Simon Jordan QUESTIONS why Man City aren't providing evidence of INNOCENCE over FFP charges! đ¤đ
VloĹžit
- Äas pĹidĂĄn 18. 05. 2023
- Simon Jordan and Jim White discuss Manchester City launching legal challenges after being charged for alleged rule breaches, with City unhappy with the involvement of an Arsenal fan! đ
Enjoyed this CZcams video? đ
Subscribe here: / talksport
Check out some of talkSPORT's MOST POPULAR content đĽ
â˝ HEATED DEBATE! Simon Jordan & Graeme Souness CLASH over Erik ten Hag's treatment of Man United player Cristiano Ronaldo
⢠JORDAN vs SOUNESS 𤏠| ...
â˝ Simon Jordan has his say on Gary Neville working for Qatar-based BeIN Sports during the 2022 World Cup
⢠𼴠Simon Jordan has his...
â˝ Ben Foster says Edwin Van Der Sar would do minimal training and still be ready to play for Manchester United
⢠Ben Foster says Edwin ...
â˝ Simon Jordan GOES IN on Gary Neville for his Man Utd vs Liverpool commentary
⢠Simon Jordan RAGES Ove...
â˝ Rudiger intermediary Saif Rubie makes bombshell Chelsea claims and clashes with Simon Jordan
⢠đąđĽ Rudiger intermediar...
â˝ Academy Award Winner Gary Oldman is baffled by Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney's purchase of Wrexham
⢠Academy Award Winner G...
â˝ INCREDIBLE CLASH! Ray Parlour and Robbie Lyle get HEATED over claims AFTV want Arsenal to LOSE!
⢠INCREDIBLE CLASH! Ray ...
â˝ Ben Foster tells talkSPORT that the Premier League would have 'sued' him if he recorded the games he played for Watford
⢠Ben Foster reveals Pre...
â˝ Simon Jordan and Graeme Souness CLASH over Daniel Levy's role at Tottenham
⢠Simon Jordan and Graem...
â˝ Simon Jordan GOES IN on Jurgen Klopp for calling out Gabby Agbonlahor
⢠Simon Jordan GOES IN o...
â˝ Simon Jordan argues that Manchester City do spend FAR MORE than Liverpool and other Premier League clubs
⢠Simon Jordan argues th...
â˝ Simon Jordan reacts to Chelsea owner Todd Boehly's suggestion of a North vs South Premier League All-Star game
⢠Simon Jordan reacts to...
â˝ Is Manchester City's Erling Haaland better than Tottenham's Harry Kane? talkSPORT's Graeme Souness thinks he could be!
⢠Is Man City's Erling H...
â˝ Simon Jordan doesn't think Steven Gerrard has the ability to be a manager in the Premier League
⢠Simon Jordan doesn't t...
đĽď¸ talkSPORT's Website: /talksport.com/
đ˛ talkSPORT's Twitter: / talksport
đˇ talkSPORT's Instagram: talksport?...
đ¤ talkSPORT's Facebook: / talksport
đą talkSPORT's Tik Tok: / talksport
đ´ Download the talkSPORT app HERE! - talksport.com/apps/
đ Want to see if you feature on our CZcams channel? Check out our Best talkSPORT callers playlist: ⢠The BEST talkSPORT Cal...
#talkSPORT
#PremierLeague
#ChampionsLeague
#FACUP
#SimonJordan
#EuropaLeague
#LauraWoods
#AllyMcCoist
#ManUtd
#ManCity
#Liverpoolfc
#Arsenalfc
#Chelseafc - Sport
They couldn't find a Barrister who was a city fan because none of them are old enough to have gotten their law degrees yet.
Muppet
strange that, oh but didnt they average 30k crowds when they were in league one in 1998? and dont they hold the record for the highest attendance ever recorded in english football outside of wembley? just sayin :)
You didnât get one in English neither.
â@@johnvalentine8941 And what about your attendances since then? Remember pep begging city fans to come fill the stadium đ
â@@Mancunianblue đ, a city fan through and through
Evan Craig Bellamy came out and said something aint rite with the academy were on 30 grand a week đđđđđđ
You raging that City are going to win the treble?
There are academy players on that in Chelseaâs and Utdâs academy. Youâre just a casual
Academy money doesn't count or the money put I to an academy or it's facilities
@Tony Hodgkinson I think it does pal you talking through your ass đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
no he didnt say that, and it isnt true rico lewiis is on 5 grand a week and cole palmer 1st team for 2 seasons now is on 20 k per week, you are making things up
Their defence is on the legitimacy of the investigation not the charges itself. Says it all.
Same thing that happened with the UEFA charges, a lot got dismissed because of time frames, not because they were actually innocent.
@@purplebutterfly314and thereâs no time limit this time round. Theyâre in big trouble.
@@purplebutterfly314 you clearly don't know everything
@@dirtygunslinger9835 if you say so
When the charges are bogus that is what you do. You highlight the corruption which brought the charges to begin with. It's a witch hunt.
This on Man City who at the start of this season avoided charges of corruption dating back over 10 years.. which has still not fully ended (but they will buy their way out of).
They timed there way out of that one.
"The lawyers have to be Man City fans or else..." đ
The pathetic bitterness towards City truly knows no boundsđđ
@@Brandon-nq7ys who likes cheaters?
Itâs taken four months or so for City to come up with this!! As Simon said, if they have irrefutable answers to each charge, then letâs see it, and end the Enquiry. Otherwise it looks like City are playing games to avoid sanctions that the EPL can impose.
Please name the charges one by one for me...
The same way you can't, then what response do you wanna hear from City?
The enquiry hasn't even started. Not even close. We are talking years here.
Story, no need showing you the evidence...your wicked nature will only try to find new reasons why they should be guilty. It's better they never show u any evidence so u can stew in bitterness, Jealousy and envy
That is nonsense .the normal process is ⌠first the accusation , then the reply . It makes zero legal sense to show your evidence before the details on the accusations are substantiated . Basic practice in law .
@@wengelder9256 On the pitch no one can argue that City are the best team around at the moment. They play great football, and a really talented squad. BUT, 100+ charges have been laid. As soon as the charges were made public, City stated in no uncertain terms that they had âirrefutable evidenceâ, some 4 months ago. Bear in mind that this was all going on for 4 years, before it became public knowledge. Thereâs something not right for me. If you say something and then contradict that by not providing the evidence to counter the charges, it begins to smell a little. If the evidence is irrefutable, then isnât four years more than ample time to provide it? I think so. Maybe one manâs âirrefutableâ evidence is different to another manâs. In all honesty I just hope that the right decision/s are made. This isnât just about City, itâs about the EPL as an ongoing concern. If City are found not guilty then the EPL have a lot of mirrors to look into and actions to take, so as to ensure this is not repeated. If City are found guilty, then god knows what can happen.
FFP charges against a team with zero debt is laughable. It's their money, let them invest it how they like.
Doesn't matter what you think of the rules, all clubs sign up to the rules when they enter the competitions.
If your defence relies ob technicalities, you basically admit that you're guilty. Not that this surprises anybody. The sad thing is that city wont face justice. In a fair world the club would be kicked out of the league and stripped of all relevant titles.
Grow up, child. You don't know the first thing about what is going on. You are likely another Liverpool/ United fan who couldn't find those cities on a map!
Now ask yourself what happened the Leicester and what will happen to Newcastle if they dare try to invest quickly into the squad. And then ask yourself if FFP is fair. In a fair world, owners can invest in their own business as they please because thatâs what happens in the world every day. Instead of 3 years to balance the books (this is the FFP rule) you can spread that cost over a decade or more, as this happens I the real world
But u can't apply rule created to retrospectively charge someone
In a fair world, half of the PL would be kicked out, because they're all guilty, including City.
if the PL were interested in Fairness a hard salary cap & 100% Rev sharing would exist.... but FFP claims that b/c Utd, Arsenal & Liverpool have been cheating for 100 yrs they get to continue to enjoy that advantage & to top it off they Fill FFP w/ Loopholes.... this is why it'll Never hold up in Court & Authorities KNOW this &that's why they Leaked.... they Never leak if they have a strong case......
The F.A took almost a year to bring chargers against one player (Toney), how long do you think it will take them to challenge an institution? 5 years of gestation is more like it.
Last time I checked, you donât have to prove innocenceâŚyou have to prove guilt!
Enough evidence to charge, you have to prove your innocent
@@mashup7 except, you donât. Youâre presumed innocent *until* proven guilty
uefa already proved their guilt, they threw money at the courts and uefa don't have deep enough pockets to go up against city in court.
@@Boy10Dio luckily this has 0 to do with uefa
Jimmy Saville died a free man. Letâs get city now then.
Simon contradicting himself again. Was just having a go at Klopp for saying a ref could be impartial đ
Heâs a plonker. Gone right off him tbh. When you listen to him long enough you realise how much of an hypocrite he is.
I don't see the contradiction, it's before the fact not after, and you can't appeal against refs being involved in your fixtures i don't think, whereas u can in these proceedings. It's just different, life makes a hypocrite of us all in the end. đ
@@jack28aug the contradiction is he said you canât insinuate a ref is impartial as he is professional and itâs inappropriate. yet if itâs another professional then itâs ok to have your integrity undermined. Whatâs so hard to understand?
@@BillyGoatRuff it's a different profession, and a different set of circumstances, simon also says if ur innocent get it over with, which i agree with, bcoz they're obviously guilty they won't, it's not contradictory, because they're not related in any way, so the opinions r not exclusive to one another. Do u understand?
@@anthonyrhodes8030I used to be a huge fan as well, but have come to the same conclusion as you. He just takes the least popular side and argues it, even if it means contradicting what he said a week earlier.
What utter nonsense. The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the prosecution. It is not for the accused to prove their innocence. Parties are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty, by the prosecution. It is completely understandable that CIty do not want to get into a public row with the FA, nor to be airing financial details in public. It's never been their style, and I doubt it ever will be.
The 115 charges have been laid along with al the relevant details supporting those charges and it is now up to City make their case as to why each one of those charges is invalid.
Why do you idiots think you're smart? The prosecution has already come forward with 115 charges and all the details relating to them.
About time city stop trying to hide and avoid the charges and actually come up with a defence to them.
Or maybe you can explain how a nothing relagation fodder club known more for Oasis concerts becomes the highest revenue earner in 15 years without cheating?
when you say that parties are 'innocent until proven guilty' does that apply to mason greenwood ?
Totally agree, innocent until proven guilty-BUT Manchester City have already been found guilty with the UEFA investigation and where given a ÂŁ60million fine and Manchester City agreed they were guilty and after appeal got a ÂŁ30 million fine, the guilty have better lawyers!
If you cant deny the charge try to work a technicality in to avoid the charge.
Sigh đ⌠the absolute state of modern football. Teams openly cooking the books and we just have to carry on and pretend they arent and applaud ,players seeking weekly wages of half a million, the diving, the feigning of head injuries, the sham that is VAR, the pricing out of working class fans to cater to the corporates. Its enough to make you walk away it really is. Simon hit the nail on the head. Those with the most money win. Thats why I think nothing will come of this and in 10 years there will be no clubs, just teams backed by nation states and mega corporations. The premier league will be a travelling circus playing in a different corner of the world every other week. Football became terminal in June 2003 when Abromovich was allowed in, and weve just been watching the slow, painful death rattle ever since.
Accusing a rival of cheating without proof IS cheating
strange there was no books to cook before city and chelsea came along to spoil the orgy of united and arsenal, and those clean as whistle teams like real, barca juve and bayern, there was no scream for financial fair play when they had it all to themselves was there? wait a min,? do you think there might be some sort of agenda here?
@@Beyond_Belief534 you know they are cheating, I know they are cheating âŚ. they know they have been cheating, hence these ridiculous attempts to hold up proceedings, rather than keep schtum in the knowledge they have real âirrefutable evidenceâ. They got off with it once on a technicality yet they tell everyone they got off because they were innocent. They werent, they arent now and the quicker this whole ridiculous charade is over the better. They are just putting off the inevitable. I wouldnt even class them as a rival⌠thats United, Everton, Arsenal etc. Any club that operates without the need to balance the books whatsoever is frankly a doped up competitor akin to Lance Armstrong and shouldnt even be playing in the same competition. The fact City and theyre fans resort to whataboutery rather than proving their innocence says it allâŚ.. also heres one bit of proof, didnt even have to be dug up as Citys ex manager Mancini admitted as much himself with his off the books payments. Its not hard to prove really.
No difference between Man United buying all the best players or Liverpool but you just donât like it because your era of spending big is over
@@theblues8840 see above âwhatabouteryâ. Youâve all been well and truly sports washed. Tragic really. Difference and its a huge one is us and United and Arsenal earned it organically. Grew our fanbases and revenues over decades. Spent what we earnt and yes became the biggest clubs. You and Chelsea won the lottery. Went from mid table to top dogs at the swoosh of a pen from a nation state âŚâŚ whose money your spending incidentally would really be better put to use helping people in that country who are f****** destitute âŚ.. but no they knock up some apartments in East Manchester and its all âarent these people greatâ, âput loads into the areaâ âŚ. Yeah they do but not the area where it should be spent âŚ.. ah f*** it cant be bothered trying to explain. You all know deep down âŚ. Id actually have more respect four your fans if you said yeah f*** it weve been sport washed and dont care, rather than all these false equivalencies you try and create
The fact they are fighting everything possible really shows theyve got something to hide i think theyve clearly got alot riding on this case being thrown out
But their attorney defending them is an Arsenal fan too đđđ
He is being paid well to defend them, not to pass judgement on them. Big difference.
Because they're not innocent, they want to get away with it using technicalities, like they did with UEFA/CAS where they delayed the case so long that many offences became time barred. Also, they're used to picking who judges them, UEFA allowed them to pick 2 of the 3 CAS judges who let them off with a fine.
LFC fan and yes they have clearing played loose and fast with the rules but lets get them on facts. Only one charge was Time barred as it was over 5 years. Uefa leaking fucked it
that is quite literally not what happened you can do a quick google search to see that UEFA found nothing when investigating city (the records are public) & the same will happen this time. They will be proven innocent then you & everyone else will just claim city paid off the premier league and UEFA two organisations that absolutely hate city to the core.
@@VR46314 The Guardian reports that "Judgment rules that much of Uefa's case was 'time-barred'"
Neither of you have got any proof for the current unsubstantiated charges and City were exonerated by CAS. The fine was for not cooperating, which, when standing in honour you're duty bound to do where due process demonstrably isn't being followed. When the PL fails to prove its case you'll need to move the goalposts again lads.
â@@alexab543 City have said they would have been cleared anyway, the time barring was the easiest and best for time and money of the options given by the legal team. It was a case that should have never got to CAS and a witch hunt from UEFA. City have always claimed to be upset they never got to clear themselves fully and without question not using technicalities.
No Simon the argument it's not time bar this time, there has got to be a law/rule in place prior to conduct that contravenes it, you can't create a rule after the conduct and wish to punish someone for retrospectively. If the rule did not exist at the time City acted in a certain manner then they can't be held to account years later after the rule was introduced to account for something that was not a crime at the time they did it.
Spot on. And yet this is something that escapes pundits and rivals fans OR is purposely overlooked. Im inclined to think that is more of the latter than the former.
Boys these pundits are well aware of whatâs happening, but speaking facts doesnât get views đđđ
There are no â crimes â its a simple civil matter not penal
Thatâs exactly what I was about to articulate, thank-you for posing it so elegantly.
Actually, you can punish retrospectively. In this country anyway. We have parliamentary sovereignty which means any law can be passed and decided to apply to any time period they wish. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 for example specifically removes Double Jeopardy and allows criminals to be retried for the same crimes, even if they were acquitted before 2003. Tax law is changed retroactively too, to remove loopholes and punish tax avoidance schemes. The PL is a Ltd company in which the shareholders are the 20 clubs, with a governance body appointed that is independent. It operates as a membership organisation and can set its own rules, retrospective or not. As long as it doesn't break any discrimination laws regarding gender, sexuality or race, it's absolutely fine.
Why arenât FA showing proof of evidence
because they're in far too deep
@@Beyond_Belief534 Yet they wonât get involved with how the Glazers are killing United ? .
If there's anything in the world that can make otherwise serious people become raving lunatics, it is football.
I wouldn't want a member of a club that has spent a decade writing letters to every power centre they can think of trying to hinder me in whatever way they can, including encouraging 8 other clubs to gang up and try to essentially take the right of an Appeal away from me, as they did just prior to the CAS Appeal, determining my future...
surely the PL need to provide evidence of guilt? which can then be defended by the club.
They must have something or else no charges would be brought. It isnât just an accusation, charges require evidence and Man City needs to answer for the charges brought against them.
They have.
Is the accuser's obligation to substantiate his accusation , the burden of proofing is on that body , that's why.
The 115 charges have been laid and City has been provided with al the relevant details supporting those charges. It is now up to City make their case as to why each one of those charges is invalid.
Why would they??? They only need to show it at legal court!!!
Most people want matters resolved prior to court. Court is always an unsure outcome.
If only it was in an actual court. It's in a premier league kangaroo court with no right of appeal where the panel are selected by the very people charging you. Murders are afforded the right to appeal and yet city won't be........... Think about that.
â@@WATFORD2535so you mean the actual truth mite come out rather then this trial by media and even worse social media that City have to tolerate? What's everyone frightened of? That city mite actual not have cheated?
City saying itâs wrong because he is an Arsenal fan ,but it isnât wrong when we constantly have Manchester referees doing the big games where Manchester teams are playing ,I think the oil money goes far deeper than we all realise
Another idiotic comment!
Yea just because you lot bottled the title now you want to accuse city of buying refs đ
Donât be silly.
@@KingMe1 I am not an Arsenal fan ,I would of liked them to win it because they are not cheats like city,mark my words your time is coming ,you will not be time barred to get your way out of this one
@@simonlewis720 đ¤Ł
It is not up to the accused to prove their innocence. This is a fundamental principle of justice.
People seem to ignore this part and just think the law shouldnât be followed in court đ¤Śââď¸
Look at the comments, jealousy driven stupidity. The irony lost on them that accusing a rival of cheating without substantiating it is, in itself, cheating.
But it is up to the accused to cooperate fully with the authorities, something which city failed to do continuously through proceedings. Typical guilty behaviour
This is not necessarily law but rather, this is more like a company (EPL) checking its branches(Man C) that it is in charge/head of followed the rules.
Well, if you're accused of a crime and the prosecution presents their evidence that you've committed that crime, but you decide not to challenge that evidence...it's not going to end up well for you is it.
Simon is talking nonsense here. Clear delaying tactic, will use every avenue available to delay & keep pep at the helm.
That is absolutely my thought also. Doesn't have to be that difficult an answer. Seems to be delaying.
and why shouldnt they? its clearly a witch hunt, so why shouldnt city make them suffer every step of the way?
â@@johnvalentine8941 because if they're innocent then why not just prove your innocence
@@magikarpsplashy if they are clearly guilty why has it taken 10 years and a four year investigation?
Red bull broke the cost cap and it took 1 year to come to a decision, and we was told that took too long.
It's obvious this is only happening after uefa failed.
@@magikarpsplashy because itâs down to courts to prove Man City are guilty not the other way around. Man City donât NEED to prove their innocence as they arenât the law
If City are guilty, they must be dealt with properly, the kind of dealing that will serve as the ultimate example to others. Anything less won't establish authority and respect.
Yes let's make sure nobody dares to challenge United, arsenal and Liverpool ever again. The nerve of these pointless little clubs. Honestly đ
Simon defending this?! This is shameless and desperate by City. Who cares what football team the guy supports.
ah ok, so you wont mind if its a city fan who heads the panel then?
He's not defending them. He's stating the obvious legal loophole anyone would take in their condition.
@@johnvalentine8941 if heâs a professional then no.
@@sbinfiniti487 heâs defending, heâs saying you would do if it was you
Why arenât referees allowed to ref the clubs they support but Cityâs entire future is to be decided by their main title rivals this season?
Apparently the investigation will now be led by Noel Gallagher.
its only fair
And curly from coronation street , I hope. He was a bright lad. đđť
Maybe
As per SJ's supposition at the end, if it took the PL 4+ years to come up with the charges, then I think it would be quite fair to give City a substantial amount of time to come up with the relevant information to defend themselves, no? After all, everyone has already assumed they are guilty and are asking for their heads and yet, City have only had 3-months since the allegations were lobbed at them. Given the depth and breadth of the charges, it seems to me that City should be given an equitable amount of time to prepare for the hearing
I think that may apply if the delay was not due in part to city's earlier legal fight against having to provide PL with documents etc
Simin is completely wrong.
City are saying you cant make rules at a later date (2021) ,and say that you were guilty of breakung these new rules back in 2009. ..
They say 'dont need to answer, timed out' says it all ManCheaty are as gulity of corruption and cheating as hell.
Only citeh fans should investigate citeh, by this logic
Well, if that's the logic then would you be okay with it?
Whatâs ironic is mr masters giving city the title today yet heâs the one leading the premier league charges against Man City embarrassing to say the least
Corrupt FA and kangaroo court process......shame on FA and Arsenal
The FA are corrupt, but so are City
Theyll get away with it again
When the PL fails to prove its case, they need to prepare for libel themselves.
If city have bought players due to FFP breaches & these players have helped them win 5 prem titles out of 6, will they be striped of these honours?
Probably, that and a lot more besides. Relegation isn't out of the question.
@@wolfen210959 if authorities go down that road, theyl open up a shitload..... every club will want to be moved up a place in all the illegal years. Clubs missin out on champo league places, extra money.....
Bet they only doc them 9 points or sumit.
& 'money talks', theyl probs just fine them more
@@jamesmilligan2797 That canât and wonât happen. Theyâll just be stripped of their titles. You canât go through all the permutations of which players were involved in which games - what about the teams that were relegated.
What about the premier league PROVIDING EVIDENCE. No need for us to prove anything until they do
What do they need to provide evidence of?
@@Bandzino91 of wrongdoing
â@@environm3ntalist549 they obviously have evidence they believe is valid else they wouldn't have charged them. City will look to drag it and try to divert to other issues like this now about the barrister. If they were very confident they they were innocent they would just proceed.
Trouble is mate, everyone knows you have been cheating and no matter how much you believe otherwise, every other fan despises you and your club. Congratulations to your owners in destroying a once proud club.
the same evidence uefa provided that was never disproven.
Simon's knowledge of facts is impressive. He holds a reasonable level of doubt against everyone. I love his honesty..
Why would City want to fight an uphill battle where they believe they're not fighting on fair terms? The last line of defence will be disproving the charges, as it always is. The first line of defence is to make sure the opposition are fighting fair and to disarm them if they're not. If the Premier League are applying rules retroactively, that is a very valid avenue to pursue. If true, and obviously we are fairly blind as to the substance here, I think City can definitely land a blow. The Premier League have already proven haphazard in this regard and they had to correct the charges when City pointed out the charges didn't relate to the rulebook for those years. It is not beyond imagining that the Premier League has tried to apply current rules to seasons before those rules existed.
Simon is straight up factually wrong about CAS. The main point of contention, the Etihad deal, was not time-barred. CAS found City DID NOT disguise equity funding as sponsorship. That is a fact. Simon is wrong. CAS has seen all of the transactions in all the accounts for the Etihad deal.
He is also wrong about time-barring. Challenging rules being applied retroactively is not time-barring. You cannot break a rule that does not exist.
_"He is also wrong about time-barring. Challenging rules being applied retroactively is not time-barring. You cannot break a rule that does not exist."_
Stop talking sense! Do you know how out of place you look here! :)
City fans busy trying to deflectđ
â@@Surveillance-Ys u do not know how the law works, u can not create a law and then retroactively apply it
@@Cyrus-rodn45 and here we are where the guilty are busying themselves to act as the 'all knowing'đ all you're doing is looking at a favourable perspective through a microscope. Have you not considered even for a moment that a multi billion pound organisation hasn't taken this all into account.
True...you can not break a law today that will be made law next year...so also, you can not accuse someone of breaking a law last year, if the very law was made today... we don't time-travel here...
Simon is full of contradictions. He knows city would be foolish to present their irrefutable evidence upfront, as it would allow the epl to work their attack in advance. No decent lawyer in the world would suggest their client do that.
đ𤥠If you have evidence it's evidence and you'd end it immediately.
What irrefutable evidence.
If it's irrefutable it doesn't matter how long they have to "prepare their attack"
Look up the word irrefutable. If something is irrefutable it cannot be challenged or REFUTED. Clown.
I assume that people who are in and around football are fan of football and they are fans!
Itâs just fare that not many of them are City fans!
tbf - City only started massing fans after 2008
95% of city online fanbase live over 2000 miles away! Substantially smaller UK fanbase than spurs will ever have tells us how city are viewed in England / Britain!
â@@mymemories925 city got the same avg fan attendance as lilverpool...Google is your friend.
Utterly laughable delaying tactics.
If Everton are watching this, use the same tactics. If Everton are guilty, then City are many times over. Utft
its up to the prosecution to prove guilt.
If people are really for an equitable football model, they'd advocate for a universal salary cap and a playoffs system at the end of the season. But oddly enough, no one is.
Why a playoff? If you arenât good enough to be too after 38 games, you donât deserve a second chance.
And there are two âplayoffsâ during the season in the FA Cup and Carabao Cup.
Salary cap Iâm okay with cause my team, Chelsea will more than likely be punished for FFP in the coming seasons because of wasted over priced players
@@eiler1987 You're probably right that the best measurement is points accumulated over 38 games. But people (United & Liverpool fans mainly) are arguing about a team winning every season. So a playoff would ensure you have more winners like the NFL. Like I said, they won't advocate for that though.
So what referees support teams does it mean they shouldnt be allowed to ref matches
Theyâre all from bloody Manchester!
imo they shouldnât be allowed to referee games for the teams they support tbf
@@user-io8cm4dk1fThey donât , itâs not allowed
Referees literally arenât allowed to ref the teams they have confirmed they support.
@@tomben6180 oh good, I wasnât sure.
Itâs funny Mancity gets soo much air time for these charges (and rightfully so) but I donât hear a peep from fans or pundits about Everton. Theyâre facing basically the same charges but one is fighting relegation and the other fighting for the league đ¤ˇđ˝ââď¸đ¤ˇđ˝ââď¸
Jealousy my brother, Jealousy, that's why...
Man City playing opponents on and off the field!!!
Thatâs a good 1 đ
Remember when CAS let City pick their own judge on the case, says it all
You obviously don't know how CAS works. City picks a judge, UEFA picks another, and CAS picks the third. For the third judge, City gave a suggestion, and UEFA had no problems with it, so CAS went ahead with the suggestion. How does this process then become, 'CAS let City pick their own judge on the case'?? If you have a problem, blame UEFA!
@@JejoAbraham so City picked 2 out the 3 judges by your explanation. Itâs supposed independent panel adjudicating on a form of corruption in football and you canât see what is wrong with this?
@@CH-vh1sw You must not know how an arbitration works. These are the CAS rules that have been in place for a long time, not modified to give City an advantage! UEFA agreed with the third selection, so how is that made out as City picking the third judge? Both UEFA and City agreed to the select the third judge!
I feel Simon's views are what Man City are hoping on. If people already "assume" they're guilty for using the rules/laws as they are/were then they can dig up issues all along the way for years to come.
Simon loves city doing well. Itâs obvious
Oh they will but it won't be published in public. It's a private case and it will take like 3 years, chill.
Their is a reason "Time Barred / Statute of Limitations " was created , and this to prevent malicious prosecution ! UEFA should of brought charges FFP within the time frame , the only reason they didn't was because their was no evidence of such within the time Frame . UEFA brought charges of FFP only when the "Hacked e-mails " became available which by then was outside the time frame.
FA had this same legal challenged thrown out by a judge in a court , now they form their own committee to bring these charges seeing that they lost in a court . Make it make sense .
FA is made up of the 19 EPL club owners which most of them have not been investing in their clubs and now they have been exposed because they can't keep up to city on the football field.
The EPL is the highest paid football league , what are the club owners doing with the money they received , simple they are pocketing it.
Oh and by the way , City has complied with the disclosure this was also proven by the judge when the case was dismissed , in the eyes of the FA they didn't believe full disclosure was meet FA lost this argument in court.
đso not one time have you stated city's innocence but how they've used the system.
Also they were fined by cas for not cooperating. If you're innocent then cooperate and don't cook the books.
â@@Surveillance-Ysit's not a matter of innocent or guilty its a matter of applying a law retroactively and that is illegal. U can't use a current law to charge someone with a crime u assume happened
@@Cyrus-rodn45 and you've done exactly what the guilty would do..take a small part of the picture and proceed to describe it as if it were the whole picture. City's defence are looking for their OJ Simpson 'glove' moment. This is where the negativity stems from regards city.
Perfectly said đ
People hear the number 115, and conjure their own ideas of what the charges are, praying they are as damaging to City as possible. They've been analysed, and are trivial, apart from a two matters. Those who fervently hope the two matters relate to game changing amounts would be horrified if they did their own research, but they prefer to stay in ignorance and lob out "115".
These rules didn't appear out of thin air, they were reworked by a cartel the moment we came into money. We will fight the cartel as we think fit.
well said
I see that inferiority complex is still strong despite all your success. Everybody's out to get little City eh?
If it's so trivial then why has this amount of charges never happened in the entire history of the sport before? The fact is this is unprecedented. If city are found guilty they would make juventus look like angels in comparison
@@philbarton2832 You are doing exactly what I described. It's too much trouble for YOU to read and evaluate anything, isn't it? You'd rather shoot from the hip.
@@philbarton2832 err maybe its because ffp was never in force in the whole history of the game you clown
Let's not forget the PL have yet to provide any evidence for these 115 charges. Why would Manchester City aide the PL in a fishing trip providing them with evidence they're not entitled to. You brought the charges up now wheres your evidence in support ?
This is only the start of City's legal challenge to head off the need fot a court case.
The appointment of an Arsenal fan to head up the panel is rightfully challenged, how can it be a nuetral arbitration panel ?
Manchester City employ KC Pannick who is the best solicitor in the land and as with any legal case you would take your solicitors best advice.
The PL brought in new rules in 2022 during their investigation of City which started in 2019. It's the equivalent of driving 40mph down a 40mph road, the police changing the speed limit to 30mph while your on your journey and arresting you.
Thankfully Simon we don't have to prove anything in your kangaroo court, were asking for fair rules in a fair hearing..
If they're innocent and have nothing to hide why are they being difficult
@@benframpton9302would you let the police search your house without a warrant? Why not your innocent, theyâre not gonna find a body under the bed.
@@benframpton9302 Ha ha would you not use everthing to fight your corner ? The PL have come after City on the behest of the red shirted american owned clubs who complained "do something PL, City are too good and we can't compete"
115 charges after 4.5years investigation it'll soonbe 5 years and not a shred of evidence. The PL have caused repurational damage to City, presented 115 charges and now want City's co-operation citing a rule introduced 3 years after their investigation started.
Your a bit fick Ben if you think City should roll over and have there bellies tickled.
City's owners have said we won't be punished for the businesd failings of our competitors and we'll fight you all the way. The PL knew City's stance, let's see if they're up for the fight, cus I know this will never see the inside of a court room.
The accuser has to provide evidence not the accused.
City fans busy trying to deflect with smoke and mirrors đ
If the other clubs have cooperated then what makes city different....a guilty conscience đ
My view is that the F A should have checked the Barrister's profile before appointing him or at least the Barrister should delete any information which might be conceived as a potential conflict of interest.
I think man city's lawyers will look at every avenue to defend the charges and that's the job.
MCFC will have the best lawyers possible, they wonât face any real problems.
Tell these clowns again none off these fool or the premier league want smoke whit city too much fire power they donât got the money to compete
Yeah bit like OJ Simpson look how that turn out
Hire the best lawyers..but no talk of innocence thenđ
@@lfcspectre4335 He got away with itâŚ
Need to investigate why these rules were made
In 1999 man city were competing in 3rd tier football. 24 years later they are on the verge of a treble but have allegations of financial misconduct they are dodging. Does any of that seem like financial fair play?
10 years ago liverpool were 10 mins away from administration and have since won the champions league and pemier league, man united were 500 million in debt but have spent more than any other club during the same period, they are now over a billion in debt, oes that seem like ffp?
FFP was instituted in 2011. By which time City were already an elite squad. So it's a fact that they got to the top without breaking FFP, which didn't exist.
City already an elite team by 2011 hahaha
The evidence Man City arenât guilty is about as reliable as a kid who tells the teacher the dog ate their homework.
Do you realize how court works it's not guilty until proven innocent
@@dashawnballard52do you realise itâs over 100 charges
They could cut it in half and it still wouldnât change the fact they cheated
Plus thereâs no time limit this isnât like CAS and UEFA
The FA and The Premier League can hit them with everything and City wonât be able to get away with it all due to the fact the integrity of the English game could be tarnished if they do
The Lance Armstrong of football clubs.
âď¸I've found the village idiot! đ
great guy lance
If Klopp gets a ban and 75k fine for asking why a City fan can ref ours and their games? What will the FA ban City with for this one? Disrespectful and disrepute the integrity of the process
Jordan is wrong. Argument is not about âtime barredâ. It is about Ex Post Facto laws. Being charged for violating laws that didnât exist when the acts occurred
Burden of proof lies on the accuser. You donât have to be a lawyer to know this. đ
But the accused do have to cooperate fully with the authorities, something which city have failed to do continuously in past proceedings. Typical guilty behaviour
@@philbarton2832 If the charges have any teeth, they can compel City to cooperate. City has deep pockets and will continue to find a way to delay the investigation. Best course of action is to implement stricter rules for all clubs going forward. There is also no denying there is malice in the investigation because only City are being targeted. Two or more clubs are highly likely guilty of the same charges as well.
@@ismori Oh they'll drag it out for as long as they can while continuing their siege mentality and playing the victim card.
The premier League have no motivation for malice against city, the amount of charges against city is unprecedented and the premier League are simply doing their job. I seem to remember Burnley recently being penalised and I think Everton are under investigation and I fully expect Chelsea to be under investigation next season after their ridiculous spending.
I expect this independent panel to clean house and finally show some balls to these teams who quite frankly have been taking the piss for some time now
All of cityâs achievements are tainted
You cant celebrate them because you aren't a City fan, but you'll be watching wont you?
@@Beyond_Belief534 nobody celebrates cheaters my friend nobody
Only thing you can tell yourself to feel betterđđ who cares what you think...the history books don't care
Yes they will actually
đthey'll all have asterix next to them if anything, apart from the ones city had in 60s
Most people support a football club. So bloody what if he's an Arsenal fan? He's a professional with a job.
What a joke.....
What evidence do we need to supply? Half of the charges are subjective, such as sponsorship value.
Well I checked etihad airlines made only a 3rd of revenue that Qatar and Emirates airlines generated over the last decade đ
â@@mymemories925 what has the company revenue got to do with it? Adidas make 4 times what Under Armour do, yet Under Armour's new deal with Real will be over ÂŁ50 mil more per year than Adidas deal with Utd. Value is decided by the 2 parties. My house has a market value but doesn't stop me asking more for it, and if someone is willing to pay it then that's its true value.
Simon is wrong and he does not know what he is talking about especially this point 8:05
Time barred means that you cnanot be prosecuted for any wrong doings out side of statue of limitation, what Simon gets wrong here and he is conflating is retropective law application, meaning legislation that operates on matters taking place before its enactment.
Simon is does nnot even know what he is talking about at all and is giving false information.
Yes Mr. Boss Man.
Realistically speaking, they're guilty. Realistically speaking, all rich clubs are guilty and there's no exceptions. They just pick on whoever suits them. If they actually investigated and punished all clubs accordingly instead of just focusing on Man City, Brentford would probably be PL champions. Unfortunatly, that's the only way to stop City's dominance at the moment, that's just the reality of it.
I don't get it why are all rich clubs guilty?
It all depends on how they make their money within the rules of the leagues they play in.
City are not being accused of spending money they are accused of paying expenditure outside of the club and hiding owner investment as sponsorship to enable them basically to build a squad outside of ffp rules.
The City point is nothing to do with Time Barring. It is actually like the Tax people bringing in a new tax in 2023 and then saying that people in 1960 and onwards should pay the tax. That's nothing to do with time barring.
Obviously the comments section lack common sense or have not read the full article as manchester city asked for the charges before 2011 to be dropped as ffb was introduced that year therfore anything before that is irrelevant. And if there is a conflict interest that is a major problem in court.
if they made fake sponsorships before ffb was introduced then its still fraud....
@@NiScontex why would there be fake sponsorship if FFB was not there as the profit that the club makes would be irrelevant
@@ahmedrehman4220 when you make new sponsorships today, you have to send it to the fA who will see if the deal follows the market price and is fair, why do you think that law was made by the FA?
Why would you waste time arguing the merits of the matter if the action is illegitimate? This is knowledge that any entry-level law student knows. Man City is doing the right thing.
Because they donât have to provide anything, the Prem League have made accusations itâs up to them to prove their case. Itâs not clear to outsiders - is this evidence the Prem have built their case around the same evidence UEFA did - in which case this will end up in a court and a court will make view on the use of stolen evidence, generally itâs not admissible and I think this will take years to get a resolution with appeals etc and I suspect a deal will be done, a fine and non admission of guilt.
But city do need to cooperate fully with the authorities, something which they continuously failed to do in past proceedings. Typical guilty behaviour
This is ridiculous. Football in our league is a shambles in terms of fiancial fairness in every way
đŻ right. Total shambles. How many teams had won more then one premier League before Chelsea and city? Let's go back to the two team system we had before. The nerve of jack walker breaking that cycle for one season. He was a disgrace.
Someone idiotic way to look at it if the rules were introduced in 2020 how could they have been applied in 2009? Simon itâs not, if you are guilty you are guilty, itâs âhave you been obeying the rules since they were put in placeâ, and high they clearly have been, otherwise the âcaseâ wouldnât focus on years prior to 2018
Literally been hanging over them for months but as soon as they beat Real Madrid 4-0 everyone is talking about it again
And how exactly would that have anything to do with it..care to explain?
Because with every victory, fans like yourself and the rest are pressed and triggered to bitterness
@@tlangelanishikwambana8596 nope I think you'll find that the top comment is bitterness towards reality of city financially doping their way to success..and you're simply perpetuating that narrative.
Fair point
Hey Man City, don't like the rules of the EPL? Find a league you do like the rules in.
What Simon calls Time-barring is not time-barring. Time-barring is when a existing office cannot be charged after the statute of limitation. What we're talking about here is a new rule that was being back dated to a time before the rule even existed in its current form!!!
"existing offence" - damn auto-correct.....
I do like Simon but heâs talking a load of tosh here. Defending claims on limitation is entirely fair and prevents the kind of fishing expeditions weâre seeing from UEFA. As for Simonâs view that the law should apply retrospectively..
â@@joeswinnerton8902thank god he's just a has been on talk sport and not in a position of actual power or authority. Frightening thought
You don't have to prove your innocence, they've to prove your guilt. That's the law.
Sort of. You have to cooperate fully. If you committed a crime and then when questioned only answered no comment you could be convicted for not co-operating
Manchester City did not apply the rules and how they work with regards to time bars. It just so happens that the rule were the rules and when it comes to rules on certain issues, if you don't bring them up in time or don't apply those rules quick enough in the process then hard luck your too late. The attitude here is as if it was City's fault that the time bar stopped some sort of punishment. We all know that's rubbish. All City did with UEFA was challenge their case against City and then win that case. Okey with a fine for a lack of cooperation with a body that kept changing the rules and the dates City had to present stuff. How they got away with fining City when UEFA were the incompetent one's that needs questioning IMO.
As for Martyn Ziegler he's a typical example of why City want no bias, He couldn't leave the conversation here without trying to imply City would prefer a delay. Why would City want the stink that the Premier League has manufactured to hang around their necks. No mention of why UEFA and the Premier League brought their stuff up mid competitions and had to throw the stuff out into the media. Totally un-necessary. Just let City know in private and at the end of the season that they have issues they want to address. Why plaster it all over the media. Trying a handicap move perhaps?
The agenda is returning now the season is drawing to an end and the media need something to do and want witches to burn.
The lawyers are going to have a field day against the Premier League. Oh, the rule state you can't speed, yes but the rule didn't exist 4 years ago so why are you accusing us of breaking the rules 6 and 7 years ago.
Complete nonsense, and these pantomimes groups call themselves organising bodies. No wonder they struggle just getting refereeing and VAR right.
Guilty as charged, cannot wait to see those titles voided and a Asterix on all you won, Lance Armstrong FC, got my champagne already bought to celebrate it all unravelling.
@@telephonic you don't understand the concept of court innocent until PROVEN GUILTY
What gets me is City say there's no case to answer. City fans say this is just jealousy from other fans. Anyone who does even the most basic research into the case understands that City aren't even trying to refute the allegations. All they're doing is delaying and undermining the process. That's not proving your innocence which they publicly claim they're doing. They already paid a âŹ30M fine to UEFA so demonstrably the position is a lie. I just hope when the time comes, the Premier League throws the book at them. It's not just cheating it's the very belief that they are above the rules and that because they have money no one can touch them.
its unbelievable they got away with it so far
People do forget the UEFA episode. They played time on that one and got 2 City supporters acting on their behalf, and actually had 12 judges in comparison to UEFAâs 6 arguing the case. They have objected to the EPL having an Arsenal fan acting on behalf of the EPL. Stinks really at the double standards they employ.
At this stage itâs an Enquiry, I might be dead by the time this ends up at the Old Bailey, and almost certainly dead by the time a decision is made!
Itâs a great shame that the game at the highest level is spiralling out of control. So many issues of corruption, too many invidious people involved, too many greedy agents. Itâs no longer a game for the people, itâs an industry full of horrible people whose interests are not about football, but about money, power, and how to manipulate things to their advantage.
Rui Pinto may have been green behind the ears, but he exposed the above issues and much more. And if you watch various documentaries about the state of the game that are freely available, so many things involve Man City that are not good. Are there any other clubs that should face questions? Probably.
Certain clubs owners or presidents have too much power now, the likes of Perez (who owns one of the biggest construction companies in the world) at Madrid and Agnelli (whose family own Fiat) at Juventus are examples. Extending the champions league from next season is only the start. It will grow. And just as that grows, domestic cup competitions will be marginalised and eventually closed. And if that happens, what will happen to the pyramid we have at the moment? The money generated by the EPL needs to be redistributed at a higher level to prevent this happening, and UEFA need to do this as well to ensure the future of the game.
@@Ray-rw8fq I totally agree with everything you say.
I think for a long time, football has just been seen as football. Some sort of cosmic entity unfettered by the rules of wider society. Hopefully what people are slowly realising is it's not. It's just a massively lucrative sport, riddled with corruption and the money is always flowing up from the fans. The British game has failed to regulate and that's why we're getting an independent regulator.
I'm sure there are executives rushing around to schmooze government ministers as I type this, desperately trying to chip away at the independent regulators remit.
I hope you do live to see City pay for what they've done to our sport.
To receive a proper punishment that deters others and heaven forbid an apology. Here's hoping.
They can both challenge the legitimacy of the charges in addition to be gathering evidence both at the same time, and that's exactly what they'll be doing. However, they still know that there will be a chance that the panel won't see it their way (as many things are up to interpretation and opinion still) and so if they feel that the actual charges are illegitimate in the first place then why not challenge both - the legitimacy is challenge one, and proof of their innocence is the the backup - why prove your innocence to something that isn't valid in the first place?
You don't do it the other way round.
Logic is wasted in Talk$hit studio and comment section. Simon Jordan loves the sound of the $hit he chats and numpty's support it, because it fits with their hate.
The clubs stinks of gulit
Theyâve already crowed on about their proof of innocence, so why not show it. And whilst theyâre at it they can show the world just how they are top of the Deloitte Richest Clubs List, earning more money than Real Madrid. And considering they canât fill their stadium or have that world wide fanbase to speak of, itâs a business model a lot of clubs would like to emulate.
Financial cheats in 1906 and now in 22/23âŚitâs in their DNA.
You don't need to disprove charges that are invalid they just get thrown out that's how the law works. Disproving them is a waste of time and money
@@mikewhoelse Not sure what "law" you're taking about?? Contract law, the accused party often disbutes the legitimacy of the claims. The disbute ending up in the courts is vastly more expensive for both parties, than coming to an out of court agreement.
Simon is incorrect about City not being found innocent (ie. not guilty) by CAS. There was one small element of the case put forward by UEFA that wasn't looked at due to time-barring, it was a relatively small sponsorship Etisalet during a specific time period. When it came to everything else, including the main sponsor, Etihad, CAS found "NO EVIDENCE" to support UEFA. Infact, read the judgement, "NO EVIDENCE" is mentioned a dozen times in the ruling.
The actual situation is that UEFA rushed to charge City not because they had a good case, but because they were hectored to do something by self-interested clubs due to time-barring. And btw time-barring isn't something City were able to 'get done', as though it would some ingenious tactic, it is law.
Jim White doesn't like Farage or Mogg, what a surprise! WOKE, get him off the air
CAS allowed City to have 2 judges of their own during the UEFA case. The ruling was 2-1 in City's favour. Moreover, one of their own lawyers is an Arsenal fan. Finally, City do and say everything under the sun to stop/protract the case against them instead of providing evidence showing they're innocent. As guilty and corrupt a party as any. They practically admit guilt with everything they say.
The problem is that other than City fans other fans have complete apathy towards what city have won. This is because they know there are issues. It's a bit like the Lance Armstrong issue. It will probably all get taken away. They are complaining about trivialities now rather than facing up to what they have done.
Nonsense. I dont support City and I think what City have achieved is fantastic and many other non City fans think that. The people who dont like it are the fans of the so called 'big clubs'
there is no point in the league without city
â@@thedean4431 premier league got on fine without City during their journey to league one and back.
in Lance Armstrongs' case they couldn't award the race to any one else coz so many of the other contestants failed drugs tests as well! According to some Tour de France expert on talkSPORT radio that I heard when the Armstrong scandel came to light that is.
@@stonedvillain79 ah their jourrney to league 1, you mean the 1 season they spent in league 1 in their entire 130 odd year history?
Pretty easy option for City to use with no repercussions as they have no fans
The first time Iâve heard Simon Jordan speak sense.
They should just get rid of ffp. What's the point in having the rules of they're not going to enforce them?
Basically, the cowardly nature in which FFP was not enforced at the time is coming back to bite the FA/PL. There is no evidence of innocence, and they never have to provide it because they keep finding holes in the poorly executed procedure.
That said, the FA/PL have GOT to show they've got a pair, make these charges stick and make an example of City otherwise they'll be a laughing stock. It'll be interesting!
USA Owners Clubs,Utd,Pool,Ars..
Conspired greedy Super League
But City are Cheaty?đ
You write like youâve seen the evidence and are quite certain of a guilty verdict.
You cannot retroactively apply rule changes unless you believe that the evidence gathered wonât stand up to scrutiny.
How hasn't ffp not been enforced? There's no evidence of wrong doing. They don't have to prove innocence.
FFP was brought in by the Cartel of the clubs like LIV MU Arsenal, even Gary and Jamie said FFP will limit the competition and the top clubs will remain on top because of that.
The real cheats are these clubs which are doing it for years and robing new clubs of their talents etc.
I think there's a lot of parallels between this & Chelsea's January spend.
If City exploited loopholes in FFP, no one has the right to charge them, even if they've ignored the spirit of the rules.
Lol not even close, educate yourself on the basics before implying a club spending money is the same as a club receiving millions in âââsponsorshipâââ from the owners using fake companies as a front.
@@JacquesBauer89 I'm aware of that rumour. That was the loophole I referred to.
It seems like it should have been against the rules.
Presumably it wasn't though, as they've never been sanctioned for it as far as I can tell?
Allegedly using backchannels to pay wages off the books, and allegedly pumping in extra revenues from bogus sponsorship deals isn't "exploiting loopholes".
@@creepingbrain How do you know it isn't?
They've clearly acted against the spirit of the rules, but that doesn't mean they've broken them.
None of us has seen City's books or has a detailed knowledge of PL rules.
Unless there's proof of rule-breaking, we have to assume that they've simply been clever.
@@dylanparker130So why have they been charged with 115 different offences?
Everyone crying about the money Man City spend as if it wasnât Man United or Liverpool doing the same in previous decades. There will always be a club with the most money and itâs no different now
there was no ffp back then. dumby
Big difference in self made money and infinite money being given by a literal state
@@philbarton2832 people cant seem to grasp this one
Will all be sorted with a backhander like most sports. Same as any ref could support any team without you knowing
They don't have proofs. They are cheaters
come on premier league show us what you have
Manchester City football club is an example of sustainability and rising towards the top of the tree. So the jealous rivals are trying to obtain the Blue print through false charge's.
Secondly, Arsenal challenge PL champion Man City this season and Arsenal fan FA administrator tried to pressure City with false allegations.
Unfortunately Arsenal football team collapse and City going to retain the title.
It's dirty politics
Sustainability?? Are you an idiot? Do you know why FFP exists? Clubs cannot spend more than what they earnâŚbecause, you guessed it, itâs unsustainable. City cook the books to be able to spend more. Which ever way you look at it they spend more than they earn. Sugar daddies canât just spend their own money.
Sustainable đ If ADUG ditched them they'd be back where they came from in no time.
A bunch of cheats with no fans đ I say give Arsenal the league and Liverpool the others
@@creepingbrain meanwhile uncle Jim waiting in the lobby to get in bed with the glazers đđđđđ
@@DB-07 _"Sugar daddies canât just spend their own money."_
That's how Liverpool got where they are. Difference is, they were among a cartel that tried to keep the money to themselves, by preventing other clubs doing what they did. Now they are crying salty tears. Deal with it.
Look back at all successful premier clubs and other premier clubs and you might be surprised xxxx
And the referees on the other matches are City fans and so whatâs the point . City clutching at straws to delay this
You make an allegation and the burden of proof lies with the claimant. It isn't the duty of those you accuse to prove anything. Don't be ridiculous Simon. It's basic logic.
City are absolutely correct to challenge overt impartiality and failings in due process
You cannot create a rule after a club doesnât something you donât like and then punish them for something they did that at the time wasnât against any rule đ