If there have been findings of fact for flagrancy and tax evasion within these proceedings, which it is strongly suspected there are, this is going to unfold into one great mess, HMRC and other clubs will surely come baying, and City are from here effectively non-viable as a commercial entity. Damages, fines and losses extending into the multi-Billions.
They’ll probably ask for a means test.
Yes they are leasing it, but as I already said they are still responsible for all operating and improvement costs. The money they have put into it dwarf the money sport England spent to build it
Spending on facilities has have never been part of the spending regulations.
That’s not the point. England spent 110m to build it way back in 98. City got the stadium for 20m in 2002 (just for the conversion of the mulltipurpose stadium to a football stadium). Then there was a lease amount (Which was more than generous prior to the Abu Dhabi invasion).
Increasing seat capacity and revenue is a part of FFP regulations. City had a build up stadium with a lot of area around it to expand.
I’ve made my argument already. City got a stadium (effectively for free) , Abu Dhabi when they came in got the stadium rights deals done (on a leased property), That gave them a savings of 12M per year (above the 3M lease which was to be paid to Manchester City). Add that to ten years.
You are deflecting saying spending on facilities isn’t a aprt of FFP regulations. It isn’t. But City had the liberty to spend on those because they got the stadium at a very low cost from the City. All the other clubs have had to use their money to build their stadiums to increase seats. Stadium revenue counts as FFP.
Arsenal under Wenger had to take years of being frugal because of a result of moving to a new stadium. That led to them losing quite a bit of league titles too. I do imagine quite a lot of Arsenal fans will be pissed at that too. Not to mention the players that City poached from Arsenal
Right, because the capital expenditure it took Arsenal to build the stadium impacted the football operation budget in a way that was never the case for a club owned by owners capable and willing to spend a billion quid of their own money.
The old owners got a good deal out of the stadium move. They moved into a better stadium that brought more revenue without having to pay much to do it. But that occurred years before their sheiks showed up. The money saved by them not building it themselves (10 years before these owners showed up) is trivial in terms of the financial success they’ve been able claim since. The better stadium argument is the change in location made the prospect of the expansion into the facility the new owners thought it needed to be way more feasible than if they were still in moss side
I just want to take the time to applaud the tribunal. It would have been far easier to fold to one of City’s legal arguments, just as that pathetic CAS tribunal did (well, 2 of the 3).
So, yeah, when I bump into them in the future they’re not paying for their drinks.
Also keep in mind when you see city’s statements playing the victim, talking about concerns with how the league have conducted the process and trying to take a moral high ground (ducking lol) remember the way they have actually conducted themselves from the start
https://x.com/sportingintel/status/2103808466439528526?s=61&t=VxX1vHU3NOwwNhlbyICG-g
The Erling enhancement
https://x.com/iamsanjaypatel/status/2103722561922293976?s=61&t=VxX1vHU3NOwwNhlbyICG-g
I’m just stating that the Arabs could invest in development centers etc while having a functional stadium that didn’t require too much of an expense.
They’ve committed to spending 300m now for the stadium expansion now after spending close to nothing on the stadium itself (not their wider campus area)
the other clubs didn’t have the liberty of having stadiums given to them at very generous prices.
The facts that the cheats misused the generosity of the city (by still getting in related parties as naming partners on a stadium they didn’t own) to boot has to be mentioned as well.
Man City are well within their rights to build their center of excellence. But they could only do that because they didn’t need to spend too much on the stadium for the first 10 years of their reign.
The club initially got such a boost up by the city. If it hadn’t been for that stadium deal , I don’t see sinawatra or abhu dhabi later buying the club in the first place.
Such deals shouldn’t happen anymore.
If the city is building a stadium for a purpose , it needs to be given to two teams to use. Not exclusive rights to one team.
What to expect from the first game back after this international break - I wonder who their opponents are…
And the most ironic part is that City would have gotten away on the stadium deal if they had kept their heads down and just concentrated on being a Brighton for the first 10 years.post the Arab takeover.
They flew too high , aimed too much and then burnt themselves.
Considering the cheating began at the start of this ownership, continuing for at least 8 years, then everything they have “achieved” since 2009 has been built on it even though the case applies to 2009-2018 only.
As a result everything should be taken away from them before they even look at punishment for breaking the rules.
If clubs are able to look for compensation but not awarded titles, where would players who lost out on winning titles/getting winnings/ improved contracts stand? Could an individual player/ group of players bring a case against city?
Yes, in theory, but that’s one of the reasons I think not reallocating titles (league placings etc) will be the way to go and, ironically, the preference for most clubs. Those relegated being a likely exception.
That way all players and managers got the compensation they were due so negates such a swathe of legal claims, which after all would be first against their respective clubs.
Live pictures from Enzo’s press conference…
