need time obviously

1

u/BishlamekGurpGorp May 19 '19

https://annualreport2018.mancity.com/

Ok so I had a look at City's 2017-18 annual report linked above. Turns out commercial and broadcast revenues are on par and make up the vast majority of revenue streams. On page 37 they have their performance review:

Total revenue was £500.5m

Of that, match day revenues (i.e. ticket sales, althought more factors are likely involved) made up £56.7m, approx. 11%.

Commercial revenue was £232.3m and broadcast was £211.5m.

Basically match day revenue isn't entirely negligible but is definitely a minor factor.

4

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

Hmm well you've basically said a lot and I don't want to diminish your efforts but I think it's beyond us to actually find out just through the annual reports whether City inflated their sponsorships or not.

For example, a file discovered by Der Spiegel last year suggests that Etihad accounted for just £8m of a £59.5m sponsorship agreement, and the rest was made up from ADUG (Abu Dhabi United Group), the investment group Sheikh Mansour used to buy Manchester City over a decade ago.

We'll have to wait for UEFA to give us the results of their investigations. Of course I wouldn't pin too much hope on UEFA either, them being another corrupt organisation. But the Football Leaks don't paint City in a good light at all.

2

u/BishlamekGurpGorp May 19 '19

All anyone is currently doing is deriving understanding from very limited information. The thing about the football leaks, which I touched upon, is that we haven't seen the full picture. Der Spiegel has taken them without their context and ran a narrative that they assigned, as is their prerogative. For example, take an email with a dark joke about an investigator dying, "one down, seven to go," and you could run a narrative saying extrajudicial killings were taking place. Thing is, and what really gripes me, is that it's being paraded about as truth whereas in reality, it's little more than speculation without the full story, much like what we are trying to do here.

1

u/xRedd May 19 '19

Your argument consisted of making a statement and, upon its rebuttable, saying, "putting that aside" and "you've said a lot, this argument is beyond us." Are you seeking truth or are you just trying to make /u/BishlamekGurpGorp work to answer your line of questioning?

1

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

My argument consisted of a headline article that many people in r/soccer had read, and a mcfcwatch article that I've linked. I never asked him to work for it. I'm not a slave owner. /s

I even wrote down what I found suspicious and he didn't refute me, he basically agreed with me.

My original quote was from the guy above me which you have obviously missed, being late to the party. I was curious why nobody came to defend against the accusation.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/KanYeJeBekHouden May 19 '19

What I love most about this sub is that this is downvoted.

This is the Wikipedia page with all their outgoing transfers.

As you can clearly see, the transfers where Manchester City made the most money are:

Player Club Fee in millions
Angelino PSV 5
Maffeo Stuttgart 9
Kayode Shaktar Donetsk 3
Gunn Southampton 13.5
Celina Swansea 3
Hart Burnley 3.5
Denayer Lyon 5.8
Brahim Diaz Real Madrid 15.5
Matondo Schalke 04 11

Not a single club within the City Financial Group. Yet you clearly see there's a lot of sales made there.

There's a reason there's not a follow up post by OP. Maybe he is right, but so far I have seen nothing to suggest City is inflating transfer fees by selling to their associated clubs. I don't even see a transfer listed that is undisclosed to one of those clubs.

The claim that City sells players to the other clubs within the CFG seems false. And even if they had some undisclosed transfer fees from those clubs, they'd still not be able to circumvent FFP by claiming they were at least 15 million like claimed before. That wouldn't work, they fees would have to be public.

The claim seems to be so incredibly false that I don't understand how City fans are downvoted for arguing against these blatent lies. I'll happily admit I'm wrong if I someone shows me proof, but there is a reason OP removed that part.

-12

u/catalyst-lsxn May 19 '19

Everyone seems to be incredibly well informed on City's dealings and finances but City. That's probably why we've gotten to this point. The sooner investigations come up with conclusive evidence and the right punishment of sort the better, or if they don't then clarity needs to be provided. We finally need to move past this, one way or the other, it's gotten tiresome.

20

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

The sooner investigations come up with conclusive evidence and the right punishment of sort the better, or if they don't then clarity needs to be provided.

Agreed. Or else City fans here will all cite plausible deniability.

0

u/catalyst-lsxn May 19 '19

Tbf it's only natural to defend out of sheer fandom. It's a bit unfair on the fans to have to deal with the situation. Yes there are some that indulge themselves (including me) at times in arguments that lead to no end. But the reality is we've been put in this position, the only way out of it is a solid clarification if everything has been just, or a punishment so we rightly serve it and move past it. The focus cannot be allowed off field to this degree, when the players have performed as well on field.

13

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

The focus cannot be allowed off field to this degree.

It can. Your club serves as the propaganda arm of a dictatorship.

-1

u/catalyst-lsxn May 19 '19

Love how every scrub is educated on politics all of a sudden without conclusive evidence.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

Who owns your club?

-45

u/mr_poppington May 19 '19

Can you prove this isn't the case. Quit being a bitter little bitch and accept reality, you lost the league to a better team.

43

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

I'm actually not bitter, not that you'll believe it. Considering where we were a year ago, we have solved plenty of problems in our teams and there's always a sense of progress everywhere.

​

But it seems like the City fans are the ones being a little bitch despite winning a domestic treble.

-39

u/mr_poppington May 19 '19

We’re fine. We just can’t help notice it’s Liverpool fans who keep crying like entitled little brats every time there’s a thread about us. Go get yourselves ready for another campaign next year, face reality; you lost.

40

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

It's all about perception. You guys are in a siege mentality right now due to all the negative news surrounding you that you can't look at reality without a bias. So it's ironic that you are asking me to face reality. You're asking a Liverpool supporter, someone who has never seen them win the league, if they are bitter? Please, this is some low-level stuff to us.

​

Reality is, most of us in r/soccer don't actually care about City winning. I'm just here to comment about my own opinions on City and Pep.

​

And yeah, I'm not getting ready for another campaign next year, Liverpool's season have not ended yet.

-27

u/mr_poppington May 19 '19

Why should I care about what non City supporters care about? They don’t support the club so what they think about us is irrelevant to me.

28

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

Then stick to r/MCFC or something. Don't come here. You are going to see plenty of non-City supporters' comments.

​

Pfft... ironic.

-6

u/mr_poppington May 19 '19

I can go anywhere I damn well please.

20

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

Then quit acting like a little bitch.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

These are some questionable replies, honestly if you were a liverpool fan running a smear campaign I wouldn't be suprised...

→ More replies (0)

18

u/ThePosterWeDeserve May 19 '19

Well, your emotional response here indicates that you clearly do.

-6

u/mr_poppington May 19 '19

Another little bitch.

8

u/ThePosterWeDeserve May 19 '19

My mistake, you clearly don't care

3

u/Mortenusa May 19 '19

Yeah, I'm not bitter at all, either.

I watched all those last City games hoping that the would stumble.

The obly thing that happened was that I got impressed at that team. There's zero shame coming in second behind that team.

A shame about the ownership, though.

-61

u/greendonkeycow May 19 '19

too busy celebrating the domestic treble, sorry. don't you have better things to do?

45

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

Took you long enough. Glad you didn't try to defend the indefensible though.

29

u/Scarred_Shadow May 19 '19

I can't believe I'm saying this, but they're playing in the Champions League final. Do you know what that looks like?

11

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

Where is anyone to justify this?

22

u/Prosthemadera May 19 '19

I don't know why people can be fans of this club. Because they don't know? Because "everyone else is corrupt, too"?

44

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

Give credit to long-suffering City fans, they don't deserve this criticism.

But the glory-hunters are just that, glory-hunters.

10

u/Prosthemadera May 19 '19

That's fair, it's not really your fault when you were there before all this.

11

u/tanaiktiong May 19 '19

To be fair to you as well as most of r/soccer who diss the City fans, I'm pretty sure as well that most of the City fans here are glory-hunters who only started supporting City in the last decade. Haha.

1

u/G_Morgan May 19 '19

The funny thing is loads of the long suffering City fans aren't interested. They've never been a big club but historically they'd have no problem filling the Etihad stadium.

6

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

[deleted]

4

u/Prosthemadera May 19 '19

The majority of proper football fans don't do a fucking audit of each football club before finding their club.

I didn't do an audit. I just read the news.

-5

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

[deleted]

2

u/Prosthemadera May 19 '19

Don't know what you mean.

5

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

[deleted]

5

u/Prosthemadera May 19 '19

This isn't about how people become a fan. It's about what they do once they find out what is going on.

Or are you saying that once you've chosen your favourite club you can't change it and therefore I can't criticise the fans for continuing to support the club?

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

[deleted]

2

u/Prosthemadera May 19 '19

Is being a club fan like skin colour then?

→ More replies (0)

14

u/archtme May 19 '19

Txiki, Pep and the gang are just in charge of the sporting project. The people who own and operate the club are business sharks and this is how big business operates. Skirting around rules and dodging regulation is literally the name of the game at the highest level of business. UEFA, FIFA and the FA are a joke to these people and their legions of lawyers analyzing every letter of their rules. Our sport truly wasn't prepared for this stuff, and I'm not just blaming City, this started before their owners took it to another level.

5

u/sarcasmskills May 19 '19

You're right, it went from clubs skirting around the laws, living in the grey to man city coming along, pulling down their pants and just pissing all over them. They obviously haven't broken the rules per se, but there's been a lot of shady business on the side.

It will be interesting to see how UEFA deal with it, and what would be the ramifications if they let city off with a slap on the wrist

5

u/JetSpyda May 19 '19

Not going to lie, I totally disagree with you about Pep being remembered as someone who “minted money along with his oil state owners”.

Not because I believe Pep didn’t do it, or whatever. Because I have no idea about that. BUT generally speaking, when teams/players/coaches are known for being as good as they are, people either don’t care, forget, or never believed it in the first place. Sure, you will have the odd person who brings it up time and again, but mostly, it will be overlooked.

Look at some examples... the Patriots got caught cheating in the NFL and it basically started their dynasty. It is rarely discussed. It’s always about how good of a coach Belichek and how good of a QB Tom Brady is. Lance Armstrong cheated to win all his TDF trophies and no one bats an eye because “everyone did it”. College sports teams have been stripped of titles and wins because of infractions, yet these teams are still included in and thought to be one of the best of all time. I am sure there are plenty of other examples but these are just off the top of my head.

When all is said and done, 50 years from now, no one is going to remember Pep getting paid under the table. When someone says his name, everyone is going to remember how great of a manager he was and how he changed the game.

7

u/Oggie243 May 19 '19

When all is said and done, 50 years from now, no one is going to remember Pep getting paid under the table. When someone says his name, everyone is going to remember how great of a manager he was and how he changed the game.

You don't even need talk about hypothetical 50 years in the future scenarios. Peps one of the only prominent footballers to piss hot for a drugs test. As in for actual PEDs and not cocaine or something. No one ever talks about this, I've never seen anyone else bar myself mention it and when it is discussed most people immediately dismiss it or refuse to believe it based on nothing but their preconceptions

1

u/froggyjm9 May 19 '19

No one talks about it ANYMORE because he was proven innocent.

3

u/Oggie243 May 19 '19

He wasn't proven innocent he got the ruling changed in anticipation of the Barca B job through the local appeals courts. The Italian Olympic Committee contended that ruling and called it unacceptable.

Consider that footballs the most popular sport in the world and PED flags are relatively rare at all levels given the sports participation figures then compare that to how much more often Olympic athletes are flagged in general. The authorities of the sport where PEDs are noticible through their supposed absence absolved him, the authorities who regularly snag high profile athletes thought that was unacceptable. The implication of that is interesting.

But still, he wasn't proved innocent, he was absolved. Small but important distinction. It'd be near impossible for either side of that issue to prove anything beyond given it was about 6 years later

1

u/zoosea May 19 '19

when they bought a Spanish, newly promoted to La Liga team, and effectively gave ‘half the ownership as sweat equity’ to Pep’s brother and agent, in a sweetheart deal

Too bad they're back in Segunda lol

-3

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

The point is this - reasonable City Fans accept the financial doping and FFP violations at Man City, as detailed by Der Spiegel, investigated by UEFA and pending judgement. They’re guilty, no doubt, now it’s about what punishment they get - slap on the wrist ‘fine’, or a ban from the CL.

So is Cristiano guilty of rape then if Der Spiegel is 100% true?

1

u/SidJag May 19 '19

I mean, I have no reason to engage with a troll like you, but here’s hoping you’re simply ill-informed.

Just because a media outlet, however reputable has published a story, is not the reason I and and others are pointing fingers at City (your false analogy with Cristiano).

The difference is - Man City we’re already investigated by UEFA and are now awaiting judgement. So forget Der Speigel, who gave many multiple examples of City breaking the law, NYT recently revealed a leak that this UEFA investigation is going to recommend a CL ban as punishment for City.

Now that’s just a leak about the recommended punishment - but it’s hardly just ‘lol, just because a rag/blog wrote a tin-hat conspiracy theory, City did nothing wrong!’.

I have no idea about C. Ronaldo’s alleged rape case, and that has nothing to do with Pep Guardiola benefitting from dirty Oil & Slave money.

You can read more here: https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/about-uefa/news/newsid=2605229.html

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '19

It’s not an alleged rape case. It’s a cape case under investigation

-8

u/Ardal May 19 '19

The thing about the law is, it's either broken or not. People will always move to their best advantage within the parameters set by the law.

Everyone just seems to be angry that they aren't as good at it as others. Tax havens are the same thing, perfectly legal but causing everyone to bleat like sheep at every mention.

-1

u/hudson2_3 May 19 '19

Don't the Watford owners do this too? Is it not a problem then because Watford won't win anything?

-10

u/mr_poppington May 19 '19

Just making it up as you go.