 | Forum
Reply | Man City - GUILTY
at 18:42 30 Sep 2026
Didn’t Chansiri basically do that at Wednesday but it was benchmarked as being a fair value so the EFL were fine with it? |
| Forum
Reply | Bayeux Tapestry
at 18:39 30 Sep 2026
From what I’ve heard it’s basically just a long continuous queue due to staggered entrance times, but always moving so no free for all, all quite civilised I’d imagine! [Post edited 30 Sep 18:39]
|
| Forum
Reply | Man City - GUILTY
at 17:51 30 Sep 2026
A maximum player budget will also result in more workarounds.
Haaland will be sold for £2m on the books whilst £100m will be transferred from one off shore account to another well away from football.
This is the crux of the issue with FFP/PSR rules, they only work if they’re actually enforceable and there aren’t any workarounds. But there always will be. |
| Forum
Reply | Man City - GUILTY
at 17:38 30 Sep 2026
A wage cap would result in even more work arounds.
City haven’t forced others clubs to do anything, other clubs are responsible for their spending decisions, if they choose to go toe to toe with big spenders then more fool them.
City’s owners wanted to spend in the same way Abramovich and Jack Walker did, or Sunderland’s owners did way back when, or pretty much any other club that’s had success. They weren’t allowed to so looked for ways around it, as did chelsea. If owners want to spend at no risk to their club, let them. Man Utd are £1bn in debt which is apparently ok, I know which of those scenarios concerns me more. |
| Forum
Reply | Man City - GUILTY
at 07:13 30 Sep 2026
These shady workarounds wouldn’t be required if FFP/PSR hadn’t been brought in. Owners have always been allowed to spend but now it’s suddenly an evil in the game. The football authorities have brought in a system & rules that they can’t actually implement, what a mess. |
| Forum
Reply | Man City - GUILTY
at 17:07 29 Sep 2026
I can’t help but wonder, considering that chelsea only got found out by their new owners coming clean and City by a hacker based in Germany, how many other clubs are doing such things. Without those two chance circumstances the PL would be none the wiser re chelsea & City. |
| Forum
Reply | Man City - GUILTY
at 17:10 27 Sep 2026
If City get hit hard it’ll be for the FFP/PSR bit, that’s what Everton & Forest got stung on, chelsea apparently wouldn’t have breached FFP/PSR if they’d included their illegal payments in their accounts, which makes you wonder why they did it in the first place. |
| Forum
Reply | Man City - GUILTY
at 14:26 27 Sep 2026
According to the charge sheet chelsea broke one rule 74 times, but by doing so would surely have 'failed to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information' and 'failed to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation' but the FA have shown (undue imo) leniency to chelsea because they self-reported. As I see it, the 74 charges against chelsea are the same in nature as the 68 against City. Therefore, that should be the precedent for City's punishment, plus the FFP/PSR punishment on top.
This would result in a relatively small punishment for City, which just highlights how light the chelsea punishment was. I'm not saying City should get a small punishment, just that chelsea should've got a much larger one.
The media are the ones making a big deal of this for clicks, I suspect many will be disappointed. |
| Forum
Reply | Man City - GUILTY
at 13:07 27 Sep 2026
chelsea:
74 breaches of FA Rule E1.2 (breaching rules concerning intermediaries) = 6 point deduction suspended for a year and £26m fine reduced by a third to £17.25m for self-reporting, then cut by another third to £11.4m for an early guilty plea, then reduced to £10m due to fines already given by UEFA & Prem Lge.
Man City:
114 breaches (failure to provide accurate financial info, failure to provide accurate details for player & manager payments, failure to comply with FFP/PSR, failure to cooperate with PL investigations.
It appears to me that chelsea have been let off of the 'failure to provide accurate financial info, and failure to provide accurate details for player & manager payments' elements of their cheating, the only real difference between chelsea and City is the FFP element and cooperation with the investigation. If I was in City's shoes I'd be using the chelsea punishment (if we can call it that!) as the benchmark; so a £40m fine, 10 point deduction suspended for 18months. Add a bit on for the FFP element and that's job done.
Edit: The 'failure to provide accurate financial info, and failure to provide accurate details for player & manager payments' elements of City's charges account for 68 of the breaches so, their punishments for that part should be less than chelsea's. [Post edited 27 Sep 13:12]
|
| Forum
Reply | Man City - GUILTY
at 14:28 26 Sep 2026
Fine, but FFP wasn’t brought in to stop sportswashing, there’s no moral compass involved, it was simply brought in to protect the status quo. Owners spending lavishly goes back to the days of Sunderland splashing out to win their titles and probably further back than that, the idea that it should suddenly be restricted is ridiculous. If the owners aren’t putting the club in debt then what’s the problem, why is Man Utd being £1bn in debt ok but City’s owners putting money into the club an issue, it makes no sense. |
| Forum
Reply | Man City - GUILTY
at 12:26 26 Sep 2026
If it’s about sportwashing then that’s what the fit & proper owners test is for, not FFP.
City’s owners just wanted to do what Abramovich, Jack Walker & many more have done but because of these silly rules resorted to ‘cheating’ just like chelsea, us and several others have.
Modern football is just VAR and FFP. |
| Forum
Reply | Man City - GUILTY
at 09:22 26 Sep 2026
What I find insane is that the Glazers can buy Man Utd and immediately dump them into £1bn of debt. The city owners wanted to give money to City but aren’t allowed to, hence they ‘cheat’ instead. FFP is a farce. |
| Forum
Reply | QPR Loan Watch 2026-27
at 20:48 25 Sep 2026
I’m amazed that got downgraded. No attempt to play the ball & just kicked out, a naughty one, seen plenty of those get red cards. |
| Forum
Reply | The Sending Off
at 09:29 20 Sep 2026
I doubt we’ll even appeal, the challenge ticks too many of the red card boxes. I think you’re safe! |
| Forum
Reply | The Sending Off
at 20:57 19 Sep 2026
Cirkin kicked the ball into the players leg so he can’t have been that late and then his follow through, which looked high, catches the PNE player.
I’ve only seen one angle but have watched multiple times, from what I’ve seen it’s a clear red. Other angles might show something different. |
| Forum
Reply | The Sending Off
at 20:47 19 Sep 2026
Was the PNE player late or did Cirkin get there first because he recklessly flew into the ‘tackle’ hence why he couldn’t control the follow through into the PNE player?
I get why some think it’s not a red, but for me it is, it’s out of control and could have seriously injured his opponent. [Post edited 19 Sep 20:48]
|
| Forum
Reply | The Sending Off
at 20:33 19 Sep 2026
He flew into his attempt to recover the ball from his poor touch in a reckless manner with excessive force, it’s a red card. |
| | MedwayR
|
Site Scores| Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 0 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.