OV9

To be clear, I'm absolutely not defending the cheating at all.

My point is that the potential economic and social consequences of any punishment, at both a local and national level, absolutely dictate that there's no way the Government can't be involved, at some point. Most of my points above have been dismissing Dinny's assertion that the economics of Man City and Manchester are in any way "small" or very localised.

Burnham was clumsy in his interview - possibly because Chris Mason was the first interviewer that asked him about it. Watching Newscast last night and Chris Mason figured all the questions regarding the conference had already been asked, but no one had asked Burnham about the news that had come out about City or Fairford. Hence he piled a few questions on him. I suspect that caught him on the hop and, trying to maintain his image as a "man of the people" he completely fluffed his response. I'm no fan of Burnham, by any stretch, but I don't think he meant how it came across - I genuinely think he was trying to give a fairly flat, unopinionated response to a question and ballsed it up.

Imo he needs to bear in mind now that he can't throw the former Manchester Mayor label into every response or that he's a man of the people - he's the bloody Prime Minister and sometimes that requires a more Prime Ministerial response.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 10:02 am have been dismissing Dinny's assertion that the economics of Man City and Manchester are in any way "small" or very localised.

to be clear, I never said that the Economy of Manchester is small - I said that the Football club Manchester City's contributions were relatively small and certainly so in the context of the nation as a whole.

And the reality isn't an ALL / NOTHING scenario - if the owners pull out, someone else will buy the club. Sure the investment will be reduced but it's not like the City is going to go into freefall if Abu Dhabi decides to push investment elsewhere - as has been suggested by more than one City fan.

I believe their case for defending themselves from the charges is that monetary payments made to the sponsors in order for them to over pay on their deals were not actually paid by the club owners but and entity linked to the Abu Dhabi government (or the government itself).

Even if this were to get them off from a legal stand point, it's the most obvious cheating anyone has ever got away with.

No doubt the wealthy owners of City have never been told no or told off in their life no matter what they do, just like the other reprehensible behaviour we see from some of the ultra wealthy (naming no names). So they never believed they wouldn't be able to just cheat and buy their way out later.

It almost feels like a national identity struggle, I think as a nation we do have some heritage of believing in fairness, it's whether we've lost it or not.

I haven't, and I believe being punished is a victory for fairness.

duncs500 wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 12:33 pm I believe their case for defending themselves from the charges is that monetary payments made to the sponsors in order for them to over pay on their deals were not actually paid by the club owners but and entity linked to the Abu Dhabi government (or the government itself).

Which is utter horse-shite. Because:

a. The club is owned by the Abu Dhabi government and so are these other entities. That's like trying dodge Company Car Tax by saying the car wasn't paid for by the company but by the company owner separately.

b. why not say that in 2020 when first charged - or any time or tribunal since ??

and

c. why fiddle the books and not declare it at the time if it's legal - why "pretend" other companies, unrelated to the owners, had paid more than they actually had

I too believe in fairness so I hope to almighty God several books are thrown at them...

dinny_g wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 11:56 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 10:02 am have been dismissing Dinny's assertion that the economics of Man City and Manchester are in any way "small" or very localised.

to be clear, I never said that the Economy of Manchester is small - I said that the Football club Manchester City's contributions were relatively small and certainly so in the context of the nation as a whole.

And the reality isn't an ALL / NOTHING scenario - if the owners pull out, someone else will buy the club. Sure the investment will be reduced but it's not like the City is going to go into freefall if Abu Dhabi decides to push investment elsewhere - as has been suggested by more than one City fan.

The issue is less whether the owners pull out of the club and and another takes it on, but the UAE's funding of the UK as a whole and also what the extent of punishment might be to MC. If they're dumped entirely out of the league to effectively start again, as some would have it, then that absolutely would have an impact on many aspects such as employment, contribution to the local economy etc.

As to whether we're happy to piss of the UAE and turn those taps off is something for us all to likely disagree on.

ETA: Either way - there absolutely are political implications in this.

duncs500 wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 12:33 pm I haven't, and I believe being punished is a victory for fairness.

Let's not bring fairness into this debate. The SCR rules and those that preceded them are structurally setup to benefit the larger legacy clubs such as Liverpool and Man U. As a result their spending power dwarfs that of many other PL clubs, and that's how you end up with the likes of Aston Villa having to sell almost all of their squad. See also Newcastle.

That would be true apart form the fact that Bournemouth, Brighton, Brentford, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds. all voted to KEEP the current PSR rules, rather than the new SCR rules...

The rules are designed to prevent boom and bust financing which risks clubs going out of business. ANY club can climb to the top of the pyramid but it has to be done right and there are no guarantees and for some it may never happen. I'd say Brighton and Brentford are on their way but still, may not happen for them.

But the key this is it takes time - there is no fast track way to do this. You can't go from mid table to the top in 5 years. It took Arsenal 20+ years to win again, once the rules came in, by playing by the book.

Spurs (although they're struggling now) went from mid table to 2nd and a champions league final in 12 years. If they'd gone bugger the rules and kicked on and bought players they were' allowed to afford, then they might have gone all the way. But they didn't. But they've invested well, have revenue streams left right and centre and will no doubt get there over the next 10 years

dinny_g wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 1:28 pm That would be true apart form the fact that Bournemouth, Brighton, Brentford, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds. all voted to KEEP the current PSR rules, rather than the new SCR rules...

The rules are designed to prevent boom and bust financing which risks clubs going out of business. ANY club can climb to the top of the pyramid but it has to be done right and there are no guarantees and for some it may never happen. I'd say Brighton and Brentford are on their way but still, may not happen for them.

But the key this is it takes time - there is no fast track way to do this. You can't go from mid table to the top in 5 years. It took Arsenal 20+ years to win again, once the rules came in, by playing by the book.

Spurs (although they're struggling now) went from mid table to 2nd and a champions league final in 12 years. If they'd gone bugger the rules and kicked on and bought players they were' allowed to afford, then they might have gone all the way. But they didn't. But they've invested well, have revenue streams left right and centre and will no doubt get there over the next 10 years

Those 6 clubs are subject to SCR Dinny. PSR has gone.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 12:46 pm

duncs500 wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 12:33 pm I haven't, and I believe being punished is a victory for fairness.

Let's not bring fairness into this debate. The SCR rules and those that preceded them are structurally setup to benefit the larger legacy clubs such as Liverpool and Man U. As a result their spending power dwarfs that of many other PL clubs, and that's how you end up with the likes of Aston Villa having to sell almost all of their squad. See also Newcastle.

I agree with you about the rules being inequitable, but nevertheless they are the rules as agreed by a majority of clubs in the league.

I can only assume that you're a City fan, I think it's indefensible to anyone else.

They've acted completely outside the rules, surely you know that if they don't punish them in a significant way then there might as well not be any rules?

The precedent has been set with other clubs like Everton, and those clubs were far more cooperative about it and the breach far smaller.

The investment from their owners in Manchester is irrelevant and let's face it, wasn't done for philanthropic reasons. Let's not pretend if they were so butt-hurt they pulled out (which they won't) there wouldn't be a long line of billionaires ready and waiting. The club have a completely world class setup. Much like Chelsea when Abramovic left and the Americans jumped straight in.

Yeah I am aware of that Mervin...

The point being that these clubs ( or most of these clubs) have building there revenue streams carefully and systematically and creating more and more opportunity to buy and advance under PSR. They've been following rules that they believe are for the greater good (according to at least Brentford's chairman I heard in an interview)

SCR is much more year on year focused and, to a degree, sets them back a little and in effect, at least in their eyes, rewards clubs who haven't been investing properly.

duncs500 wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 1:53 pm I can only assume that you're a City fan, I think it's indefensible to anyone else.

They've acted completely outside the rules, surely you know that if they don't punish them in a significant way then there might as well not be any rules?

The precedent has been set with other clubs like Everton, and those clubs were far more cooperative about it and the breach far smaller.

The investment from their owners in Manchester is irrelevant and let's face it, wasn't done for philanthropic reasons. Let's not pretend if they were so butt-hurt they pulled out (which they won't) there wouldn't be a long line of billionaires ready and waiting. The club have a completely world class setup. Much like Chelsea when Abramovic left and the Americans jumped straight in.

I think I've been fairly clear that I'm not defending City. I am, for the umpteenth time, simply stating that the consequences of any punitive action taken against Manchester City will have an impact beyond football, and therefore will play into politics.

And no, not a City fan. My attention is focussed 3 divisions down

Proper football Merv...

dinny_g wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 2:54 pm Proper football Merv...

Hmmm. It doesn't look like it at times

I sort of follow 3 clubs actually - Oldham because that's where my family is from and where I was born. Rochdale because that's where I grew up. And Altrincham because that's where I now call home.

Which was interesting a couple of seasons ago when they were all in the NL. Now I just get to see Rochdale beat Latics.

Interesting piece on City's defence barrister Lord Pannick in the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/1 ... er-league/ *

Having seen KC's at work in planning appeals it can be truly impressive to watch them work. Their ability in particular to never forget any fact amongst thousands, and to weave people slowly into a corner.

Would love to be a fly on the wall with this one.

*before anyone says "paywall", just turn javascript off for that site.

The only thing I know about Oldham Athletic is the plastic pitch in the 80's