Expulsion is different to relegation. If the prem expulses (?) city, the efl doesn't have to take them in. So they could have to go into the national league and work their way up through the pyramid. Be a good fm campaign for you.
@@-jls-1856 you cant just get relegated. The PL can kick you out, but the EFL doesn't have to accept them. They can be given expulsion, they cant be given relegation.
I find it interesting that in all the coverage no-ones looked at what happened to London Saracens (British premiership rugby team) who did something similar with player image rights and were booted from the league. It's an interesting story you can parallel with this one, even if rugby isn't your thing.
Rugby should be everyone’s thing, but the what’s even more interesting is for good a journalist this guy is, way better than virtually any British or European journalist who haven’t come anywhere near to the level of analysis he has.
Hard to say definitively. On the one hand you are correct in saying that rich entities never get punished in our system, on the other hand the EPL would take a massive reputational hit if it just winds up being a fine, because it is all out in the open. We also have to consider that there are plenty more rich entities that would be furious if no real action ends up being taken and given that we already established that rich entitites always get their will, we're facing a conundrum. Your statement may end up being correct, however it's a bit reductive to view it as a foregone conclusion.
A lot of smaller clubs have been hit with ffp points deductions for years which has threatened their existence for much lower spending discrepancies than Man City it’s about time they got their turn.
Threatening the existence of a club is far more serious than this though. Man City are essentially being penalised for having too much money, that's never happened before.
@@georgeyboy5256 actually it's the opposite; they're being penalized for claiming to have a much higher legit turnover than they actually did. FFP is based on how much money goes through a club, it's not a flat limit. So if you claim your team makes more money than it actually does, you can spend more money than the rules dictate
I know FFP was supposedly meant to prevent teams spending beyond their means (e.g.Portsmouth), but I can't help but think making the owner's test more stringent and adding extra protection against asset stripping clubs would have been far more effective if prioritised instead of FFP Completely agree the primary function of FFP was to preserve the status quo of the big teams
@@cnachopchopnewsagency you have different spending rules. People just refer to them as ffp. Uefa have theirs for clubs that participate in their competitions. The prem has their own as does la liga. The efl have their own.
The Premier league is doing this now to show that it can govern itself as the UK gvt is workshoping creating a org to govern football in the UK that answers directly to them
Something a bit wrong is that Manchester United spending money. Throughout the ownership of the Glazer's Man Utd has either turned a profit or would have turned a profit if dividends are removed from the calculation. The way the Glazer's bought the club was a leveraged buyout where you take a loan against the club to but the club itself.
Well that's the thing, a club like United loves the current FFP rules because it suits their circumstances, that's why they lobbied UEFA and the PL to bring it in.
@@georgeyboy5256 so you think it makes sense that a club keeps losing money year after year yet can spend what they want? United is spending big(ger) now because their hand was forced, it has never spend exuberant sums on players historically. Real did, Italian clubs did, and then the rich boy clubs starting with Chelsea increased the stakes dramatically.
@@AntiSociety100 If the club that losing money every year has a billionaire owner then yes it should be allowed. As long as the said owner puts aside enough money to cover contracts in the event of any financial issues. Football survived over 100 years without FFP. It was always the case that clubs could spend whatever. United have spent big throughout their history, they've broke the English transfer record loads of times in the past. They lobbied for FFP because they were no longer the big dogs financially. They are £350m+ in debt. How is that any better?
The interest on their loans was unhinged. So as interest rates have increased so have their payments. They were around £20m a year. Last quarterly financials has it as £31m a quarter or £124m a year. No wonder they are looking to sell.
@@georgeyboy5256 you need to learn the rules. Almost every club has debt but its about what kind it is. City have committed fraud by saying their revenue exceeds that of Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Liverpool. Everyone knows that isnt the case. You can not spend money you dont generate. That is the rule. External "revenue" (financial doping) from "sponsors" are not factured in. Its false revenue put into the club.
The first argument you made is just terrible. "Everyone does it (which you should prove) so we are not guilty." That's not how it works. If everyone is guilty, everyone is guilty. It's not a good defense.
@@nopointinn But United didn't spend £300M in the January window. They had to take loans to finance their £150M spending last summer, and they've openly stated that a) there is no cash left in the bank b) They have to sell to buy this summer because they're now up against FFP because they've barely made any money on player sales the last 5 years. They're so broke that they could only afford to bring in Weghorst & Sabitzer on loan in January, despite pressing needs at striker and central midfield.
@@nopointinn everyone is literally questioning chelsea tho, but technically they are still following the rules with the long contracts, lets say they buy a player for 50m on an 8year contract, chelsea is basically only paying 6m a year
Great video bro, by far the most comprehensive explanation of the issue. I study communication and your videos of this type are incredibly inspiring! Thanks bro!
Hey Z, you should do a video of the history of New Zealand's history of professional football teams from the Kingz to the disaster of the Knights to the rebirth of the Wellington Phoenix and struggle for existence being the only professional team in Oceania and only team playing across Confederation borders.
So is PSG. So is Newcastle. So is every damn club with a state-owned buyer/owner. Not including the fact that 90% of the sponsors now are either state-owned sportswashing brands like emirates, crypto, or sports gambling, many of which are breaking or skirting laws themselves. Man City is guilty, but the whole infrastructure for football is corrupt as hell. Man City is just the one that gets the attention, because they dont have the public support that other clubs do (like PSG) and they seem to be more brazen. Invest your time or money into nonleague. Its still local, its cheaper, better people, etc etc.
Manchester City also having been involved in deals with Juventus(and Barcelona) who are under investigation by their own league. Was definitely not a red flag, nor was the way City set up their network of 'City' brand teams that are exchanging players for sums of money that are pretty much like when you're playing FM and you'd add yourself as the manager of another team that could feed you some extra cash.
Name 1 transfer for cash between the City football group clubs? City use the network of clubs for scouting and discussion of ideas (training, ways to avoid injury). They loan players between clubs but they don't sell to boost their books. With regards to the Juventus thing, that's just dumb. Are Fiorentina being investigated for selling them Chiesa? Are Bayern being investigated for paying a ridiculous amount for De Ligt?
@@georgeyboy5256 Palaversa, Illic, and Moreno to Troyes for an undisclosed fee, Eirik Johansen to New York City FC for an undisclosed fee. Claudio Gomes to Palermo. Then there's Koki Saito who moved from Yokohama F. Marinos to Lommel City within the City group. Then aside from that we can't see the books, so we don't know what numbers are and aren't involved for all those loans between clubs, but the money is coming from somewhere to buy all these players and they are being put on the books somewhere. So money is always shifting around within the City group there.
@@georgeyboy5256 Juventus is being investigated for inflating the fees of transfers, especially for the way they moved around money in deals with Barcelona where they wouldn't outright trade a player, but would buy and sell a player at the same time to the same club. Specifically we're talking about the Arthur-Pjanic deal here. But the year prior to the Arthur-Pjanic deal, a similar deal took place between Juventus and Manchester City where they swapped Danilo and Joao Cancelo with money again moving in both directions. Less well known though is that City and Juventus also made a deal for Felix Correia who moved for double the amount he was bought by City after underperforming in the dutch second tier on a strange loan. Said player has not even come close to breaking into the top tier of football yet. City and the City Group have been making some interesting deals to say the least.
City made no money on Palaversa, Illic or Moreno, Gomes, all were significant losses. Johansen left for free. Saito was given the opportunity to develop in Europe. Obviously they move players between clubs to benefit those clubs and players but there's nothing in the rules that says they can't. City are just the first club to start doing this but every club around Europe will be doing it eventually. It's just a more developed idea on the old affiliate/parent club system.
@@liam-398 I honestly don't know enough about the specifics of Juventus' deals. I can only comment from a qualified accountants stand point that the reason why the Cancelo-Danilo deals happen like that is to help with the financial books that year. They sell Cancelo for £60m on a 5 year deal and we sell them Danilo for £30m on a 5 year deal. Cancelo costs us £12m a year (excluding wages) but we can offset that with Danilo's deal. If we signed Cancelo for £30m and let Danilo go for free, we have nothing to offset Cancelo. It's why Chelsea could do so many deals this season. Juventus may have lied about other specifics on that deal.
So basically, worst case scenario for City, they will be fined, and 10 to 30 points penalty in the league and have to pay their debts/unfulfilled contracts agreements with their Staff/players during the last decade? That's the least they could do, otherwise it would be a disgrace if Man City dodges everything once more that would be a huge L for the instances of the Premier League.
Why would it be a disgrace? Barcelona is still allowed to exist as a club despite doing stuff like this and worse for over 4 decades and never once seeing anything more than a fine. It just means the prem has entered the big leagues of sport as a money laundering business instead of an actual sport. A LOT of this would go away(as well as bad reffing) if sports betting was banned like it should be, it gives far too much incentive for rigging
The argument of "yeah but FFP is nonsense designed to maintain the status quo" is a) TRUE and b) IRRELEVANT. If you think the rules should be different, that needs to be addressed by changing the rules. Someone's opinion of how FFP is affecting the wider game does not give them a free pass to circumvent existing governance because they feel like it.
Except it does, The FFP was established not to make a fair system but to protect the market value of the big clubs. It only makes sense that punishments for rule breaches will also be tailored to protect big clubs. Man city is a cash cow, they are not going to be punished the same way as a club like Bournemouth.
The whole idea that FFP was designed to maintain the status quo is bullshit because two of the teams most negatively impacted by it are Barca and Real,who for decades were having their funding provided to them in the form of interest free loans from Spanish banks which the banks would then be pressured into writing off and also suspicious deals from both local and National government (for example Real sold their training ground to the city for €500m while the total cost of buying the land and building a new training ground was €110m. The City massively overpaid for the land. They can’t access any of these suspicious outside income anymore which is why Reals spending has had to be scaled back from the levels they used to spend and why Barca is in such financial trouble. The likes of Chelsea who are one of the teams that helped bring FFP in were able to keep spending big despite not being part of the perceived status quo. If it was supposed to maintain the status quo then Barca/Real would have benefited while Chelsea didn’t but that wasn’t the case
Yo Z, I agree with many points you said, but it's important to remember that Chelsea is a poor example. The British government literally had full access to all and any documents and if something fishy turned up it'd been screwed a lot earlier.
Ambramovich bribed a lot of the government as well, they were all happy to take the money so they never got hit for it I was just amazed that he even said okay to selling chelsea at all, figured he'd give them the finger
If they get to keep the trophies they won while breaking FFP then it just encourages more nation states to do it. Punishment that isn’t retroactive means it’s only a problem once you get caught.
I mean, the irony of the timing of this was that it came basically a week after Eddie Howe said he couldn't sign anyone else (major) due to FFP. You know you've screwed it when even the Saudis are sticking within the lines.
Zealand showing he has no idea what he's talking about when he says "Manchester United spending money they don't have."... yes they did. United were one of the few teams spending their own money and not using the owners' money.
He's on about the fact that United have been between £300m-£600m in debt over the past 18 years and it hasn't been governed at all but a club like City with no debt and tonnes of money in the bank are restricted.
@@georgeyboy5256 Uhh, because the club makes so much money that the debt isn't actually a financial strain on the club? ALL the money ever spent by United since Glazers took over has been the club's own money. City are restricted because the club doesn't actually have a sizeable revenue realistically, anywhere near the likes of Real Madrid, United, Barcelona etc. If United was managing their debt extremely badly, then yes, they'd get restricted, like Barcelona had been due to racking up substantial debt and their income being hampered slightly, but they've managed to resolve things somewhat.. United meanwhile have a debt that they've roughly maintained around the same level, and it hasn't spiralled out of control.
@@kaigamer8250 But why should FFP be done on revenue, why not debt instead? Simple because United along with other traditionally big clubs lobbied governing bodies for it to be this way. City's revenue is actually the highest in the world so that shows how little you know, regardless of what you think about the sponsorships, it is. Even if it wasn't their owner still has more money to spend than United, so why should he. FFP was only suppose to be about financial protection but we all know it's there to secure the future of the top clubs. To the point where it actually has helped City in recent years. Barcelona have only been punished because La Liga changed their rules and hopefully after this is done the Premier League will as well. Clubs shouldn't be operating with substantial debt. The only truly fair system is a salary cap and transfer cap for everyone but City, United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs would never sign up for that.
@@kaigamer8250 I ask a logical question on why FFP is done on revenue as opposed to debt or owner's capital and that's the response. Disappointing. Didn't realise you don't like debating. I'll leave you be.
the biggest charge imo is how pep secretly signed a contract with man city 1 year before joining, and told media while in bayern that "bayern doesnt need kdb", kdb and sane went to man city that year, pep joined city next year
CAS ruled that the previous cases were time barred, not that they didn't have merit. This doesn't apply to the Prem League charges. See you in the Conference Citeh...
I'm a city fan and I loved this vid! Thanks for staying neutral while everyone else is condemning us ..look if we broke rules and did it intentionally then we deserve punishment but if not I hope we go and sue the pants off the pl for all this nonsense. Look away Chelsea fans...youre next😂
You mean the club that only exists as a top club because the Emirati government bought a club and pumped it full of infinite Emerati oil money was pumping their club full of Infinite Emerati oil money? Who could have POSSIBLY seen that coming?
After the referee group announced they didn’t draw offside lines because they forgot, I’m starting to think the FM AI is so good it accounts for this now.
FFP was brought in to stop things like Leeds, Portsmouth and Rangers from happening again. But you aren't wrong there would have been lobbying from the big teams to keep the status quo. The only reason Liverpool were bought were because of FFP rules and they were in a dire state under their previous owners.
The banks had seized control and were selling them at a knock down price in order to get their money back. As the banks were in trouble due to the financial crisis.
When you look at the charges, what Man City did is even worse than Rangers. what happened to Rangers? They were demoted/relegated to League 2 - the FOURTH tier of Scottish soccer! With the Rangers situation as a precedent, dropping Man City to Tier 5 (Vanarama National) or even Tier 7 (Northern Premier League). However, geopolitics will be heavily involved, considering Man City's owner is Sheik Mansour of the UAE, the Chairman is Khaldoon Al Mubarak, also UAE, the directors include Mohamed Al Mazrouei and Abdulla Al Khouri, also UAE. Which country is the largest supplier of petroleum? The UAE! Therein lies the dilemma - punish Man City and risk retribution from the UAE, or give Man City a slap on the wrist - which essentially gives the green light to every other club to cheat!
I think the main argument against the allegations is that UEFA looked into to this, thought there were true but still most of the serious allegations were found to have no evidence on appeal.
Meanwhile in Italy, they do point deductions. They should remove Man City from European cups as well. This makes me remember the dope charges the big clubs in England were facing and then all of a sudden: It went dark and quiet. Shady stuff happening in English football.
The premier League has never had any interest in punishing any of the big 6. They will only act if they are left with absolutely no alternative but to. Professional football in Europe always has and will likely always will be corrupt. There will of course be a few clubs that aren't corrupt, but they're the minority and will always struggle to compete. That's the depressing truth and we all know it, the players all know it and the managers all know it. We just try to forget about it so we can all enjoy the sport we love.
Hi Zealand, Love the video as always! Just wanted to let you know you got a club's name wrong in this video. They're actually called "The Franchise Currently Plying its Trade in Milton Keynes". Keep up the great content :)
Wait Manchester United spends money they don't have all the freaking time? Bruh you really need to look into United's balance. They have been profitable ever since Ferguson left as a company, the balance checks out. In fact United have not only been profitable, they have been paying of a huge club debt (personal glazer debt) since the sale to the Glazer fam. Businesses can have debt, what they can't have is a continuous loss year after year which is exactly what City has been dealing with since the start of the etihad saga. They still can't fill up the stadium every game, it speaks volumes. The avg attendance of everton is at City's level.
All good points, FFP isnt doing anything.. PSG has 119% of their income spent on salary and nobody bats an eye. But 1 point is that the income has to be accounted for, just being a nations club doesnt give them the option to spent so much. Thats why you have all those weird sponsercontracts. And thats why City doesnt want to publish their financiel documents. So there really could be something going on now. But saying nothing will happen is just too early.
Got to question why FFP even exists, football survived over 100 years without it. True parity will never be achieved unless everyone has the same transfer budget and same salary cap. Won't happen though as none of the clubs want true parity.
Clearly not only 'paperwork'. If you, for example, fail to report your earnings (to dodge taxes), is that only paperwork? ManC failed to report stuff because had they done it, malpractice (i.e. unlawful acts) would have gotten exposed. But yea let us play it down, it is really nothing isn'it. Meanwhile in Italy teams get actually sanctioned for far less
I don't like that your main takeaway from this is "A club who broke the rules in 2009 is being charged only now in 2023", when it is entirely false. You also mentioned that they were already cleared of charges, payed some fines for their breaking of FFP to UEFA back in 2018, and this rule is only being opened now by Premier League (which they have all the rights to do). They were constantly breaking the FFP rules, and monitored for a longer time than "Just now in 2023". And the whole Arsenal fan being the one in charge of this case - irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant.
There are time limitations on the Premier League. Their rules are stated to be subject to English law which has a time limit in civil proceedings of 6 years. That would take the allegations only back to 2012. And all this apart from 2012 has been covered by UEFA and CAS in relation to sponsorship revenue. The other matters are things such as manager remuneration and player remuneration. These are tiny amounts in the grand scheme of things of City's profits and so even if proved, are an accounting matter which by rights ought to attract a nominal penalty. Non cooperation is the only thing that City were fined for by CAS. Rosen is a MEMBER of Arsenal football club not just a fan. And finally, this is a top class video. The same premier League clubs who cannot win on the pitch and who urged UEFA to investigate are now at it again in urging the Premier league to take action.
Even as a united fan, I'd hate a model that doesn't allow owners to invest. There would be so many more clubs that just don't exist otherwise. But there does need to be stronger and fairer regulations and punishments.
I think the whole 3 year period thing is so you can invest, but at some point, you have to let that investment pay off. If you just keep pumping money in until it you're the top team, then it wasn't a risk
This is a very bad misreading of the situation: Firstly you've missed the context that The league has a spending limitation. The context of the "Accounting dispute". Is that by failing to do their accounting properly, they were able to cheat. Putting these points at 1 & 4 fails to explain adequately why these things matter Secondly. failing to offer sufficient away tickets is also a more major deal than you imply. In the Premier League and European soccer/football. "The 12 man" (Fans in attendance) have a major impact on the outcome of games. And this is borne out in the statistics. There is a direct correlation between supporter volume, and number of points a team gets on average. Man City didn't just withhold tickets coz they're petty. They did it to cheat. Thirdly. The fact that the commission appointer is an Arsenal member, does not matter. Because the Premier League is a membership league. The Premier League is not a separate independent competition. It's a competition made by the teams within it. When the Premier League says, "Man City is cheating". What is actually happening is the other 19 clubs are saying Man City are cheating. As such, if they pick anyone to appoint a commission. That person will always be a member of 1 of the other 19 teams. Because the League itself is the teams. The decision makers, are the teams. This is also important because, they can't wriggle out of it with good lawyers. The decision makers and the people you cheated. Imagine you're in divorce court and your spouse is the judge. Technicalities aren't going to be good enough. Fourthly, relegation and expulsion are not the same. If Man City is expelled from the league. They do not automatically drop down to a lower league. The EFL (Which runs the lower leagues) is not a part of this process. And so have no obligation to accept Man City. As such if Man City are expelled, there is a chance that they cease to be a professional team. And have no competition to play in. Which is a lot more significant than "Relegation" Fifthly, the ways in which the other teams over spend are not the same. Chelsea received a 0% loan. Which is crazy but it must be paid back and is accounted for. Man Utd leverage debt and a publicly traded. Yes they can pull money from nowhere but that money is accounted for and must be paid back. This is not the same as straight up lying. They are not investigating the other teams, because there's nothing to investigate. The numbers are absurd but the explanations given. Make sense and are honestly reported on the accounting books. This is a misrepresentation of the situation
It’s not just relegation as a punishment, they get kicked out of the Premier League but the EFL has no obligation to accept them, so they could end up in the 5th tier or even just in the footballing wilderness until a league takes them in.
The most important thing missed here is that man city's argument is "Yea we did it, but so did everyone else" Their defense is to accept fault but sya "what about them"
For more context about the timing of this is that the UK government is believed to be very close to introducing a football regulation panel that will essentially be there to make sure clubs are protected from dodgy owners but the premier league is doing this now to sort of say “we can regulate ourselves thank you very much”
@@mikevismyelement I think a lot of British football fans are in favour of it actually, because it aims to do things like regulate the price of tickets, give fans a final say on who can own their team (like the birmingham fans who are trying to remove their owners) and prevent owners from financially destroying the teams they own by saddling them with impossible to pay debts which is how Bury and Derby ended up in the situations they’re in
Nothing will happen. Mark my words. Even if they are found guilty on all 100 charges. They will just take a slap on the hand with like a 1 point deduction. Sports are corrupt.
Yeah, you have to apply to enter european competitions even if you win. I can't remember if it was Birmingham city or Wigan when they went down, it was a big decision? Is this really the smartest move financially or football wise if they immediately want to come back up? But yes, you have to apply.
the thing with utd is that utd actually makes the money they state on paper but that money goes directly to glazer. City blatantly overstated the money they make.
To be honest, tending to boil a lot of things down to "Paperwork" makes it seem like they're not major breaches of a Premier League statute to a layman, and I could see people downplaying this whole situation after watching the video.
Clearly not only 'paperwork'. They failed to report stuff because had they done it, malpractice (i.e. unlawful acts) would have gotten exposed. But yea let us play it down, it is really nothing isn'it. Meanwhile in Italy teams get actually sanctioned for far less.
If even half of this is true, I see a Juventus style punishment. Either a 25 point deduction (which is really more of a slap on the wrist for a team this good), or relegation. I find it unlikely that they'll be actually expelled
Wherever they go, the other teams need to grow a pair and step up in order to win the league. Other clubs have won it even while City has been like this. Just deduct points for maybe 2 seasons, tell them the fine to pay and let's move on with life.
The CAS didn't say they hadn't done those things. They said that UEFA proved they did but that the time in which they could be charged for breaking the rules had expired. Big difference
That wasn't the CAS ruling at all, the UEFA allegations which weren't time barred were judged to be unproven, no evidence. The time barred accusations were never explored because UEFA took too long getting them to court.
@@georgeyboy5256 Not true. CAS time barred a lot of the evidence, some of which was time barred just because City dragged their feet. That damaged context of much of what wasn’t time bar and as City refused to cooperate and hand over the documents that would prove context without the time barred stuff. They got off simply on a technicality (plus the crazy situation where at CAS the accused gets to appoint one of the 3 person panel meaning they already have one of the votes in their favour. The panel really should be 3 independent people. It would be like in court the accused being allowed to put 4 of their friends on the jury). The PL,have been to court multiple times to get access to all the documents they need plus don’t have any time-bar issues so such technicalities shouldn't come into play
@@SimonWakefieldUK Simon likes to believe conspiracies are the reason for his club not succeeding and clubs he doesn't like for succeeding. CAS ruled the Abu Dhabi sponsorship was not overstated. None of that evidence was time barred. On the Etisalat sponsorship that was agreed to in 2012, it was never going to included because City dragged its feet since it was outside the window when the hacked emails were released. However, the Etisalat sponsorship seems legit in that there was an agreement in 2012 and that year and the following year the funding was paid for by an outside person and then that was reimbursed by Etisalat in 2015. It may seem as equity funding but most people believe the agreement is legitimate sponsorship agreement. It's worth noting that none of this was covered up on City's financial statements. So this idea that City was deceiving people with the Etisalat arrangement is false. You might want to actually read the CAS judgement before spouting off allegations.
Actually confused that they’re not constantly investigating all big spending clubs to make sure everything is okay, just on a lowkey basis, but oh no they need a hacker to leak mails to see that man city is spending big amount and getting weird sponsor money? Damnnn
Great video Zealand! Finally seeing somebody not acting tribalistic over the situation. A lot of hypocrisy going on from all other premier league teams even if city have broken rules. Great insight, thanks!
Manchester United have not violated FFP. FFP concerns financial doping. FFP concerns pumping unearned money into a club. The Glazers have taken between one and a half to two billion pounds out of the club. That’s the opposite of financial doping.
They did consider a Manchester City fan, however it turns out that roughly 0% of Manchester City fans have ever attended law school in the history of the club.
Finally someone points out the structural issue with FFP. The rich stay rich. In fact the gap only increases. If they were ever serious about competition they would have done something else...
Should they just let it slide because MAYBE other clubs are doing the same thing? I don’t think so, I think every club that breach financial rules in the premier league should get punished for it. If they should just let it slide then why even talk about ffp and care about how much money Chelsea spend? Then we can just pretend like nothing is happening and just watch every club getting bought by countrys and watch football become everything we never wanted.
As a Manchester United fan who's had Munich Disaster mockeries hurled at me from the sky-blue stands, I am watching the proceedings with no small amount of smug satisfaction. Well deserved, I hope they get expelled from the EFL, a disgusting club of mercenaries funded by blood money.
No they aren't , pl is placing even more serious allegations with less proof than uefa. They're basically saying in point 1 that the board lied to their own financial managers , premier league managers , uefa managers , their own economist and much more for 9 years straight. They're also saying uefa and cas are absolute bonkers with their decisions with little to no proof. 😂😂
No they aren't , pl is placing even more serious allegations with less proof than uefa. They're basically saying in point 1 that the board lied to their own financial managers , premier league managers , uefa managers , their own economist and much more for 9 years straight. They're also saying uefa and cas are absolute bonkers with little to no proof. 😂😂
city should absolutely be expelled from the PL all this oil money is damaging english football it is not about what team is managed best its about who has the fattest sugardaddy.
Out of interest how do you believe that decision is protecting the fans of Manchester City? I say this because FFP was supposed to be about protecting the fans and communities of these football clubs.
Money already ruined football before man city and Chelsea. Man United were breaking all the transfer records. Look at the first galacticos era with Real Madrid
Been baffling how they've been able to get away with it for so long. Ridiculous they managed to escape the UEFA sanctions due to time barring and then get charged with obstruction.
No, this is not just using City as a posterboy for this. Most of Abramovichs investments where before the FFP rules was in place so those are off the table. He was one one main reasons why the rules was introduced after all. However, The current spending spree at Chelsea is of course interesting, but it is way to recent to be up for an investigation like this. I can imagine Chelsea facing problems down the line, but judging from how long it took in this case, it might take some time. The recent Chelsea investments are also amortised in a clever way to spread out the costs of the transfers under a much longer time than usual. That way they can spend a lot now, and pay for it later when it comes to the bookkeeping and therefore the reported losses. It would be completely ridiculous if they where only fined and got a point deduction one season for this. Then it would be well worth cheating and breaking the rules. Cheat and win trophies for almost 15 years, and then get one season ruined. They need to be punished very hard to make an example so the rules are respected. Either expulsion form the English footballing league down to the national league, or something like 15-30 points deduction every season for at least 5 years.
Yeah but catching someone 22 years after their crime means you weren't even trying. So why now? There's defintely another motive behind this besides "enforcing the law"
@@BhBc8f8 They have been working on this case for a long time to make it as good as possible. I don't know why it took so long, and I agree that it would have been better if they where able to stop it earlier. I don't understand why it is "definitely another motive behind this".
@@Pekz00r "I don't understand why it is "definitely another motive behind this"." Because they had to have known about it but let it slide, they can't be that incompetent and not be aware of foul play for 22 years. They turned a blind eye because of "something" but now they're not so what changed? what is that "something"? A personal disagreement? conscience suddenly kicked in? or could it be because it was made so public they had to choice but to investigate and open pandoras box? who knows
I still think the most likely result is that when the final verdict comes in Man City will get docked enough points to all but guarantee that they will all European competition the following year
Expulsion is different to relegation. If the prem expulses (?) city, the efl doesn't have to take them in. So they could have to go into the national league and work their way up through the pyramid. Be a good fm campaign for you.
National League doesn't have to take them in either
Expells is the word
if they go national league they will be farming so i honestly dont think they will get expulsed. At most probably relegation
@@thehoyle86national league will take city let’s be honest
@@-jls-1856 you cant just get relegated. The PL can kick you out, but the EFL doesn't have to accept them. They can be given expulsion, they cant be given relegation.
I find it interesting that in all the coverage no-ones looked at what happened to London Saracens (British premiership rugby team) who did something similar with player image rights and were booted from the league. It's an interesting story you can parallel with this one, even if rugby isn't your thing.
Rugby should be everyone’s thing, but the what’s even more interesting is for good a journalist this guy is, way better than virtually any British or European journalist who haven’t come anywhere near to the level of analysis he has.
Didn't really harm them though as they were able to keep hold of their best players and get promoted immediately.
The Athletic podcast mentioned them.
@@santiagomora5634 good to know, I'll give it a listen!
Nothing is going to happen, they're just going to pay a fine
Booooo spoiling the fun
let us hope
Hard to say definitively. On the one hand you are correct in saying that rich entities never get punished in our system, on the other hand the EPL would take a massive reputational hit if it just winds up being a fine, because it is all out in the open. We also have to consider that there are plenty more rich entities that would be furious if no real action ends up being taken and given that we already established that rich entitites always get their will, we're facing a conundrum.
Your statement may end up being correct, however it's a bit reductive to view it as a foregone conclusion.
@@DrZaius3141 well currently nobody actually knows if City are guilty they are just assuming they are
The only charge the Premier League will be able to prove is the failing to cooperate charge, which will be a fine as you say.
A lot of smaller clubs have been hit with ffp points deductions for years which has threatened their existence for much lower spending discrepancies than Man City it’s about time they got their turn.
Bigger clubs too. Look at rangers.
Threatening the existence of a club is far more serious than this though. Man City are essentially being penalised for having too much money, that's never happened before.
@@georgeyboy5256 No, they're being penalised for using funds that were unjustly acquired.
@@georgeyboy5256 no they’re not, they’re being punished for faking sponsorships, fraud, in order to break the financial rules of the league
@@georgeyboy5256 actually it's the opposite; they're being penalized for claiming to have a much higher legit turnover than they actually did. FFP is based on how much money goes through a club, it's not a flat limit. So if you claim your team makes more money than it actually does, you can spend more money than the rules dictate
I know FFP was supposedly meant to prevent teams spending beyond their means (e.g.Portsmouth), but I can't help but think making the owner's test more stringent and adding extra protection against asset stripping clubs would have been far more effective if prioritised instead of FFP
Completely agree the primary function of FFP was to preserve the status quo of the big teams
Then why did the smaller clubs and efl clubs sign up to it?
@@lilbaz8073 FFP is signed by Prem League clubs.
@@cnachopchopnewsagency you have different spending rules. People just refer to them as ffp. Uefa have theirs for clubs that participate in their competitions. The prem has their own as does la liga. The efl have their own.
@@cnachopchopnewsagency FFP doesn't only exist in the prem lad
You are on it with football news atm!! Nice work mate, keeps it interesting and I’m loving it so……
Boshhhhh
Thanks for this overview of the case! Well done!
I appreciate your videos immensely. Not only is the information very useful and well presented, You are wildly entertaining.
Great video zealand
Finally a lil more depth on this. Thanks!
The Premier league is doing this now to show that it can govern itself as the UK gvt is workshoping creating a org to govern football in the UK that answers directly to them
History nerds unite! I too understood your reference about Crassius and Creosus! Lot of good history there.
The irony of ridiculing Maguires forehead does not escape us.
Something a bit wrong is that Manchester United spending money. Throughout the ownership of the Glazer's Man Utd has either turned a profit or would have turned a profit if dividends are removed from the calculation. The way the Glazer's bought the club was a leveraged buyout where you take a loan against the club to but the club itself.
Well that's the thing, a club like United loves the current FFP rules because it suits their circumstances, that's why they lobbied UEFA and the PL to bring it in.
@@georgeyboy5256 so you think it makes sense that a club keeps losing money year after year yet can spend what they want? United is spending big(ger) now because their hand was forced, it has never spend exuberant sums on players historically. Real did, Italian clubs did, and then the rich boy clubs starting with Chelsea increased the stakes dramatically.
@@AntiSociety100 If the club that losing money every year has a billionaire owner then yes it should be allowed. As long as the said owner puts aside enough money to cover contracts in the event of any financial issues. Football survived over 100 years without FFP. It was always the case that clubs could spend whatever.
United have spent big throughout their history, they've broke the English transfer record loads of times in the past. They lobbied for FFP because they were no longer the big dogs financially. They are £350m+ in debt. How is that any better?
The interest on their loans was unhinged. So as interest rates have increased so have their payments. They were around £20m a year. Last quarterly financials has it as £31m a quarter or £124m a year. No wonder they are looking to sell.
@@georgeyboy5256 you need to learn the rules. Almost every club has debt but its about what kind it is. City have committed fraud by saying their revenue exceeds that of Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Liverpool. Everyone knows that isnt the case. You can not spend money you dont generate. That is the rule. External "revenue" (financial doping) from "sponsors" are not factured in. Its false revenue put into the club.
The first argument you made is just terrible. "Everyone does it (which you should prove) so we are not guilty."
That's not how it works. If everyone is guilty, everyone is guilty. It's not a good defense.
Yeah, but when Chelsea and United are spending 300m £ in the January window no one even says anything lol
@@nopointinn But United didn't spend £300M in the January window. They had to take loans to finance their £150M spending last summer, and they've openly stated that a) there is no cash left in the bank b) They have to sell to buy this summer because they're now up against FFP because they've barely made any money on player sales the last 5 years.
They're so broke that they could only afford to bring in Weghorst & Sabitzer on loan in January, despite pressing needs at striker and central midfield.
@@nopointinn People are definitely saying something, I don't know if you're just ignoring it.
@@nopointinn everyone is literally questioning chelsea tho, but technically they are still following the rules with the long contracts, lets say they buy a player for 50m on an 8year contract, chelsea is basically only paying 6m a year
thanks for diving into this!
I'm here for when you do a similar video of Juventus shenannigans. You'll end up crazy.
Keep doing this your highness Zealand, commenting for the algorithm
"Manchester city can't use the same arguments"
The arguments: 🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲💲
Great video bro, by far the most comprehensive explanation of the issue. I study communication and your videos of this type are incredibly inspiring! Thanks bro!
3:45 "No words either from Dude Wipes, the club's official male-oriented toilet paper partner" What ??! 😂
I saw that too 🤣🤣🤣
They’re on the sleeve of New York City FC’s kits. City Football Group are their majority owners
I'm here for the Crassus references. This particularly delighted me.
Since you mentioned Rui Pinto, also look into Benfica's cases in court.
Jealous of Mancity's rise.
Hey Z, you should do a video of the history of New Zealand's history of professional football teams from the Kingz to the disaster of the Knights to the rebirth of the Wellington Phoenix and struggle for existence being the only professional team in Oceania and only team playing across Confederation borders.
They were guilty the 1st time but money talks.
i mean the ruling from cas says otherwise
So is PSG. So is Newcastle. So is every damn club with a state-owned buyer/owner.
Not including the fact that 90% of the sponsors now are either state-owned sportswashing brands like emirates, crypto, or sports gambling, many of which are breaking or skirting laws themselves.
Man City is guilty, but the whole infrastructure for football is corrupt as hell. Man City is just the one that gets the attention, because they dont have the public support that other clubs do (like PSG) and they seem to be more brazen.
Invest your time or money into nonleague. Its still local, its cheaper, better people, etc etc.
@@blaze_acrid9395they were found innocent based on a technicality
@@blaze_acrid9395 the ruling from cas was literally that they were guilty but it was time barred
Money doesn't talk.
It swears.
Manchester City also having been involved in deals with Juventus(and Barcelona) who are under investigation by their own league. Was definitely not a red flag, nor was the way City set up their network of 'City' brand teams that are exchanging players for sums of money that are pretty much like when you're playing FM and you'd add yourself as the manager of another team that could feed you some extra cash.
Name 1 transfer for cash between the City football group clubs?
City use the network of clubs for scouting and discussion of ideas (training, ways to avoid injury). They loan players between clubs but they don't sell to boost their books.
With regards to the Juventus thing, that's just dumb. Are Fiorentina being investigated for selling them Chiesa? Are Bayern being investigated for paying a ridiculous amount for De Ligt?
@@georgeyboy5256 Palaversa, Illic, and Moreno to Troyes for an undisclosed fee, Eirik Johansen to New York City FC for an undisclosed fee. Claudio Gomes to Palermo. Then there's Koki Saito who moved from Yokohama F. Marinos to Lommel City within the City group. Then aside from that we can't see the books, so we don't know what numbers are and aren't involved for all those loans between clubs, but the money is coming from somewhere to buy all these players and they are being put on the books somewhere. So money is always shifting around within the City group there.
@@georgeyboy5256 Juventus is being investigated for inflating the fees of transfers, especially for the way they moved around money in deals with Barcelona where they wouldn't outright trade a player, but would buy and sell a player at the same time to the same club. Specifically we're talking about the Arthur-Pjanic deal here. But the year prior to the Arthur-Pjanic deal, a similar deal took place between Juventus and Manchester City where they swapped Danilo and Joao Cancelo with money again moving in both directions.
Less well known though is that City and Juventus also made a deal for Felix Correia who moved for double the amount he was bought by City after underperforming in the dutch second tier on a strange loan. Said player has not even come close to breaking into the top tier of football yet.
City and the City Group have been making some interesting deals to say the least.
City made no money on Palaversa, Illic or Moreno, Gomes, all were significant losses. Johansen left for free. Saito was given the opportunity to develop in Europe.
Obviously they move players between clubs to benefit those clubs and players but there's nothing in the rules that says they can't.
City are just the first club to start doing this but every club around Europe will be doing it eventually. It's just a more developed idea on the old affiliate/parent club system.
@@liam-398 I honestly don't know enough about the specifics of Juventus' deals. I can only comment from a qualified accountants stand point that the reason why the Cancelo-Danilo deals happen like that is to help with the financial books that year. They sell Cancelo for £60m on a 5 year deal and we sell them Danilo for £30m on a 5 year deal. Cancelo costs us £12m a year (excluding wages) but we can offset that with Danilo's deal. If we signed Cancelo for £30m and let Danilo go for free, we have nothing to offset Cancelo. It's why Chelsea could do so many deals this season.
Juventus may have lied about other specifics on that deal.
So basically, worst case scenario for City, they will be fined, and 10 to 30 points penalty in the league and have to pay their debts/unfulfilled contracts agreements with their Staff/players during the last decade? That's the least they could do, otherwise it would be a disgrace if Man City dodges everything once more that would be a huge L for the instances of the Premier League.
Worst case scenario they could be expelled from the premier league. There's no limitations on the punishment
They will dodge, or get like a 20 million fine, which is still peanuts and the same as dodging.
Why would it be a disgrace? Barcelona is still allowed to exist as a club despite doing stuff like this and worse for over 4 decades and never once seeing anything more than a fine. It just means the prem has entered the big leagues of sport as a money laundering business instead of an actual sport. A LOT of this would go away(as well as bad reffing) if sports betting was banned like it should be, it gives far too much incentive for rigging
@@victorkreig6089 too right, iv watched some weird games and questions why the ref hated a side
It would be great for football. Money have mattered too much for a long time. No longer enough surprises as to who wins the big titles.
The argument of "yeah but FFP is nonsense designed to maintain the status quo" is a) TRUE and b) IRRELEVANT. If you think the rules should be different, that needs to be addressed by changing the rules. Someone's opinion of how FFP is affecting the wider game does not give them a free pass to circumvent existing governance because they feel like it.
Except it does, The FFP was established not to make a fair system but to protect the market value of the big clubs. It only makes sense that punishments for rule breaches will also be tailored to protect big clubs.
Man city is a cash cow, they are not going to be punished the same way as a club like Bournemouth.
They trying too clubs becoming Sevilla and Valencia overspending and the ramifications
The whole idea that FFP was designed to maintain the status quo is bullshit because two of the teams most negatively impacted by it are Barca and Real,who for decades were having their funding provided to them in the form of interest free loans from Spanish banks which the banks would then be pressured into writing off and also suspicious deals from both local and National government (for example Real sold their training ground to the city for €500m while the total cost of buying the land and building a new training ground was €110m. The City massively overpaid for the land. They can’t access any of these suspicious outside income anymore which is why Reals spending has had to be scaled back from the levels they used to spend and why Barca is in such financial trouble. The likes of Chelsea who are one of the teams that helped bring FFP in were able to keep spending big despite not being part of the perceived status quo. If it was supposed to maintain the status quo then Barca/Real would have benefited while Chelsea didn’t but that wasn’t the case
Yo Z, I agree with many points you said, but it's important to remember that Chelsea is a poor example. The British government literally had full access to all and any documents and if something fishy turned up it'd been screwed a lot earlier.
Ambramovich bribed a lot of the government as well, they were all happy to take the money so they never got hit for it
I was just amazed that he even said okay to selling chelsea at all, figured he'd give them the finger
Hey, don't throw shade on manchester united, I am pretty sure that united generated enough revenue to cover their expenses.
Imagine Man City's new biggest rival is Salford City.
If they get to keep the trophies they won while breaking FFP then it just encourages more nation states to do it. Punishment that isn’t retroactive means it’s only a problem once you get caught.
Exactly! Just null and void the titles. No need to give it to 2nd placed teams
I mean, the irony of the timing of this was that it came basically a week after Eddie Howe said he couldn't sign anyone else (major) due to FFP. You know you've screwed it when even the Saudis are sticking within the lines.
I don't really care what the punishment is as long as it stops clubs from doing it again.
Zealand showing he has no idea what he's talking about when he says "Manchester United spending money they don't have."... yes they did. United were one of the few teams spending their own money and not using the owners' money.
He's on about the fact that United have been between £300m-£600m in debt over the past 18 years and it hasn't been governed at all but a club like City with no debt and tonnes of money in the bank are restricted.
@@georgeyboy5256 Uhh, because the club makes so much money that the debt isn't actually a financial strain on the club?
ALL the money ever spent by United since Glazers took over has been the club's own money.
City are restricted because the club doesn't actually have a sizeable revenue realistically, anywhere near the likes of Real Madrid, United, Barcelona etc.
If United was managing their debt extremely badly, then yes, they'd get restricted, like Barcelona had been due to racking up substantial debt and their income being hampered slightly, but they've managed to resolve things somewhat.. United meanwhile have a debt that they've roughly maintained around the same level, and it hasn't spiralled out of control.
@@kaigamer8250 But why should FFP be done on revenue, why not debt instead?
Simple because United along with other traditionally big clubs lobbied governing bodies for it to be this way.
City's revenue is actually the highest in the world so that shows how little you know, regardless of what you think about the sponsorships, it is. Even if it wasn't their owner still has more money to spend than United, so why should he.
FFP was only suppose to be about financial protection but we all know it's there to secure the future of the top clubs. To the point where it actually has helped City in recent years.
Barcelona have only been punished because La Liga changed their rules and hopefully after this is done the Premier League will as well. Clubs shouldn't be operating with substantial debt.
The only truly fair system is a salary cap and transfer cap for everyone but City, United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs would never sign up for that.
@@georgeyboy5256 you clearly have no clue what you're talking about, lmao.
@@kaigamer8250 I ask a logical question on why FFP is done on revenue as opposed to debt or owner's capital and that's the response. Disappointing. Didn't realise you don't like debating. I'll leave you be.
Zealand + Historia Civilis collab when??
I am chuckling so hard when you said the guy leading the comission is an arsenal fan... as an arsenal fan myself 😂
the biggest charge imo is how pep secretly signed a contract with man city 1 year before joining, and told media while in bayern that "bayern doesnt need kdb", kdb and sane went to man city that year, pep joined city next year
CAS ruled that the previous cases were time barred, not that they didn't have merit. This doesn't apply to the Prem League charges. See you in the Conference Citeh...
I'm a city fan and I loved this vid! Thanks for staying neutral while everyone else is condemning us ..look if we broke rules and did it intentionally then we deserve punishment but if not I hope we go and sue the pants off the pl for all this nonsense. Look away Chelsea fans...youre next😂
When you don't no whats going on listen to this guy
You mean the club that only exists as a top club because the Emirati government bought a club and pumped it full of infinite Emerati oil money was pumping their club full of Infinite Emerati oil money?
Who could have POSSIBLY seen that coming?
You saved me alot of reading..thanks :)
After the referee group announced they didn’t draw offside lines because they forgot, I’m starting to think the FM AI is so good it accounts for this now.
Couple of months? This will drag on for years...
FFP was brought in to stop things like Leeds, Portsmouth and Rangers from happening again. But you aren't wrong there would have been lobbying from the big teams to keep the status quo. The only reason Liverpool were bought were because of FFP rules and they were in a dire state under their previous owners.
The banks had seized control and were selling them at a knock down price in order to get their money back. As the banks were in trouble due to the financial crisis.
Time to send that disgusting corrupt club to non league
Nothing a brown paper bag under the table won’t fix, they’ll never get a full penalty/punishment thrown at them
When you look at the charges, what Man City did is even worse than Rangers. what happened to Rangers? They were demoted/relegated to League 2 - the FOURTH tier of Scottish soccer! With the Rangers situation as a precedent, dropping Man City to Tier 5 (Vanarama National) or even Tier 7 (Northern Premier League).
However, geopolitics will be heavily involved, considering Man City's owner is Sheik Mansour of the UAE, the Chairman is Khaldoon Al Mubarak, also UAE, the directors include Mohamed Al Mazrouei and Abdulla Al Khouri, also UAE. Which country is the largest supplier of petroleum? The UAE!
Therein lies the dilemma - punish Man City and risk retribution from the UAE, or give Man City a slap on the wrist - which essentially gives the green light to every other club to cheat!
I think the main argument against the allegations is that UEFA looked into to this, thought there were true but still most of the serious allegations were found to have no evidence on appeal.
Meanwhile in Italy, they do point deductions. They should remove Man City from European cups as well.
This makes me remember the dope charges the big clubs in England were facing and then all of a sudden: It went dark and quiet.
Shady stuff happening in English football.
The premier League has never had any interest in punishing any of the big 6. They will only act if they are left with absolutely no alternative but to. Professional football in Europe always has and will likely always will be corrupt. There will of course be a few clubs that aren't corrupt, but they're the minority and will always struggle to compete.
That's the depressing truth and we all know it, the players all know it and the managers all know it. We just try to forget about it so we can all enjoy the sport we love.
Hi Zealand,
Love the video as always!
Just wanted to let you know you got a club's name wrong in this video. They're actually called "The Franchise Currently Plying its Trade in Milton Keynes".
Keep up the great content :)
Wait Manchester United spends money they don't have all the freaking time? Bruh you really need to look into United's balance. They have been profitable ever since Ferguson left as a company, the balance checks out. In fact United have not only been profitable, they have been paying of a huge club debt (personal glazer debt) since the sale to the Glazer fam. Businesses can have debt, what they can't have is a continuous loss year after year which is exactly what City has been dealing with since the start of the etihad saga. They still can't fill up the stadium every game, it speaks volumes. The avg attendance of everton is at City's level.
I'm watching this right after Inter losing the CL final, hoping all this is true. Sempre forza Inter.
All good points, FFP isnt doing anything.. PSG has 119% of their income spent on salary and nobody bats an eye.
But 1 point is that the income has to be accounted for, just being a nations club doesnt give them the option to spent so much. Thats why you have all those weird sponsercontracts. And thats why City doesnt want to publish their financiel documents.
So there really could be something going on now. But saying nothing will happen is just too early.
Yeah I can't take the Premiere Leagu seriously until they invade France and punish PSG.
Got to question why FFP even exists, football survived over 100 years without it. True parity will never be achieved unless everyone has the same transfer budget and same salary cap. Won't happen though as none of the clubs want true parity.
Yo listen you’re a proper journalist nuff respect you are the fucking Man.
Clearly not only 'paperwork'. If you, for example, fail to report your earnings (to dodge taxes), is that only paperwork? ManC failed to report stuff because had they done it, malpractice (i.e. unlawful acts) would have gotten exposed. But yea let us play it down, it is really nothing isn'it. Meanwhile in Italy teams get actually sanctioned for far less
I don't like that your main takeaway from this is "A club who broke the rules in 2009 is being charged only now in 2023", when it is entirely false.
You also mentioned that they were already cleared of charges, payed some fines for their breaking of FFP to UEFA back in 2018, and this rule is only being opened now by Premier League (which they have all the rights to do). They were constantly breaking the FFP rules, and monitored for a longer time than "Just now in 2023".
And the whole Arsenal fan being the one in charge of this case - irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant.
yeah no one really follows those rules other then smaller teams because they have to.
There are time limitations on the Premier League. Their rules are stated to be subject to English law which has a time limit in civil proceedings of 6 years. That would take the allegations only back to 2012. And all this apart from 2012 has been covered by UEFA and CAS in relation to sponsorship revenue. The other matters are things such as manager remuneration and player remuneration. These are tiny amounts in the grand scheme of things of City's profits and so even if proved, are an accounting matter which by rights ought to attract a nominal penalty. Non cooperation is the only thing that City were fined for by CAS. Rosen is a MEMBER of Arsenal football club not just a fan. And finally, this is a top class video. The same premier League clubs who cannot win on the pitch and who urged UEFA to investigate are now at it again in urging the Premier league to take action.
Even as a united fan, I'd hate a model that doesn't allow owners to invest.
There would be so many more clubs that just don't exist otherwise.
But there does need to be stronger and fairer regulations and punishments.
I think the whole 3 year period thing is so you can invest, but at some point, you have to let that investment pay off. If you just keep pumping money in until it you're the top team, then it wasn't a risk
This is a very bad misreading of the situation:
Firstly you've missed the context that The league has a spending limitation. The context of the "Accounting dispute". Is that by failing to do their accounting properly, they were able to cheat. Putting these points at 1 & 4 fails to explain adequately why these things matter
Secondly. failing to offer sufficient away tickets is also a more major deal than you imply. In the Premier League and European soccer/football. "The 12 man" (Fans in attendance) have a major impact on the outcome of games. And this is borne out in the statistics. There is a direct correlation between supporter volume, and number of points a team gets on average. Man City didn't just withhold tickets coz they're petty. They did it to cheat.
Thirdly. The fact that the commission appointer is an Arsenal member, does not matter. Because the Premier League is a membership league. The Premier League is not a separate independent competition. It's a competition made by the teams within it. When the Premier League says, "Man City is cheating". What is actually happening is the other 19 clubs are saying Man City are cheating. As such, if they pick anyone to appoint a commission. That person will always be a member of 1 of the other 19 teams. Because the League itself is the teams. The decision makers, are the teams.
This is also important because, they can't wriggle out of it with good lawyers. The decision makers and the people you cheated. Imagine you're in divorce court and your spouse is the judge. Technicalities aren't going to be good enough.
Fourthly, relegation and expulsion are not the same. If Man City is expelled from the league. They do not automatically drop down to a lower league. The EFL (Which runs the lower leagues) is not a part of this process. And so have no obligation to accept Man City. As such if Man City are expelled, there is a chance that they cease to be a professional team. And have no competition to play in. Which is a lot more significant than "Relegation"
Fifthly, the ways in which the other teams over spend are not the same. Chelsea received a 0% loan. Which is crazy but it must be paid back and is accounted for. Man Utd leverage debt and a publicly traded. Yes they can pull money from nowhere but that money is accounted for and must be paid back.
This is not the same as straight up lying. They are not investigating the other teams, because there's nothing to investigate. The numbers are absurd but the explanations given. Make sense and are honestly reported on the accounting books.
This is a misrepresentation of the situation
It’s not just relegation as a punishment, they get kicked out of the Premier League but the EFL has no obligation to accept them, so they could end up in the 5th tier or even just in the footballing wilderness until a league takes them in.
The most important thing missed here is that man city's argument is "Yea we did it, but so did everyone else"
Their defense is to accept fault but sya "what about them"
Don't worry Zealand I got your Ancient Rome rich people reference.
Hey, that makes three of us!
For more context about the timing of this is that the UK government is believed to be very close to introducing a football regulation panel that will essentially be there to make sure clubs are protected from dodgy owners but the premier league is doing this now to sort of say “we can regulate ourselves thank you very much”
Yeah American lawmakers like to get involved in sports too. I don't like it.
@@mikevismyelement I think a lot of British football fans are in favour of it actually, because it aims to do things like regulate the price of tickets, give fans a final say on who can own their team (like the birmingham fans who are trying to remove their owners) and prevent owners from financially destroying the teams they own by saddling them with impossible to pay debts which is how Bury and Derby ended up in the situations they’re in
I thought they were called Mancheater City?
They are and pep fraudiolo is perfect partner for them
Nothing will happen. Mark my words. Even if they are found guilty on all 100 charges. They will just take a slap on the hand with like a 1 point deduction. Sports are corrupt.
Yeah, you have to apply to enter european competitions even if you win. I can't remember if it was Birmingham city or Wigan when they went down, it was a big decision? Is this really the smartest move financially or football wise if they immediately want to come back up? But yes, you have to apply.
Portsmouth got to the fa Cup final which would at the time have got then in Europe, but they went into administration which meant they were bared
@@lordpelagius5078 ahh that was it! Thanks !
Must have been Wigan.
the thing with utd is that utd actually makes the money they state on paper but that money goes directly to glazer. City blatantly overstated the money they make.
To be honest, tending to boil a lot of things down to "Paperwork" makes it seem like they're not major breaches of a Premier League statute to a layman, and I could see people downplaying this whole situation after watching the video.
Clearly not only 'paperwork'. They failed to report stuff because had they done it, malpractice (i.e. unlawful acts) would have gotten exposed. But yea let us play it down, it is really nothing isn'it. Meanwhile in Italy teams get actually sanctioned for far less.
If even half of this is true, I see a Juventus style punishment. Either a 25 point deduction (which is really more of a slap on the wrist for a team this good), or relegation. I find it unlikely that they'll be actually expelled
United haven’t Borken FFP because he they just have debt with no investment from their owners
Wherever they go, the other teams need to grow a pair and step up in order to win the league. Other clubs have won it even while City has been like this. Just deduct points for maybe 2 seasons, tell them the fine to pay and let's move on with life.
I'd love to see Manchester city get a huge points deduction and this has absolutely nothing to do with me liking brighton
Why we had too much money so what united spend more than us where is there investigation
They did nothing as they will be rules innocent for the second time
The CAS didn't say they hadn't done those things. They said that UEFA proved they did but that the time in which they could be charged for breaking the rules had expired. Big difference
That wasn't the CAS ruling at all, the UEFA allegations which weren't time barred were judged to be unproven, no evidence. The time barred accusations were never explored because UEFA took too long getting them to court.
@@georgeyboy5256 Not true. CAS time barred a lot of the evidence, some of which was time barred just because City dragged their feet. That damaged context of much of what wasn’t time bar and as City refused to cooperate and hand over the documents that would prove context without the time barred stuff. They got off simply on a technicality (plus the crazy situation where at CAS the accused gets to appoint one of the 3 person panel meaning they already have one of the votes in their favour. The panel really should be 3 independent people. It would be like in court the accused being allowed to put 4 of their friends on the jury). The PL,have been to court multiple times to get access to all the documents they need plus don’t have any time-bar issues so such technicalities shouldn't come into play
@@SimonWakefieldUK Simon likes to believe conspiracies are the reason for his club not succeeding and clubs he doesn't like for succeeding. CAS ruled the Abu Dhabi sponsorship was not overstated. None of that evidence was time barred. On the Etisalat sponsorship that was agreed to in 2012, it was never going to included because City dragged its feet since it was outside the window when the hacked emails were released. However, the Etisalat sponsorship seems legit in that there was an agreement in 2012 and that year and the following year the funding was paid for by an outside person and then that was reimbursed by Etisalat in 2015. It may seem as equity funding but most people believe the agreement is legitimate sponsorship agreement. It's worth noting that none of this was covered up on City's financial statements. So this idea that City was deceiving people with the Etisalat arrangement is false. You might want to actually read the CAS judgement before spouting off allegations.
Good vid bro! I make the same type of video’s and I learn a lot about you
UK is still part of europe, just not EU. Its not the same thing. Its like Canada is a part of northern America but not usa
Actually confused that they’re not constantly investigating all big spending clubs to make sure everything is okay, just on a lowkey basis, but oh no they need a hacker to leak mails to see that man city is spending big amount and getting weird sponsor money? Damnnn
Great video Zealand! Finally seeing somebody not acting tribalistic over the situation. A lot of hypocrisy going on from all other premier league teams even if city have broken rules. Great insight, thanks!
Manchester United have not violated FFP. FFP concerns financial doping. FFP concerns pumping unearned money into a club. The Glazers have taken between one and a half to two billion pounds out of the club. That’s the opposite of financial doping.
And 5. How likely are City to really have the book thrown at them?!
They did consider a Manchester City fan, however it turns out that roughly 0% of Manchester City fans have ever attended law school in the history of the club.
Zealand makes a good point I agree. City are not the club that cheated, just the one that got caught.
dude, i love your stabs. world class
Finally someone points out the structural issue with FFP. The rich stay rich. In fact the gap only increases. If they were ever serious about competition they would have done something else...
Haaland just might score 40 goals in the championship
Mitrović already did it last year.
Haarland allegedly has a clause that allows him to leave if the team is relegated. So if Man City is punished with relegation, Haarland is gone!
Can't wait for City to break goal-scoring and points records in the Championship next season
How exactly do you know that they are not investigating and looking in to other clubs?🤔
Should they just let it slide because MAYBE other clubs are doing the same thing?
I don’t think so, I think every club that breach financial rules in the premier league should get punished for it.
If they should just let it slide then why even talk about ffp and care about how much money Chelsea spend?
Then we can just pretend like nothing is happening and just watch every club getting bought by countrys and watch football become everything we never wanted.
As a Manchester United fan who's had Munich Disaster mockeries hurled at me from the sky-blue stands, I am watching the proceedings with no small amount of smug satisfaction. Well deserved, I hope they get expelled from the EFL, a disgusting club of mercenaries funded by blood money.
Sounds like Moneychester Sheiky is in trouble.
No they aren't , pl is placing even more serious allegations with less proof than uefa. They're basically saying in point 1 that the board lied to their own financial managers , premier league managers , uefa managers , their own economist and much more for 9 years straight. They're also saying uefa and cas are absolute bonkers with their decisions with little to no proof. 😂😂
No they aren't , pl is placing even more serious allegations with less proof than uefa. They're basically saying in point 1 that the board lied to their own financial managers , premier league managers , uefa managers , their own economist and much more for 9 years straight. They're also saying uefa and cas are absolute bonkers with little to no proof. 😂😂
city should absolutely be expelled from the PL all this oil money is damaging english football it is not about what team is managed best its about who has the fattest sugardaddy.
Out of interest how do you believe that decision is protecting the fans of Manchester City? I say this because FFP was supposed to be about protecting the fans and communities of these football clubs.
Money already ruined football before man city and Chelsea. Man United were breaking all the transfer records. Look at the first galacticos era with Real Madrid
Been baffling how they've been able to get away with it for so long. Ridiculous they managed to escape the UEFA sanctions due to time barring and then get charged with obstruction.
No, this is not just using City as a posterboy for this. Most of Abramovichs investments where before the FFP rules was in place so those are off the table. He was one one main reasons why the rules was introduced after all. However, The current spending spree at Chelsea is of course interesting, but it is way to recent to be up for an investigation like this. I can imagine Chelsea facing problems down the line, but judging from how long it took in this case, it might take some time. The recent Chelsea investments are also amortised in a clever way to spread out the costs of the transfers under a much longer time than usual. That way they can spend a lot now, and pay for it later when it comes to the bookkeeping and therefore the reported losses.
It would be completely ridiculous if they where only fined and got a point deduction one season for this. Then it would be well worth cheating and breaking the rules. Cheat and win trophies for almost 15 years, and then get one season ruined. They need to be punished very hard to make an example so the rules are respected. Either expulsion form the English footballing league down to the national league, or something like 15-30 points deduction every season for at least 5 years.
Yeah but catching someone 22 years after their crime means you weren't even trying. So why now? There's defintely another motive behind this besides "enforcing the law"
@@BhBc8f8 They have been working on this case for a long time to make it as good as possible. I don't know why it took so long, and I agree that it would have been better if they where able to stop it earlier. I don't understand why it is "definitely another motive behind this".
@@Pekz00r "I don't understand why it is "definitely another motive behind this"."
Because they had to have known about it but let it slide, they can't be that incompetent and not be aware of foul play for 22 years. They turned a blind eye because of "something" but now they're not so what changed? what is that "something"? A personal disagreement? conscience suddenly kicked in? or could it be because it was made so public they had to choice but to investigate and open pandoras box? who knows
@@BhBc8f8 No, I just think they wanted to build a solid case after CAS ruled in their favour in 2020.
@@Pekz00r 😄idk fam you're either very naive or too trusting but to each their own.
I still think the most likely result is that when the final verdict comes in Man City will get docked enough points to all but guarantee that they will all European competition the following year
"to get their champions league permit which we all know they won't win it" Yyyyyeeeeaaaahh about that........
They’ll get a points deduction but still get top 4
ARE not IS. The club is a collective. This annoys me more than it should.