PED’s vs accounting errors can’t be compared

Either you didn’t watch the video or were too stupid to understand it

Ya I know. City fans think they're two completely different things.

two deleted comments, rattled city fans must have thrown slurs that got picked up by the KZfaq bots

@@devanman7920 city has never cheated before. 0 evidence

What is the supposed cheating? Spending less than United and Chelsea or trying to get past a rule designed to protect established clubs in an era where influence of money is rising day by day? Why wasn't FFP there pre City and Chelsea takeover? How has it stopped clubs from going in ridiculously bad financial situations exactly which was supposed to be its purpose? We have the example of Barcelona, Everton.. i'd argue even United are on the verge of mediocrity. The F1 argument doesn't really adds up because the players aren't exactly using any illegal technology on the pitch. You're comparing two completely different scenarios. Why are we in an environment where some clubs are supposed to dominate forever like they have the priviledge because they got investment in the pre FFP era? Explain without being bitter for once.

@@vikasmishra4167 Financial fair play literally made Barcelona unable to continue with Messi because of their financial circumstances, they refreshed the squad, won the la Liga and got themselves into a lot better financial situation with new sponsors.

Well written…

@@otto_jk It was La Liga restrictions not FFP lmfao. And Barca literally had to sell many of their income units. They have sold rights for one of them for 25 years. And one more question: How does it helps Everton if suppose they are relegated and then sanctioned further to be demoted to league 2 because they broke FFP? How does it actually financially protects them cutting all of their revenue when they are 500 m down in debt already?

@@vikasmishra4167 "trying to get past a rule", in other words trying to cheat. "the players aren't exactly using any illegal technology on the pitch", if they are financed by cheating, the players ARE the illegal technology on the pitch.

City will revoke all his access if he speaks out tbf. Authoritarian like the owners. Hardly surprising.

@@sammy63611 like it would be that different with any other Club or business. That‘s obviously wrong, but i Highway doubt that this is an issue that’s Exclusive to City

@@taaaaaaaazzzzzz Nah not United under Fergie, he never threatened the press and they have always been squeaky clean anyway...

get a grip

Except the fact that city has literally done nothing wrong

@@alecmorariu6291 had a look into city's accounting did you ?

@@Benito264 You did ?

@@vikasmishra4167 If the premier league charges a club with a 115 breaches Im gonna go on a limb and say they probably did something wrong yeah...

His later points about waiting and seeing what the verdict is made total sense. People jumped to conclusions re the CAS case and were proven wrong, the same could happen here. Or maybe they’re guilty in which case we can all debate what should happen. At the minute we’re all guessing because none of us here are involved in those conversations and it’s all behind closed doors.

The CAS case proved no one wrong - they got off on a technicality literally created by city breaking even more rules FFS.

@@kunimitsune177 they didn’t, like Sam said in this interview. You’re literally falling for the same thing. Some of it was time barred, some of it wasn’t. CAS looked at everything that wasn’t time barred, and concluded there was ‘no evidence’ that city had breached any rules. But many like yourself fall into the ‘technicality’ trap and dismiss everything else without actually understanding it. Just because you think City are guilty doesn’t mean they are. CAS ruled in City’s favour.

@@kunimitsune177 categorically false

USA Owners Clubs,Utd,Pool,Assna.. Conspired greedy Super League City collapsed Super League City should be - Charged,Rewarded?

Adam understand that football fans like to cope and seethe when they see a Muslim owned PL team destroy the league. So they grasp at everything. Here's a summary of CAS: (!) •With regards to Man City disguising funding as sponsorship money, CAS found that UEFA's decision to sanction Man City was NOT correct, since their entire case is built almost entirely on just those leaked emails, without sufficient accounting or transactional evidence. The nature of the allegations would necessitate communication with 3rd parties, yet no evidence of those was presented. UEFA argued that Mr. Pierce (director of Man City, among others) made arrangements for these crimes, but Mr. Pierce's testimony was considered compelling ("no reason to believe that his testimony was inaccurate"). (!) • UEFA basically produced clearly insufficient evidence for most of its claims. Originally, its entire case was based on just those emails, but then they attempted to introduce the documents they received from Man City (after they made an amicable agreement on which ones can legally be subpoenaed) into their argument. However, it remained LACKING. The burden of proof is on UEFA (a fact that was agreed-upon by both parties), but they simply failed to meet it. (!) •On the other hand, Man City did provide direct accouting evidence, as well as compelling testimony that explained the role that key individuals play in the organization (as well as the 3rd party status of companies such as Etihad). (!) •CAS found that most of the requests for evidence made by the CFCB were reasonable, but that Man City was "very reluctant and at times uncooperative" with regards to producing them. There are 2 specific examples mentioned, and they comprise the reason for the fine. •UEFA recognized that Man City only partially produced the desired documents, yet explicitly accepted the fact that NO inferrence can be made from this fact (that is, they CAN'T claim that there reason Man City was uncooperative was because they hid incriminating evidence). They did this in order to get a rapid process, one that reached its conclusion before the start of the 2020/21 season. TL;DR: UEFA simply did not produce the evidence necessary to prove these statements. Their entire case rested on the Leaked Emails, and CAS could not determine that the crimes mentioned were in fact executed. A small part of the offenses were time-barred (those made prior to May 15, 2014). Basically, CAS recognized that UEFA felt pressured to start the investigation (as the leaks published in multiple news agencies were compelling enough to start an investigation, but not sufficient to prove the end result)

How has it been ignored? It’s been plastered everywhere since Arsenal bottled the league. Some people just recognise legal process and wait for the verdict before jumping to conclusions.

More like, Sam Lee is stunned by the islamophobia

@@OkieDoke-mo1co absolute state of you weaponising Islamophobia to defend a cheating football club.

@@BigPurp9It's textbook Islamophobia. It appears that some dislike them simply because they have a different culture and customs that they are promoting through their football club. But here's the thing: it's actually a win-win situation for both the club and Abu Dhabi. They get to celebrate their traditions, and Man CIty benefits from the association. Now, let's consider this: what exactly has Abu Dhabi done that hasn't been done by the United States? I'll give you a moment to think about it. The reason I ask is that oftentimes this question goes unanswered or the response ends up being about actions carried out by Islamic terrorist organizations, rather than Abu Dhabi itself. That kind of reasoning only serves to perpetuate Islamophobia

@Okie Doke - Just to clarify - You’re saying its their ‘traditions’ to cheat?

@@jaxyjoe Yes are you gonna cry about it now?

are you telling me bureaucracy takes a long time ? no wayyyyy

Middle Eastern autocracies will probably destroy football at this pace

​@@Benito264 it isn't bureaucracy, it's the justice system. Without due process there isn't justice.

Alleged. There’s a thing called innocent until proven guilty and a jury system, we don’t have sharia law here. Ask yourself why they’ve taken more than ten years to bring these charges?

@@GuinessOriginal RASIS! Why Syaria? Because Im muslim? lol 115 is huge number, it hard to cook it so logically some of the breaches and charges will be proven guilty then what will their punishment? 115 man, only Mark Z face more lol

So are psg. So are gonna be Newcastle united, and Manchester United too if the sale goes through

@@HarshRaj-ec1dz It isn't cheating to have rich owners. It's cheating to have owners who cheat.

​@Harsh Raj no one discussed otherwise. Although, Man U was the biggest club in the planet before city went back to the Premier league

​@@jjj8317 most clubs have received punishment...the problem is city kept eluding it

@@harryselwind imagine thinking psg with 35000 every week haven’t cheated 😂

People forget that Chelsea's success began in the early 90s. Whereas city was playing like west ham in the premier

Innocent until proven guilty applies all the time or the whole thing falls down. You can’t say ‘usually it’s alright but in this case I’m pretty sure they’re guilty regardless’ and claim to be in any way balanced. People were absolutely convinced CAS would rule in UEFA’s favour to the point where everything leading up to that point was about what punishment City should have. Then it went the other way and people cling to the ‘technicality’ thing Sam referred to later in this video. Maybe just wait and find out, one way or the other.

Im pretty sure 'City's' commercial deals cover all that of the city football group. Ie their Puma deal is for all those clubs and therefore isn't how much Puma value just City, their Etihad shirt deal includes the other clubs as well, etc. Another valid critique of those deals is that Etihad is from Abu Dhabi and could theoretically speaking be a valid way for the owners to funnel money in legally that would otherwise exceed the amount allowed in direct injections.

@@lorddiegocosta3307 other CFG clubs don’t wear Puma so it’s not a CFG wide agreement. With the Etihad deals and any other agreements that affect the group, a portion is allocated to City’s revenue and so long as that is in line with fair market value, there’s no issue. CAS said the sponsorship agreements were in line with fair market value.

"United and Liverpool deserve more money because they have more plastic foreign fans" "For their own good, clubs need to be stopped from investing" FFP is nonsense. United have spent hecatombs and they are rubbish. City have spent a similar amount and they are brilliant on the pitch. I'm sure they'll be brilliant in the courtroom too.

Because he says wait until there's a verdict before rendering judgment? Get in the bin

@@brandonj162 ....he is making all type of exxuses for city saying to separate the allegations from on field play also trying to make it sound like getting out by a technicality is same as being innocent no it isnt....he is waffling stop embarrassing yourself son

@@digontozahid Get in the bin lad

​@@brandonj162 Is that your entire argument?

@@nebbacannezza5125 Yes. You get in too.

And the fact that he'd been clever in getting the release clause in his deal so he could dictate where he went next. That's where City's financial muscle showed in the Haaland deal - not buying him, but building the squad that made him want to join them.

Yeah? And sancho getting nearly as much as KDB is justified, right?

@@deepakpandey8240 he’s only getting more than KDB on paper, with cities creative accounting who knows what he’s on

@@primereview9727 Any proof? Because I can also say sancho is getting paid under the table by other UTD beneficiaries, would you just agree to it?

when a lot of these allegations started the decisions weren't so smart either. The financial doping allowed them to brush off expensive disasters like mangala, bony, mendy, danilo; signings that would have weighed around the necks of other clubs. Now we hardly mention they were ever there, and pretend every signing made by citeh has been a success.

@@louisharrington-edmans6737 Point. The money allowed them to brush aside the mistakes easily. Still does.

@@louisharrington-edmans6737 4 signings failing in ten years is still unbelievably good. Plus the fact city sell players for such high fees means the financial doping advantage may be smaller than people think

@@zaid22287 it’s way more than 4 - Bravo, Nolito, Fernando, Javi Garcia, Phillips, Negredo, Jovetic, that random made up Spanish left back they signed last year and that’s just off the top of my head

@@BigPurp9 you are actually stupid bro sorry. Negredo and Danilo were sold for more then they were bought for. Calling phillips and Gomez flops is dumb because they only played 1 season. I bet you thought grealish was a flop right? Fernando Molotov javi Garcia etc weren’t even that expensive. Also spurs chelsea united all have had way more flops then city especially big money ones .

sam Lee supports Utd

@@stevieasdfghjklable does he really? must just be a right prat then

Hear hear! Well said.

Adam summed it up right. Much like Saracens their is no question that they are an amazingly great side. Easily the best, but it is the cheating that has put them in this position. We all know city mugged off FFP with false sponsorship and accountants hiding funds

We'll take your tears and the asterisk trophies. Thanks.

No tears my friend, just facts. I noticed you didn't even bother trying to refute that fraud happened, you're starting to sound like City's legal team. Doesn't it make you feel like a bit of a slimeball to defend cheating just because you support a club? That's a pretty definitive line in the sand for me personally...

@@Mrstik No mate i am totally proud because we actually are stopping the Premier league from becoming the childs play of 4 clubs for the next 100 years no matter how much they fail on recruitment, scouting, coaching etc. And let's be honest in front of the mirror. You're only arsed because there's a club thats actually using their money wisely unlike the bunch of United, Chelsea etc who are defined failures. I've never seen a bigger waste of 2 billions from 2 clubs and they are still round about top 6 because no other club is allowed investment and chance to compete.

So you don't care at all about the rules or the fact that City cheated to establish themselves just because other teams that actually generate the funds they claim use it legally? Noted, we definitely do not have the same moral compass. But no hate to you, you're just being honest about it.

Except we never broke any rules, we just spent a lot of money. If you could point me to what rules we broke then that'd be really helpful👍

I have yet to see anyone actually show some evidence of city cheating.

So many words written but of no substance.

Der Speigal literally published emails where the CEO of Etihad airways was talking about moving money through the companies to disguise it as sponsorship.....but let's all just forget about that ☕

The lawyer employed by City is also an arsenal fan

Its purpose was supposed to stop clubs from going into bad financial situations and bring equality to the sport. I suppose it has failed at both at the very roots of it. Its true purpose was to stop new clubs from rising to the challenge and receiving much needed investment needed to challenge in todays environment. That is trying to keep the rich richer.

@@vikasmishra4167 Alternatively, its purpose was to prevent state-owned clubs being able to spend unlimted amounts of unearned cash and thus force other clubs on more realistic budgets to have to spend beyond their means in order to try to compete.

@@harryselwind clubs were spending before the state owned stuff though. we already had Chelsea and before that Blackburn. City and PSG weren’t the first to do it, but they were the first to deal with the rules

@@stevieasdfghjklable Exactly! Now we have rules against it. In the same way, there were lots of things that were okay in the past but which are outlawed now. So your point is what?

@@harryselwind my point is that City didnt introduce the money creep, they’re a product of how the games been going for decades, yet it wasnt until City got involved that it became a problem. where were these rules 20 years ago? thats my point.

Who are the 17-18 60 to 100 million pound players? Can you name them?

@@brandonj162 yes. Who in the Man City first team isn’t worth that??

@@peterww3106 There are 4 players in the first team City paid that much for. As for what they’re worth now - you could argue maybe 10 are worth that much.

@@brandonj162 agreed. But he buys for 30-40 and makes them in to 60-100 and pays them accordingly. All the way through the subs bench. That’s the biggest difference.

Ya, nobody gets this concept. I'm sure New Castle fans agree too

the fans dont want them to compete, they just want the same 6 teams every year.

That’s fine and all, but it’s a totally separate discussion.

This is the fair and obvious argument in this debate, although I would argue against it. Instead Sam Lee chose completely nonsensical arguments like Haaland was some unknown diamond City discovered and that no-one accuses Chelsea and Newcastle of the same

@@helpplz2049 yes it absolutely is, but i still think that‘s the bigger Problem and there has to be a discussion on how to fix it.

Who were they meant to sell? Joey Barton? It’s impossible for a team post-takeover to generate revenue to offset spending. And the rules are designed to prevent it. To keep the rich clubs, who’ve always bought the league btw, on their own at the top. Of course the fan base in 2008 was reflective of their mediocre results. Of course they can’t sell the bad players they had to offset the good players they buy. The Emiratis probably did break some rules but I’m glad they fucking did. They’re shit rules meant to protect the clubs that were already big, and now supporters of said clubs are the loudest whingers. City are now spending wiser as well, and they’re just a well run club. I’ll play my tiny violin for you lot tonight, I’m sorry you can’t compete.

😂😂😂

I mean it’s true, city have cheated they’re way here, and you can’t really separate their cheating from their eventual win.

We played our b team yesterday you knob obviously the bench was expensive.

@@alecmorariu6291 A B-Team that included 90 minutes for Alvarez, Foden, Walker, Mahrez, Akanji.... Such a weak team eh?! What a bell 🤣

Because you can audit the conversations and deals made by Chevrolet and the like when it comes to United..you cannot fairly audit the conversations and deals for City when it's the entity that is signing off the deals and making the payments. They are the same entity or through a satellite of affiliations that can be traced back to the Sheikh or other government entities. It isn't a free market.

@@marcgains6605 you say entity's that goes back to the sheikh, so what ? I really struggle to find the issue as long as it sponsor who cares if the companies are affiliated with the UAE or the sheikh, for example Nice in France are owned by Jim Ratliff and he has his sponsor inios on the shirt why are no one discussing that? He could do the same with United if he gets them, honestly it doesn't make any sense its just sounds psg and city are being targeted by these laws , definitely cherry picking

@@zaki9987 it really isn't that complicated, this isn't a UEFA charge it's a Premier League one. City have failed their Audit. The charges are yet to be formally communicated. However in the past, City have been accused of both inflated sponsorship and ultimately self-funded. City's shirt sponsorship went from around 7m per year to over 20m to over 40m. We can speculate that it is similar to UEFA; that the PL does not necessarily believe the valuations were fair and where the funds were actually coming from. There is also speculation that agency fees and salaries have not been fully declared and thus not a true reflection of their accounts.

@@marcgains6605 well I'm not versed in the FA law and regulations, it's just from the outside looking at it sounds a bit selective that's all , may be my issue is with the laws not wether city broke it or not

The FFP rules were brought in so that clubs wouldn't go bankrupt if the owners stopped putting the money in. If the owner goes, so do the inflated sponsorships and a massive chunk of the income, but the costs stay the same.

Because sports ‘should’ be a meritocracy. The big teams are that way because they’d earned that status after decades of winning. It’s why Chelsea was enemy number 1 in English football until the city takeover and in a few years Im sure it will be Newcastles turn. There’s also the other element of where exactly the money comes from. The Saudi regime is not one with bloody hands. Most detractors won’t go that deeply in their complaints but it’s a very important element of the situation.

"they bloated their income from sponsorship...in any other walk of live this is a non event"...Not sure the likes of Waste Management, Enron, Freddie Mac, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Theranos and countless others would agree with you. These were public companies granted but the bottom line was they were all fraudulent. Everyone of them cooked the books and everyone of them suffered the consequences. City have done exactly the same, they have cooked their books. They may not have public shareholders that can question the validity of their books, but the premier league is their main stakeholder and they have a duty to ensure that their rules are followed through an audit. It is the Premier League that has called bullshit on City's books. Not fans, not other clubs but the very intuition they play in. This time they won't get away with it on technicalities.

@@reggiewatts1926 hmmm….. strange use of the word meritocracy. FFP was introduced to prevent teams from going bankrupt or bust, aka Leeds, Portsmouth etc etc. spend within your means… its outdated and not fit for purpose. We live in a capitalist world afterall…. If some state or billionaire wants to pump their own personal wealth into a football team then why not? Now the big “established teams” again my own club included are kicking up s fuss because their is now another player at the table and for the first time ever they are no longer the king makers. They have been usurped and tossed to the side. What city have done is built an unstoppable team… im sure if they followed the PSG model and were utter garbage no one else would bat an eyelid.

​@@dustintheturkey.irelandsno6464 the PSG team that have "failed" to win Ligue 1 only 3 times since their takeover? How is it garbage? Until this season they had appeared in as many UCL finals as City. Remember these aren't UEFA charges but the Premier League. Even the season PSG signed Neymar, they sold 100m of players and the season they purchased Mbappe, they sold a further 115m of players.