City's punishment

WIZARD OF TANGERINE

WIZARD OF TANGERINE

Well-known member
I have just read that as a punishment to Manchester City for all their rule breaking ,they may be dropped to Division 1 . If this were the case , they would have a record number of wins , go down in history as the greatest club ever to be in division 1 and probably improve their fan base because people jump on the band wagon . This also would not take into account the bashings that some teams will get along the way .
I was just wondering if any body can think of a fair punishment for City which they would not benefit at all from . I am at a loss ,because the players they have done nothing wrong so they should not be punished in respect to being allowed to play and getting their wages.
The only way I can think of is that the top players can go out on loan to whichever club of their choice and their wages are paid by City and City are band from the football league for 5 years . Then only the club and owners are punished . I am pretty sure that can't happen though.
 
A similar punishment was meted out to Saracens in rugby union's Gallagher Premiership, they were demoted to the first division a couple of years ago, but it then begs the question is it fair on teams in that division to get trampled on by one of the best teams in Europe never mind the Premiership, Saracens who are now back in the Premiership put 50 points on Harlequins last weekend so you can imagine what they did to teams lower down.

There has to be a more appropriate punishment but I'm struggling to come up with one that is fair on everyone besides the obvious financial hit.
 
Wouldn’t they have to abide by league one wage restrictions, which I believe are a maximum of 60% of turnover? I’m pretty sure crowds will remain high as they did last time city were in division one, but I would have thought sponsorships would be revised.
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
I have just read that as a punishment to Manchester City for all their rule breaking ,they may be dropped to Division 1 . If this were the case , they would have a record number of wins , go down in history as the greatest club ever to be in division 1 and probably improve their fan base because people jump on the band wagon . This also would not take into account the bashings that some teams will get along the way .
I was just wondering if any body can think of a fair punishment for City which they would not benefit at all from . I am at a loss ,because the players they have done nothing wrong so they should not be punished in respect to being allowed to play and getting their wages.
The only way I can think of is that the top players can go out on loan to whichever club of their choice and their wages are paid by City and City are band from the football league for 5 years . Then only the club and owners are punished . I am pretty sure that can't happen though.
Click to expand...
What about the fans who've done nothing wrong?
You can't close a club down for 5 years!

If an athlete wins Olympic Gold then further down the line is found to be a drugs cheat they hand their medal back and the person in second gets it.

So strip City of the titles they've won whilst cheating and give the runners up them and let the club carry on knowing full well anymore breaches they'll lose them again.
 
The world's best players would not be wasting essentially 3 years with them for a chance to win something. There would be a mass exodus. It would see the dismantling of the City we know and could take them years and years to recover.
 
City will be punished financially if they are relegated to league 1. With No Premier league or Europe money coming in they will have to sell players to remain within financial fair play. Also clubs will know city have to sell so player prices will be lower subsequently. Yes they will still have an amazing squad for L1/Champ but when they do get back to the Prem they will be at a lower base because they couldn't afford to buy players over that 2 year period.

Rangers were dealt a similar punishment a few years ago!
 
IF they have cheated, they should be treated like Lance Armstrong was. Strip them of all their titles/cups etc and given them to the runners up.

And I'd demote them, not sure where they'd end up or on what basis - I don't think it could be an arbitrary basis to say third tier as 'it feels right'

They'd quickly get back to winning ways and I dare say it would enable them to reclaim the chip on the shoulder they used to carry - so at least the fans get something out of it.
 
All routes sadly lead to an impact on fans and somewhat player. The key issue is that the current punishment is clearly not acting as a deterent.
For me the least worst option is to hit them financially, for every £1m you overspend the fine is say, £5 or £10m, sadly this would impact on clubs mostly as owners would move on the club/ liability. A key piece of work for the new regulator?
 
poolseasider said:
What about the fans who've done nothing wrong?
You can't close a club down for 5 years!

If an athlete wins Olympic Gold then further down the line is found to be a drugs cheat they hand their medal back and the person in second gets it.

So strip City of the titles they've won whilst cheating and give the runners up them and let the club carry on knowing full well anymore breaches they'll lose them again.
Click to expand...
On the flip side, the fans have enjoyed a long period of glory that they might not have had without rule breaking. Back to reality in League 1 seems a fair punishment.
 
They haven't done anything wrong

They pay their taxes unlike some clubs and have funded great facilities and infrastructure projects in the area

They have broken into the elite in Europe and the UK and the bigger clubs and authorities don't like it

I think it's a fantastic story disrupting the status quo and in particular upsetting millions of scousers whilst they are at it

Why shouldn't billionaire owners be allowed to spend their own money, if this new idea gets off the ground regarding turnover and percentage spend the whole top division will be ruined and competition completely effected and diluted

Football in this country is fantastic why on earth are people trying to ruin it will these stupid rules

For the record i don't think Everton or Forest should have points deductions either as they both have wealthy enough owners to fund their spends
 
Last edited:
TSSeasider said:
IF they have cheated, they should be treated like Lance Armstrong was. Strip them of all their titles/cups etc and given them to the runners up.
Click to expand...

Lance Armstrong was stripped of his titles, but they weren't given to the runners-up.

Tour de France records just show 'no winner' for the seven years he supposedly came first
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
I have just read that as a punishment to Manchester City for all their rule breaking ,they may be dropped to Division 1 . If this were the case , they would have a record number of wins , go down in history as the greatest club ever to be in division 1 and probably improve their fan base because people jump on the band wagon . This also would not take into account the bashings that some teams will get along the way .
I was just wondering if any body can think of a fair punishment for City which they would not benefit at all from . I am at a loss ,because the players they have done nothing wrong so they should not be punished in respect to being allowed to play and getting their wages.
The only way I can think of is that the top players can go out on loan to whichever club of their choice and their wages are paid by City and City are band from the football league for 5 years . Then only the club and owners are punished . I am pretty sure that can't happen though.
Click to expand...
Interesting OP.

First thing to say is that anything you have read about punishment is just speculation. There has been no hearing, I doubt there will be one anytime soon either. The amount of evidence being submitted is colossal, I believe.

Under current EPL rules, their case will be heard by an Independent Commission appointed by the EPL. Nobody knows who they are yet, and how they will assess the evidence is anyone's guess.

if the case drags on until after the Bill becomes an Act, the case acquires an extra dimension, in that both the IFR and the EPL will be able to apply sanctions separately. In the case of the IFR, for very serious cases they could :

  • suspend or revoke the club's licence to compete - in which case they wouldn't be able to play anywhere in the top five tiers
  • apply stringent conditions to the licence, in order for the club to compete
  • levy very heavy fines against the club in question (up to 10% of turnover, I think)
  • in extremis, require the current owner to divest himself of his holding in the club **

** complicated in this case by who the owners actually are, as the IFR is obliged under the Bill (clause 37) to take account of UK trade and foreign policy in making their decisions. I assume that this Clause is there specifically for cases such as Newcastle and City, where the owners of the club are viewed as a de facto arm of their country's Government.

It's not a provision I like very much, but equally you can't have a football regulator effectively making decisions that cut across policy in these two areas. Maybe it's an argument against allowing ownership of these key community assets to go to such institutions in the first place - again, there will be a remedy in the Bill that addresses this in the future.

All the above is in addition to any punishment the EPL could impose "on the field".

City are of course innocent until proved guilty. There are two very unusual aspects to their case :

- the number of charges, and the longevity of them. This club is accused of rule-breaking going back well over a decade
- the fact that around a third of the charges are about withholding of or concealing evidence, or not being truthful about it. This would be viewed as egregious behaviour, if proven

The idea that Forest and Everton have "done nothing wrong" is just bollocks. They have both been found guilty of breaching EPL rules and the evidence is clear. Bear in mind, these are rules that the owners of ALL EPL clubs agreed should be put in place and / or agreed to be bound by on entering the EPL. I think you could mount a case for saying that the decisions about the severity of sanctions applied in each case are flawed, but there is absolutely no question that both are guilty.
 
Farnorth said:
Lance Armstrong was stripped of his titles, but they weren't given to the runners-up.

Tour de France records just show 'no winner' for the seven years he supposedly came first
Click to expand...
Yet strangely when they stripped Floyd Landis of his children's win for the year after Armstrong's 7th and final "win", they did award the win to the runner-up Oscar Perriero
 
Financial punishment would be a drop in the ocean to those behind the club.

Stripping them of titles is meaningless. The club, team and fans have had the moment of glory seeing them win trophies, you can't take that away. And who wants to be retro awarded a trophy from 5 years ago.

Personally, if found guilty, I'd relegate them at least 2 leagues. And take Chelsea with them
 
With the money that the City owners have then it will either be in courts for years under challenge or they will encourage other clubs to form a super league breakaway
 
I don't know what Man City are supposed to have done wrong as life is too short to get involved in thinking about it. But if it's putting the tea lady on 500 grand a week and paying Erling Haaland a retainer through the football books and things like that then you can't tell me the Prem hasn't turned a blind eye when it suits them in order to be able to sell their wares to the rest of the world for the last 20-30 years.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
They haven't done anything wrong

They pay their taxes unlike some clubs and have funded great facilities and infrastructure projects in the area

They have broken into the elite in Europe and the UK and the bigger clubs and authorities don't like it

I think it's a fantastic story disrupting the status quo and in particular upsetting millions of scousers whilst they are at it

Why shouldn't billionaire owners be allowed to spend their own money, if this new idea gets off the ground regarding turnover and percentage spend the whole top division will be ruined and competition completely effected and diluted

Football in this country is fantastic why on earth are people trying to ruin it will these stupid rules

For the record i don't think Everton or Forest should have points deductions either as they both have wealthy enough owners to fund their spends
Click to expand...

As a massive City fan you would say that.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Interesting OP.

First thing to say is that anything you have read about punishment is just speculation. There has been no hearing, I doubt there will be one anytime soon either. The amount of evidence being submitted is colossal, I believe.

Under current EPL rules, their case will be heard by an Independent Commission appointed by the EPL. Nobody knows who they are yet, and how they will assess the evidence is anyone's guess.

if the case drags on until after the Bill becomes an Act, the case acquires an extra dimension, in that both the IFR and the EPL will be able to apply sanctions separately. In the case of the IFR, for very serious cases they could :

  • suspend or revoke the club's licence to compete - in which case they wouldn't be able to play anywhere in the top five tiers
  • apply stringent conditions to the licence, in order for the club to compete
  • levy very heavy fines against the club in question (up to 10% of turnover, I think)
  • in extremis, require the current owner to divest himself of his holding in the club **

** complicated in this case by who the owners actually are, as the IFR is obliged under the Bill (clause 37) to take account of UK trade and foreign policy in making their decisions. I assume that this Clause is there specifically for cases such as Newcastle and City, where the owners of the club are viewed as a de facto arm of their country's Government.

It's not a provision I like very much, but equally you can't have a football regulator effectively making decisions that cut across policy in these two areas. Maybe it's an argument against allowing ownership of these key community assets to go to such institutions in the first place - again, there will be a remedy in the Bill that addresses this in the future.

All the above is in addition to any punishment the EPL could impose "on the field".

City are of course innocent until proved guilty. There are two very unusual aspects to their case :

- the number of charges, and the longevity of them. This club is accused of rule-breaking going back well over a decade
- the fact that around a third of the charges are about withholding of or concealing evidence, or not being truthful about it. This would be viewed as egregious behaviour, if proven

The idea that Forest and Everton have "done nothing wrong" is just bollocks. They have both been found guilty of breaching EPL rules and the evidence is clear. Bear in mind, these are rules that the owners of ALL EPL clubs agreed should be put in place and / or agreed to be bound by on entering the EPL. I think you could mount a case for saying that the decisions about the severity of sanctions applied in each case are flawed, but there is absolutely no question that both are guilty.
Click to expand...
Guilty of breaking nonsense rules that were only put in place to keep the status quo of the top 4 clubs

The issues started 20 years ago when Chelsea where allowed to break into the top 4 now the EPL are trying to control competition

How are clubs supposed to compete when they are told what they can and can't spend

The owner of Nottingham Forest is rich enough to afford any debt he's created at Forest, he's guilty of trying to compete in the EPL nothing more

Football isn't broken you know, no matter what a few beardo weirdo's think (BFC BFC BFC copywrite)
 
Why have they singled out just a couple of teams for this 'unlawful act'?
I woul;d think that many Prem teams have done the same, or similar.
Just not been caught.
Yet.
 
tangerine_neil said:
I’m not really in favour of any punishment, especially as it’s been happening since Blackburn first won the title.
You’d have to demote most of the Prem and that’s not going to happen.
There needs to be stricter recruitment and wage limits, similar to those imposed in USA for certain sports
Click to expand...
Yep it's always been the way clubs who can afford the best players win the most games

It really isn't rocket science
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Yep it's always been the way clubs who can afford the best players win the most games (1)

It really isn't rocket science (2)
Click to expand...
(1). You sound like one of those people who think football started in 1992.

(2) Actually, the regulatory environment that exists now is not fit for purpose precisely because the nature of ownership and financial and accounting management has become very complex and the rules are not designed to cope with them. See the impotence of the EFL in dealing with Reading, for example. It will be interesting to see how much of the EPL and EFL rule books get quietly ditched once the Regulator is in place.

As for "nonsense rules" - I agree with you to some extent, albeit I think probably for different reasons. The point is that every rule that the EPL has created was supported and voted for by at least two thirds of them, otherwise it wouldn't be a rule. If they are nonsense, it is nonsense that the EPL owners created themselves.
 
poolseasider said:
What about the fans who've done nothing wrong?
You can't close a club down for 5 years!

If an athlete wins Olympic Gold then further down the line is found to be a drugs cheat they hand their medal back and the person in second gets it.

So strip City of the titles they've won whilst cheating and give the runners up them and let the club carry on knowing full well anymore breaches they'll lose them again.
Click to expand...
So the club keeps the money they won through cheating , they keep the fan base they have built by winning and the punishment is don't do it again.
These fans you are worried about have had the last few years of glory stolen from other teams and yet no one feels sorry for the fans who have been broken by being a league runner up or a cup finalist loser. I am sure the Watford fans would not agree when losing 5-0 in a cup final.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Interesting OP.

First thing to say is that anything you have read about punishment is just speculation. There has been no hearing, I doubt there will be one anytime soon either. The amount of evidence being submitted is colossal, I believe.

Under current EPL rules, their case will be heard by an Independent Commission appointed by the EPL. Nobody knows who they are yet, and how they will assess the evidence is anyone's guess.

if the case drags on until after the Bill becomes an Act, the case acquires an extra dimension, in that both the IFR and the EPL will be able to apply sanctions separately. In the case of the IFR, for very serious cases they could :

  • suspend or revoke the club's licence to compete - in which case they wouldn't be able to play anywhere in the top five tiers
  • apply stringent conditions to the licence, in order for the club to compete
  • levy very heavy fines against the club in question (up to 10% of turnover, I think)
  • in extremis, require the current owner to divest himself of his holding in the club **

** complicated in this case by who the owners actually are, as the IFR is obliged under the Bill (clause 37) to take account of UK trade and foreign policy in making their decisions. I assume that this Clause is there specifically for cases such as Newcastle and City, where the owners of the club are viewed as a de facto arm of their country's Government.

It's not a provision I like very much, but equally you can't have a football regulator effectively making decisions that cut across policy in these two areas. Maybe it's an argument against allowing ownership of these key community assets to go to such institutions in the first place - again, there will be a remedy in the Bill that addresses this in the future.

All the above is in addition to any punishment the EPL could impose "on the field".

City are of course innocent until proved guilty. There are two very unusual aspects to their case :

- the number of charges, and the longevity of them. This club is accused of rule-breaking going back well over a decade
- the fact that around a third of the charges are about withholding of or concealing evidence, or not being truthful about it. This would be viewed as egregious behaviour, if proven

The idea that Forest and Everton have "done nothing wrong" is just bollocks. They have both been found guilty of breaching EPL rules and the evidence is clear. Bear in mind, these are rules that the owners of ALL EPL clubs agreed should be put in place and / or agreed to be bound by on entering the EPL. I think you could mount a case for saying that the decisions about the severity of sanctions applied in each case are flawed, but there is absolutely no question that both are guilty.
Click to expand...
Sorry ,I like your post and you are very knowledgable ,but I was just wondering how city would be punished as I can't think of anyway in doing so that would fit the cheating.
 
Owners should be allowed to spend what the hell they want on the team BUT it shouldn't be allowed to go on the books as debt.
No issues with infrastructure as debt.

The money will then have been taxed not shifted from one company to another to avoid paying it, if then the owner runs out of money etc the club isn't shafted because they've spent too much on players.
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
Sorry ,I like your post and you are very knowledgable ,but I was just wondering how city would be punished as I can't think of anyway in doing so that would fit the cheating.
Click to expand...

WoT

I set out four things that the regulator could do in the bullets. Although they are caveated because of who the owners are, they are all potentially very serious.

The issue that interests me is that where (for example) :

  • City gets found guilty of multiple charges
  • they get a heavy fine (tens of millions)
  • the fine is accompanied by stringent licence conditions....
  • but the Regulator allows the club to continue to keep its license to complete

That puts the ball back in the EPL's court in terms of on-field sanctions. And if a small overspend (by Everton) rates six points, what do dozens of financial breaches and an attempted cover up (if proved) merit? Swindon got relegated for far less.
 
A substantial points deduction, which, whilst unlikely to relegate them, would mean that they would not qualify for Europe, the following season, which of course would have a massive financial impact and potentially result in some of the best players, leaving the club as they would not wish to miss out on Champions League football

I suspect that won’t happen as we do not want to upset the states who own these clubs, as they might not buy any more fighter jets off us
 
basilrobbie3 said:
(1). You sound like one of those people who think football started in 1992.

(2) Actually, the regulatory environment that exists now is not fit for purpose precisely because the nature of ownership and financial and accounting management has become very complex and the rules are not designed to cope with them. See the impotence of the EFL in dealing with Reading, for example. It will be interesting to see how much of the EPL and EFL rule books get quietly ditched once the Regulator is in place.

As for "nonsense rules" - I agree with you to some extent, albeit I think probably for different reasons. The point is that every rule that the EPL has created was supported and voted for by at least two thirds of them, otherwise it wouldn't be a rule. If they are nonsense, it is nonsense that the EPL owners created themselves.
Click to expand...
Not really, football has always been the same clubs spend money on players

I remember the first million pound transfer i also remember Villa, Blackburn, Leeds and Leicester all winning the top league after spending money on better players so they could compete with the biggest clubs

You sound like a communist to be honest, all clubs need to be equal, I hate to break it to you but that isn't the way of the world quite yet and no matter how much you bang on about a regulator fixing things that you think are broken with a magic wand it really isn't going to make a jot of difference to the things you and your ilk hate about modern football
 
Last edited:
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
I have just read that as a punishment to Manchester City for all their rule breaking ,they may be dropped to Division 1 . If this were the case , they would have a record number of wins , go down in history as the greatest club ever to be in division 1 and probably improve their fan base because people jump on the band wagon . This also would not take into account the bashings that some teams will get along the way .
I was just wondering if any body can think of a fair punishment for City which they would not benefit at all from . I am at a loss ,because the players they have done nothing wrong so they should not be punished in respect to being allowed to play and getting their wages.
The only way I can think of is that the top players can go out on loan to whichever club of their choice and their wages are paid by City and City are band from the football league for 5 years . Then only the club and owners are punished . I am pretty sure that can't happen though.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, any points deduction for City will be split equally between Everton and Forest. They are only little clubs according to the FA Chief...
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
So the club keeps the money they won through cheating , they keep the fan base they have built by winning and the punishment is don't do it again.
These fans you are worried about have had the last few years of glory stolen from other teams and yet no one feels sorry for the fans who have been broken by being a league runner up or a cup finalist loser. I am sure the Watford fans would not agree when losing 5-0 in a cup final.
Click to expand...
you say the clubs keep the money they won but isn't this what it's all about? Have they not spent way more than they've won? Generally agree with Phil. It goes back way before the advent of the EPL that the big teams had a financial advantage over the lesser ones.' As some-one said above as long as any debt is the owners debt rather than the clubs, does it matter how much an owner spends. Let's face it, i daresay Sadler spends a signifcant amount more than the owners of L2 clubs and a good few in our division too. Don't see too much moaning about that!
 
If the rules that are there are broken then it follows that the clubs have to be punished. Otherwise what is the point in having them? The FFP rules in the EFL seem to be gradually reigning in the reckless spending of clubs chasing the Premier League riches but it is still not a level playing field because parachute payments give the relegated EPL clubs an unfair advantage.
 
20togo said:
you say the clubs keep the money they won but isn't this what it's all about? Have they not spent way more than they've won? Generally agree with Phil. It goes back way before the advent of the EPL that the big teams had a financial advantage over the lesser ones.' As some-one said above as long as any debt is the owners debt rather than the clubs, does it matter how much an owner spends. Let's face it, i daresay Sadler spends a signifcant amount more than the owners of L2 clubs and a good few in our division too. Don't see too much moaning about that!
Click to expand...
I am assuming that the clubs have kept within the leagues guidelines ,but you are right about it not being a level playing field . The problem we have now though is that other clubs have been punished for over spending in a lot smaller way then City and also not tried to cover it up.
 
Raging_Bull said:
A similar punishment was meted out to Saracens in rugby union's Gallagher Premiership, they were demoted to the first division a couple of years ago, but it then begs the question is it fair on teams in that division to get trampled on by one of the best teams in Europe never mind the Premiership, Saracens who are now back in the Premiership put 50 points on Harlequins last weekend so you can imagine what they did to teams lower down.

There has to be a more appropriate punishment but I'm struggling to come up with one that is fair on everyone besides the obvious financial hit.
Click to expand...
Financial hit for city but sell out crowds for the rest.
Took Glasgow Rangers some time to recover
 
20togo said:
you say the clubs keep the money they won but isn't this what it's all about? Have they not spent way more than they've won? Generally agree with Phil. It goes back way before the advent of the EPL that the big teams had a financial advantage over the lesser ones.' As some-one said above as long as any debt is the owners debt rather than the clubs, does it matter how much an owner spends. Let's face it, i daresay Sadler spends a signifcant amount more than the owners of L2 clubs and a good few in our division too. Don't see too much moaning about that!
Click to expand...
Yep some proper hypocrites on this thread

If Sadler decided to really bank role us and get back to back promotions by out spending our rivals would people really complain?

Its also worth noting that some of the loudest on this thread don't even watch even watch top level football
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
They haven't done anything wrong

They pay their taxes unlike some clubs and have funded great facilities and infrastructure projects in the area

They have broken into the elite in Europe and the UK and the bigger clubs and authorities don't like it

I think it's a fantastic story disrupting the status quo and in particular upsetting millions of scousers whilst they are at it

Why shouldn't billionaire owners be allowed to spend their own money, if this new idea gets off the ground regarding turnover and percentage spend the whole top division will be ruined and competition completely effected and diluted

Football in this country is fantastic why on earth are people trying to ruin it will these stupid rules

For the record i don't think Everton or Forest should have points deductions either as they both have wealthy enough owners to fund their spends
Click to expand...
Spot on, united 750m in the red consistently but don't fall foul because they have been since the rules were introduced. it sucks and the Prem are playing massive games with the rules.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Yep some proper hypocrites on this thread

If Sadler decided to really bank role us and get back to back promotions by out spending our rivals would people really complain?

Its also worth noting that some of the loudest on this thread don't even watch even watch top level football
Click to expand...
I don't get it either.

Portsmouth and Bolton bring more money than us because we get 10k and them 20k for home games and if Sadler wants to level that up with his own money so be it.

Same in the PL where you've the farcical situation of the Newcastle owners who want to spend like Man Utd but can't and may have to sell to bring in more talent.

What's the point in having rich owners?
 
poolseasider said:
I don't get it either.

Portsmouth and Bolton bring more money than us because we get 10k and them 20k for home games and if Sadler wants to level that up with his own money so be it.

Same in the PL where you've the farcical situation of the Newcastle owners who want to spend like Man Utd but can't and may have to sell to bring in more talent.

What's the point in having rich owners?
Click to expand...
Me neither. Isn't the pretend reason for these rules supposed to be that owners could run up huge debts and then walk away leaving the club insolvent which can't be allowed to happen because football is "special"?

IMO this is nonsense on so many levels. How likely is it a really big club like City or Newcastle couldn't find alternative investment if KSA or UAE pulled out? Even if they couldn't so what? You can always start again at the bottom. Rangers did this. The world goes on. Some City fans might like it and a lot of the rest would trade that risk for all the success they've had. Apparently they need to be protected from their owners though lol. I also thought KSA and UAE were only in it for sportswashing so I am supposed to believe they would cause a diplomatic incident by pulling the plug on the club (sportsbrowning)! Ludicrous. While we are at it football clubs are hardly critical national infrastructure! And, yes, of course I don't want to see clubs go bankrupt and people suffer just like any other business. Whereas those arguing for these nonsense regulations seem to have a different view that football clubs can't go under and must be protected but not other businesses!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top