Liverpool are the team ‘we can all get behind’ as ‘Glazer ownership 2.0’ mooted in Man City punishment
Manchester City seem hellbent on ‘paralysing English football indefinitely,’ so a Liverpool-led boycott and forced Glazers sale should work.
Curiouser and curiouser This is really turning out to be a game of high stakes poker isn’t it! So now MCFC claim the money came from legitimate means. Given the vast resources of a nation state, there is NO WAY they could have fabricated this information, right? Then, their main sponsor is implying that the EPL is sullying THEIR NAME AND REPUTATION, implying they may sue the EPL! You can’t make this up!
If I was a MCFC fan, I would most certainly be asking why, if they knew they were innocent, they didn’t they cooperate and provide this evidence during the investigation and save everyone a lot of time, effort and litigation? Instead the club’s reputation has been sullied almost beyond repair and the fans, and to some extent even the players, are being castigated in the media.
When a bunch of old farts in blazers drinking PIMMS takes on a nation state, there is only going to be one outcome, isn’t there? So regardless of the outcome, the whole structure of ownership and financing needs to be completely overhauled. Maybe it’s time for the German “50% +1” model to be introduced together with requiring every club to publish their finances like any public corporation. Transparency is the only way forward. Adidasmufc (Meanwhile, no one is asking about how their women’s team is also suddenly going gang busters?)
Related party party Thought I’d sum up the latest on the Man City story for anyone interested, as it is all quite confusing.
First up, the Abu Dhabi government have threatened legal action against the premier league after they published the independent commission’s findings. They have insisted that they, the Abu Dhabi government, had no involvement with the industrial scale cheating carried out by the Abu Dhabi government.
Next, the Abu Dhabi government’s appeal against the guilty verdict is likely to centre around how it was the Abu Dhabi government who gave the £1bn to City and not, in fact, the Abu Dhabi government. Anyone who suggests otherwise can expect a call from the Abu Dhabi government’s lawyers.
Much love Simon Cochrane
Time for Liverpool to act Seems to me that this is about to get much more political in the negotiations over a punishment. The only way within our power to force a swift resolution is a boycott of man city games.
But something truly powerful that we can all get behind would be Liverpool walking off the pitch in the next match and the rest of the league refusing to play City until the sanctions are levied. At this point any effort on the pitch vs them could be null and void by January or the end of the season so as a team you may as well save your legs for the rest of your matches. I think we can all support Liverpool here as dirty as that may feel.
If we don’t force them to act swiftly they will get off lightly.
Forced sale will ultimately be the most probable end to this saga but given they purchased the club for 300m they are likely to make a tidy profit on their ownership regardless. Is it really a punishment if they can walk away with a stack of cash? Jdb
It’s just capitalism’s end game Just like Meta, OpenAI, JP Morgan, ExxonMobil, and the rest of your favourite oligarch-adjacent companies, the great players of Capitalism game don’t really believe in things like free markets, and competition, and any sort of rules-based order. They believe in their divine right to sit on the top of the pile, and will use whatever mechanisms available to exercise that right. It’s not the invisible hand of the market; it’s the secret hand of Mansour.
This is what Capitalism devolves into: a state of affairs where oligarchies, cartels, and feudal lords act with impunity while the rest of us grin a bear it. If might is right and cheating a synonym for doing what it takes, “fair competition” is an oxymoron. It’s a malaise much broader than football, but football has an actual chance to administer some medicine, to push back against the race to the bottom where the ends always justify the means, and say that some things, like the integrity of competition, matter more than the size of the wallet/carrot/stick waved in front of our faces.
Will we bottle it? André E
What happens next? I’m not going to add to the speculation on what the penalties should be for City’s fraudulent activity as its been done to death. What I’m more interested in at the moment is the fan reaction, both for City and more importantly other clubs.
Firstly on City fans. I know a few, both from over here and from back home in Manchester. The lads in Manchester are long time City supporters who did go to Maine Rd, have seen them in good days and bad days, and know where Port Vale is. These lads are quiet – they’re upset but also disillusioned that their club has led them down the garden path for so long. That disappointment is slowly turning to anger. The City fans that I know in Canada are newer, attracted by the glory obviously. I’m not criticizing that (god knows there’s enough that follow United) but these newer fans are either in denial or pushing back on the news as the rules are unfair and more bullsh*t about red cartels (btw on the definition of cartel – anyone that thinks United and Liverpool are in a cartel together when they won’t even transfer between the 2 teams for over 60 years is delusional).
Secondly – other fans, and especially in the ground for their next 3 League games. Obviously I’m not a fan of Liverpool but I expect the kop to absolutely rinse City for 90 minutes. Full on, loud and angry and calling them what they are. Next home game in PL is Ipswich. They can’t sell out those games anyway so how many empty seats will the glory hunters leave now that the club is tarnished. Then they are away at Villa, and we have already seen how furious some of their fans are over the sales of Villa key players over the years. Expect that to be another loud and angry crowd. It will be compelling watching it and TV companies should be showing it as raw as it comes.
Then what – how does this abuse affect performance (and it will be abuse because the players may be innocent, and I say maybe, but they represent the tarnished edifice)? How many games will some of City players take before they get stressed at having to perform in front of thousands of people spouting vitriolic anger at them and the club they represent? Everyone will be mocking them at the very least. I don’t think this is where a siege mentality can be built – its overwhelming and they have nothing to defend anyway in terms of the club’s reputation. I’d expect many of them to be below 100% performance when faced with all this. I would have thought that any player that signed for City in the past year or two while under investigation would have had a get-out clause in the contract – if the club are found guilty then its a breach of contract and they can leave. if that’s true, then the ramifications will be very interesting to watch over the next weeks and months.
Not that I give a s**t anyway. Screw ’em
cheers Steve (ex-Flixton Red), Ontario
Ok so seriously now, what is going to happen for the rest of the season?
How can a club that’s been found guilty of 114 breaches of rules be allowed to keep playing as though nothing has happened?
Usually, in a normal court, the guilty party would be either imprisoned awaiting sentencing or certainly be barred from continuing in the meantime.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the sentencing ends up with exclusion from the league, presumably all clubs be awarded two wins regardless of matches already played? Great in the league but useless for cups.
Assuming for the sake of argument that it ends up with just a points deduction (80 cases at 6-10 points a pop spread over a few years), then it means clubs have to field teams against a team that is known to have cheated. How do you mentally prepare for that?
Honestly, this lack of clarity hurts my head. Badwolf
I’ve been thinking of the potential fall out of all of this.
Let’s imagine I used to be a footballer. Life isn’t as easy as it used to be.Bills have to be paid. Kids have to be brought up etc.
Back in my previous life Man City caused me to lose out on a win bonus, an end of season bonus, a potential better career because of results involving them.
They are now found guilty of cheating. There are both actual losses and potential losses caused by their behaviour. Legally, I can now sue them for missed earnings and missed potential earnings.
How many of these players exist?
How many clubs are going to sue?
In what happened when Boehly and Blueco got hit with Romans penalties at Chelsea, who in their right mind would take City on in a purchase?
Is there a world where the city group decide, this isn’t worth it anymore, and just fold the club? Barry
Hi
Man City allegedly put £900m into the club illegally, what if there was a way to take that money out of the club you ask? Introducing The Glazer ownership 2.0. What if the Glazers take ownership of City (leverage buyout of course, no personal capital required) and load debt on the club. Their profits would have to be given to charity is my only caveat. Dale (I knew the Glazers would be useful for something) Denton.
Working class heroes Dear Ed,
The Premier League is currently sleepwalking into a crisis of its own making. The endless debate over Manchester City’s financial breaches is trapped in a false binary that actually suits the “posh bastards” either we hit them with a massive present-day points deduction, or we strip their past titles. The money interest wants a mere point deduction.
If the league goes with a current-season points penalty, they reduce the entire 38-game calendar to a complete farce. Every match becomes a meaningless bureaucratic exercise, destroying the integrity of the current competition while unfairly victimizing a modern squad of blameless players who had absolutely nothing to do with executive fraud committed a decade ago.
But if the league simply strips titles, City’s army of lawyers will tie them up in a multi-year war of High Court injunctions, paralyzing English football indefinitely.
The solution is a legal “double down”—using the points deduction not as the immediate punishment, but as a brutal compliance enforcer. The independent panel needs to grow a backbone and issue a “Comply or Dissolve” verdict:
The Substantive Sanction (Historical Erasure): The league immediately strips City of their 2011/12, 2013/14, and 2017/18 titles. The history books must be explicitly rewritten: either the winner column is left entirely Null & Void (blanked out) to reflect a decade of compromised competition, or the trophies are directly reallocated to the runners-up—handing Manchester United and Liverpool their rightful silverware. This strikes directly at the pride, legacy, and global branding clout the ownership regime sought to buy.
The Enforcement Trigger (The Suspended Points Penalty): The league hands down a massive 100-point deduction, but suspends it entirely on the condition of absolute compliance. The exact moment City’s lawyers file a High Court injunction to block the title-stripping, or the board refuses to physically surrender the trophies, the 100-point penalty instantly triggers on the current active season.
This framework completely paralyzes City’s legal team. It makes the wealthy manipulators of the game in the boardrooms squirm. They are presented with a catastrophic ultimatum: swallow the historical humiliation of losing past silverware, or pull the trigger on their own current sporting demise, forcing immediate relegation and a total player exodus.
If the Premier League wants a swift, definitive resolution that targets the true corporate architects of this scandal rather than the players on the grass, this is how you deliver a priceless loss of face without poisoning the careers and hopes of the players today. Regards, Dan McG LFC
City’s razor
A couple of years ago I wrote in as I was getting sick of the City fans claiming WITCHHUNT and racist anti Arab positions as reasons why the Premier League published the accusations. Back then I used the Occam’s Razor principle (the most simple and logical position is often the most likely) to argue that there was no benefit for the Premier League to damage their own business and risk high legal costs if they didn’t believe they were in a strong position with enough evidence to prove it. Obviously some City fans didn’t agree. But even without knowing the ins and outs it was pretty logical that City couldn’t have generated the income they reported without something going on in the background. Again, that was apparently how marketing works and it was all above board. Guess not, what a surprise!
Anyway, moving on to the next step and assuming City’s defense of, “it wasn’t the owner, but it was the owner’s owner pumping in the money” doesn’t work, we can use the same principle to speculate what the punishment will be.
Personally I think they need to be punished to the full extent that is possible to be made an example of. Anything else will be even more damaging to the league and “product” and will cost the league and clubs more in total revenue in the long run. I just can’t see how the Premier could go through all of this, become a global news story and then end with a pathetic punishment. I’m not really sure how much of a draw City actually are for football supporters, as has been stated by others. They seem to barely register in most metrics. “Oh you won the treble? Sorry forgot.” So that doesn’t seem to be a worthwhile argument. If City get a single relegation and are back up after a year I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people, myself included, just couldn’t be bothered to watch the league anymore. If you can arguably cheat for 15+ years (including the period after the charges) and it only costs you a season what is the point of playing by the rules? And what is the point of even bothering to waste your time and money watching it as a supporter? So that seems a punishment that just doesn’t fit. Anything regarding transfer bans and fines is just meaningless to me.
So what would be a logical punishment? I would say expulsion from the EPL and EFL, as I think for the health of the league it needs to have a certain amount of time to reform / repair and been seen as fair and competitive again. There will likely be some lingering fallout with potential legal cases, so there needs to be enough time to sort all that out and have City out of the picture. 5 years, and a climb back up the leagues feels like a fair punishment, and enables City to reform and start from scratch with a clean slate. Assuming they aren’t sued into oblivion. Banning the owners and all that also needs to be part of it.
Let the fans have the club back, maybe introduce the German model, and make sure the current owners leave a good budget in the club so they have a decent chance of coming back healthy. Then they will have done their time, taken their punishment and have proven to be worth their place in the Premier League (if they manage to get back up). Dean LFC
What if they just let Manchester City just disappear out of spite?
A quick tab through the required “if” and “if” and “if” and “if”, but should the charges hold, then I can’t understand how a change of ownership won’t be mandated.
But here’s the thing: what if the FA and Premier League refuse either league involvement or accreditation to compete in any of their competitions until the ownership changes….And the owners don’t care; don’t sell.
Obviously this is hyperbole, and extremist, and worst case, but what exactly could happen to prevent a future where City remain a club without an ability to play a game? They give up rent on their stadium. They hold players to their registrations and don’t sell them until their contracts expire. They close their academy complex and lock the doors. A fit of pique, and they just let the club die on the vine.
What exactly could a regulator, or a government do? Chelsea was a mix of discredited ownership, with now-limited political influence, plus wartime over-reach. The UK government isn’t going to compulsory purchase anything from a Gulf State. The PM’s stance (likely influenced as former Mayor of Manchester, and current head-on-a-stick for the oligarchies that fund everything) that he would not automatically support a change of ownership was pretty weak, pathetic, and dispiriting.
I thought the same thing when Newcastle was bought; There is literally no way, at all, ever, to get the club off these people unless they want to sell. And if they don’t want to sell, the club stops. It’s not just sportswashing; It’s blackmail. Regardless of situation, the offshore owner of a deeply-held cultural asset like a football club retains all the power.
What price on the ‘true’ Manchester derby being FC United versus FC City in the Northern Premier League, in a few years. Could help Sir’Jim though, and instead of redeveloping Old Trafford he could move into a vacant stadium pretty much on the doorstep of Bank Street stadium, where United started. A nice historical return to home. I’m sure all concerned will be over the moon. Tom G
War and Peace – part II
Dear Ed,
Delighted Weldoninhio enjoyed my Tolstoy-esque War and Peace effort, because there’s an equally large contradiction in his response.
They begin by arguing that football has always been dominated by money. United, Liverpool et al have an entrenched advantage because their revenues allow them to spend more than Villa or Everton, and PSR is therefore anti-competitive because it prevents those clubs bridging the financial gap.
Fine. There’s a perfectly legitimate argument in there. But when confronted with the inconvenient fact that abolishing those restrictions would allow City and Newcastle to spend vastly more than Villa or Everton ever could, suddenly money isn’t quite so important:
‘Villa don’t need to have more money than Manchester City to win… They need better recruitment. Better coaching. Better development. They need to get more value from their resources.’
Well, which is it? If Villa can overcome City’s vastly greater resources through better recruitment, coaching and development, why can’t they overcome Liverpool or United’s greater revenues in exactly the same way?
If greater financial resources nevertheless give Liverpool and United a persistent structural advantage, then congratulations: you’ve arrived at my original point. Except you’re proposing removing the restrictions on the two clubs whose ultimate financial backing dwarfs everyone else’s.
So instead of the Super League Six, Red Cartel Three (it’s difficult to keep track of these cute names and who they refer to but I think it’s always Liverpool, Utd and Arsenal), perhaps we’d have the Petrostate Pair, The Gulf Two, or the State-backed Brothers?
Your proposal that owner investment must be gifted rather than loaded onto the club as debt is perfectly sensible as a sustainability measure. It does absolutely nothing about competitive balance.
Villa inject £300m. Newcastle inject £600m. Villa responds with £800m. Newcastle responds with £1.5bn. Nobody has incurred a penny of debt and Newcastle remain perfectly sustainable. But eventually Villa’s owners reach a meaningful financial limit while Newcastle’s state-backed ownership has resources on an entirely different scale with no limit. Now what? Presumably Villa just need to recruit better?
Nobody claims FFP/PSR creates financial equality. It doesn’t. But it does constrain how far financial inequality can translate directly into spending inequality. And your own historical argument is the best argument against your conclusion.
If, as you say, football has always been disproportionately dominated by the clubs with the greatest financial resources, why would removing restrictions on converting owner wealth into football expenditure make it less dominated by those with the greatest financial resources? That’s the bit I still don’t understand.
I don’t want the existing hierarchy frozen forever. I’d happily give Villa, Everton and other ambitious clubs substantially greater scope to invest and challenge it.
I just don’t think the solution to Manchester United having more money than Aston Villa is a system where everyone’s spending ceiling is determined by how rich their owner happens to be and instead of Utd now City and Newcastle have vastly more money than everyone not just the likes of Aston Villa.
Villa and Everton aren’t liberated from the financial hierarchy by removing FFP/PSR.
They’ve just swapped one hierarchy for another and under Weldoninhio’s proposed new world order they’re even further from the top of the new one.
Regards, Lindsay
The point of PSR
For those wondering what the purpose of FFP/PSR really is, it’s the concept that if you allow the running costs of a team to become higher than a non-artificial revenue, it can lead to disaster.
So hypothetically if a club owned by a state were to artificially pump up the revenue to match an enormous increase in costs, and then suddenly for a hypothetical reason said state isn’t there to do so next season, that club is at huge risk of going under.
I’m sure nothing like that will ever happen. Ryan, Bermuda
Advice to my 15-year-old self
I finally have the answer to the question ‘If you could go back in time what advice would you give your 15 year old self?’ Study sports law young man. It’s a growth industry.
Since I missed it – which of the 115 charges were City found not guilty of? Conor MAlone. Donegal.
Bored of the City thing
As a fan of a non-big six team, I have to agree with the WBA fan who says he’s not that bothered about the whole City thing.
First off, I totally agree that they’ve cheated and need to be heavily punished. But I just can’t get that worked up about it all. I’m not being wise after the event, but I always just assumed they were cooking the books so I don’t find it shocking. Yes, the numbers involved are enormous and bigger than I expected but honestly, once you get up to hundreds of millions, it all just becomes too much to comprehend really. I’m sure a lot of people also thought they were cheating but really I find it surprising how many people seem to be shocked by all this.
The game in this country (at least in the top division) has long ceased to be about community and the idea of a local businessman running a club. It’s full capitalism and something like this is just where that leads. If it wasn’t them, it would’ve been someone else, although probably not on that scale – just look at Chelsea (still amazed they got away with it), Forest, Everton (I think it was probably incompetence more than deliberate, but still), Liverpool with their hacking of the Man City database.
And then there’s the things that are done within the rules but against the spirit of them – Everton and Villa essentially swapping youth players in separate £9 million sales, Chelsea doing the same and also dishing out their 8 year contracts and hoovering up young talent, Arsenal with these shareholder loans, Man Utd with debt up to the eyeballs.
The Premier league is so amoral now that none of this City stuff is surprising and honestly I’m numb to all of it. So yeah, punish them etc etc, its what they deserve but as for the frothing outrage, I just don’t feel it.
