The Kippax Files (Man City Are Cheaters Thread)

[John Arne]

Man City charged with 100 beaches of Premier League rules.

Now, whilst my usual attitude would be "they'll get a fine, everything will continue".... But given the number of offences and the specificity of those charges, I reckon this may just stick (#naive).

The full statement:


In accordance with Premier League Rule W.82.1, the Premier League confirms that it has today referred a number of alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules by Manchester City Football Club (Club) to a Commission under Premier League Rule W.3.4.
Details of the Premier League Rules that the Club is alleged to have breached are as follows:
1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.75 (amended to C.79 from 10 September 2009 for the remainder of Season 2009/10) and C.80;
(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, E.3, 4, E.11 and E.12;
(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;
(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules 15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;
(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and
(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, 3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.
2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and
(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;
(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and
(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.
3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:
(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and
(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.
4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:
(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and
(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.
5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:
(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16; and
(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16.
Commissions are independent of the Premier League and member clubs. The members of the Commission will be appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel, in accordance with Premier League Rules W.19, W.20 and W.26.
The proceedings before the Commission will, in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82, be confidential and heard in private. Under Premier League Rule W.82.2, the Commission’s final award will be published on the Premier League’s website.
This confirmation is made in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82.1. The Premier League will be making no further comment in respect of this matter until further notice.


I reckon they'll relegate them to the Championship, Pep will take the moral high ground and resign, Tuchel then leads the club to a record 117 pts in the Championship.

Life goes on.

[Ben]

There's some serious allegations there. Even five charges relate to the current season (albeit "lesser" charges), which might be an indicator they get something more than a trivial punishment.

We lol at Italy but at least they have the balls to dock points.

[John Arne]

Apparently 12 players (or 12 instances) were paid money offshore... If they can get those players to snitch - hard for City to deny. Same with the dodgy payments to Mancini.

[Gray Fox]

It should definitely be a watershed moment.

You'd imagine with the scale of the breaches and with the Premier League having sunk 4/5 years into getting to this, a simple small fine will not suffice.

I don't think the Premier League have the Stones to go so far as to relegate, but then how much of a points deduction is a fair one? I think we're heading for something like a 10 points deduction coupled with an unprecedented fine.

The interesting thing then becomes what happens next? If they're found guilty then I should imagine there will be a few select clubs that will be lawyering up if the punishment is not severe.

[Baz]

I'm not going to pretend to understand it, but have they basically spent more money than they were allowed?

[Gray Fox]

I'm not going to pretend to understand it, but have they basically spent more money than they were allowed?

They were doing a lot of saying they were paying players/staff one thing, but then actually paying them again in secret to keep it off the books.

[Ben]

I'm not going to pretend to understand it, but have they basically spent more money than they were allowed?

Nah it's more than that. They did this before and ultimately got away with it. This is some more shady stuff.

[Luke Emia]

I think for me it sits more in a position of if they hadn't done what they did in the early 2010's they wouldn't be where they are now in terms of being a bit of a footballing behemoth. The stuff now about them having the highest turnover in the world is ridiculous for everyone to see based on the fact that nearly every one of their sponsorships seems to be linked to Abu Dhabi and my frustration as a Liverpool fan is how are you supposed to compete with a club who can basically doctor their income to be whatever they want it to be on an annual basis.

As for the end game I have a feeling this will end up in the same place as the Uefa ruling they will find them guilty and then they will just appeal and appeal until they get out of it on a technicality.

[Giggles]

Be class if they were relegated.

[Jimmy Floyd]

As mentioned in the other thread, what's particularly interesting to me is not so much what will happen to them as why the Premier League are so keen to haul them into the dock, and, in turn, what City's response will be.

[Ian]

Ronay's piece on it said that the previous case was overturned basically on technicalities and lack of evidence but CAS made a point of saying the UEFA charges weren't frivolous.

Also makes the point that the difference between UEFA and the Premier League is that the Premier League's members (i.e. the clubs) also have motivation here because if City get hit hard then most of them will probably think they benefit to lesser or greater extents.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The other thing that came to mind is that the PIF (and potentially Chelsea and other ownerships) will be looking on with interest at this. If City get pulled up for 100 charges of financial trickery then it becomes pretty clear that that era is now over and they're going to have to justify what they spend.

[Kikó]

It's pretty obvious that their best players never had their heads turned during the years at the club because clubs like Real and Barcelona knew they couldn't complete financially. Really they should be properly punished but city will fight for everything.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Reading through the Blue Moon thread, I was expecting the usual modern football fan tribal ostrichery, but there's very little of that. It's all doom and gloom, as Jeff would say.

[SvN]

It's pretty obvious that their best players never had their heads turned during the years at the club because clubs like Real and Barcelona knew they couldn't complete financially. Really they should be properly punished but city will fight for everything.

It feels like Bernardo Silva has wanted to go to Barca for 5 years now.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The one thing that does hold up reading through City fan reactions though (and this is true of every single fanbase when their time comes) is that they believe that this turn of events tallies with recent refereeing decisions they perceive to have gone against them, as if fucking Jon Moss is some kind of outrider for the Premier League's legal department.

It's so laughable.

[SvN]

I also saw some references on BlueMoon to the announcement being made on the anniversary of the Munich air disaster.

[Kikó]

Howard Webb has gone too far this time.

[Lewis]

Twenty-two times Man United. Jose Mourinho does it again. :cool:

[Spikey M]

They should get the Juventus / Rangers treatment and get punted to League 2, but at worst they'll be given a points deduction next season. Wouldn't be surprised if they just get a fine.

[Giggles]

Rangers were just a new club starting off again weren’t they? Rather than an actual FA punishment.

[Dark Soldier]

They're fucked

https://twitter.com/AdamJoseph____/status/1622889676855197697?t=jVnAdcuyH5G3t5CidKx9Rg&s=19

[niko_cee]

If all of their titles get wiped do the players have to give the medals back?

:happycry:

Oh Raheem.


Twenty-two times Man United. Jose Mourinho does it again. :cool:

He should insist on being presented with the trophy.

[niko_cee]

Rumour seems to be spreading that Pep will walk. :drool:

[Yevrah]

They're fucked

https://twitter.com/AdamJoseph____/status/1622889676855197697?t=jVnAdcuyH5G3t5CidKx9Rg&s=19

One thing that crossed my mind was the use of the phrase by the Premier League of “true and fair view”, which is what their actual accounts should represent. So if they’ve lied to the PL then presumably they’ve had to lie to the body of whatever jurisdiction their accounts and taxes are filed in (UK?).

Which I think makes them utterly fucked, on more than just a sporting front.

[Ben]

This is all over the media now but there's absolutely nothing on the BBC website about it. Weird one, it's way beyond speculation now.

[Yevrah]

This is all over the media now but there's absolutely nothing on the BBC website about it. Weird one, it's way beyond speculation now.

Am I imagining things or was it there before and they've made a call to remove all coverage of it?

[Jimmy Floyd]

There was something on there yesterday but it seems to have completely disappeared. Very strange. Maybe legal are all over it.

Very odd given that Sky Sports (just a random one I checked for comparison) have a lead item of 'PL clubs want City kicked out of league if guilty'.

[phonics]

It's right here on the front page under 'Top Stories': https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64536785

[Jimmy Floyd]

That's yesterday's news piece, they have done no follow-up or coverage whatsoever and left that to drop well down the agenda behind Chris Sutton's FA Cup replay predictions, Chelsea hiring a new 'mental skills coach', and the medical exploits of little-known RB Leipzig squad members.

[Kikó]

You'd think HMRC would be all over this unless we don't want to anger an important ally.

[niko_cee]

I suppose it depends if the 'off-payroll' element of this is also not being declared [ie is perhaps being done through offshore entities] or if it isn't.

I guess it also raises the interesting question as to the other Abu Dhabi group companies involved. I mean, if Etihad Airways and the Satellite people were having to conceal bungs through their company accounts [which is what a lot of those emails point to - ie money in, money out, sounds a bit like laundering] then does that have regulatory implications for them? The Premier League must have some fairly compelling evidence you would think, but what is the evidential standard? And also, what is the procedure? Did someone say there was no onward appeal to CAS if City are deemed guilty [or whatever you want to call it]?

[Lofty]

You'd think HMRC would be all over this unless we don't want to anger an important ally.

It's not like the UK Government intervened on behalf of the Newcastle owners or anything after all. It will turn out we all have to pay City a new tax by way of apology.

[Giggles]

This is all over the media now but there's absolutely nothing on the BBC website about it. Weird one, it's way beyond speculation now.

Yeah they ran with yank lampard front and centre all morning. I had just assumed it was on my shitty international version.

Their ‘live’ ticket page was billed as the Leeds thing and this City thing, but I scrolled down for ages and not one mention of this.

[randomlegend]

1623000723012059138

Such a brilliant name.

[Ian]

The ultimate Pannick signing.

[Lewis]

1622548683077169153

Lord Pannick putting his invoice in.

[Manc]

You'd think HMRC would be all over this unless we don't want to anger an important ally.

Don's on the case as we speak.

[phonics]

1622548683077169153

Lord Pannick putting his invoice in.

Absolute meeting of the minds this group.

[Lewis]

The BBC explainer to all this is subtitled 'Potentially the biggest financial scandal in the Premier League's history'. Is there much competition? Peter Ridsdale's fish tank?

[Jimmy Floyd]

George Graham bungs, and Harry Redknapp's dog's bank account. That's about it.

[phonics]

Arsenal bribing their way into Division 1 having finished 6th that year is probably the only thing close to it.

Edit: oh premier league.

[Yevrah]

The BBC explainer to all this is subtitled 'Potentially the biggest financial scandal in the Premier League's history'. Is there much competition? Peter Ridsdale's fish tank?

They've clearly spent all day having the lawyers going over it and are still terrified.

[Bernanke]

Is this all just point deduction stuff? Some of those e-mails sound like they could result in criminal charges.

[Manc]

Kicked out of the sport for paying Mancini in Armani suits.

[niko_cee]

It is interesting to speculate on the nature of any sanctions that might come. The arrangement of football in England is fairly idiosyncratic in that the governing body isn't actually in charge of the top division, and the top division has little to no say over the rest of the pyramid - is that the case anywhere else? What I'm getting at is, does the Premier League have any power to actually banish City [in a Rangers/Juve style] of are they limited to relegating them, and then the ball's in the FA/EFL's court? Could the Premier League ban them from returning to the league for a given number of years [I would suggest 1 for every year they were up to this and that non-cooperation should be viewed in the same way as refusing to provide a sample]?

[phonics]

As long as they have 14 votes they can do literally whatever they want but if they lose a vote it can't be brought up for a period of time so they have to make sure they get it right first time.

[Yevrah]

The more I think about this the only real punishment that needs to be levied is stripping Man City of their titles. If the accusations are as bad in reality then they clearly cheated and I'm not sure what else is a worthy punishment. That's before you even get on to what to do with them going forward.

[Yevrah]

And I should add, of course, that what will actually happen is the mother of all legal battles that may never end.

[Baz]

If someone said to City “Soz lads you’ve now only won 1 league title. Please don’t do it again” are they really that arsed?

They deserve Rangersing.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It is interesting to speculate on the nature of any sanctions that might come. The arrangement of football in England is fairly idiosyncratic in that the governing body isn't actually in charge of the top division, and the top division has little to no say over the rest of the pyramid - is that the case anywhere else? What I'm getting at is, does the Premier League have any power to actually banish City [in a Rangers/Juve style] of are they limited to relegating them, and then the ball's in the FA/EFL's court? Could the Premier League ban them from returning to the league for a given number of years [I would suggest 1 for every year they were up to this and that non-cooperation should be viewed in the same way as refusing to provide a sample]?

Permanent ban on the playing of football in that part of Manchester.

[John Arne]

I wonder if anything is ever going to happen on this...

[Ian]

I assume they're still just busy lawyering it into the ground and ensuring any progress there is in the case is as slow as possible.

[John Arne]

Yup. They'll be an announcement in 2027 that Man City have had 4pts deducted from the 2017/18 Premier League season.

[niko_cee]

I missed the part of this story [last week] where the British Government is now involved as it sounds like there is a fear this could damage relations between the two states.

Which seems odd seeing as we were promised a complete exoneration.

[Spikey M]

And this is exactly why politics shouldn't be allowed in football. I always said those rainbow flags were a slippery slope to... erm... Saudi Wealth Funds.

[Yevrah]

Politics should only have an impact at a governance level where things cut across the rules of engagement within the country in general, but beyond that it should literally just be about the sport itself.

Wellness needs to go the same way as well. I don't watch cricket, but a mate of mine is massively into it and apparently for the test match there was a massive focus on prostate cancer, with the wife of a dead player being wheeled out to promote 'awareness' (we're all now very aware of everything so this needs to stop too), resulting in two hours of cricket, one hour of cancer based death talk. I mean, why on earth would anyone want to settle down on a Sunday after a tough week of work to listen to that depressing shit?

[Lofty]

The oil money cock has barbs so I doubt the government will be willing to remove it from their arse anytime soon.

[Lewis]

We could have themed 'rounds' like rugby does. The cancer round. Mental Health round. Something celebrating grooming gangs instead of the Australian indigenous beano. 'Women in Football'. NHS round.