Allan Cullinger

I’m not arguing that City should just be excused if the findings stand. If the independent commission has found that the club breached the financial rules, then those breaches are real and City should face whatever sanction is ultimately determined after the appeal process. What I disagree with is the jump from that to “City cheated, and that’s why they won everything.” Firstly, the famous “115 charges” were never 115 separate acts of City buying players they weren’t entitled to buy. A lot of the number comes from the same categories of alleged conduct being charged under multiple rules and across multiple seasons, plus a large group of charges concerning failure to cooperate with the Premier League investigation. More importantly, look at the actual periods covered by the substantive financial charges. The Premier League’s own charge sheet says: • inaccurate financial information: 2009/10–2017/18 • manager remuneration: 2009/10–2012/13 • player remuneration: 2010/11–2015/16 • UEFA FFP compliance: 2013/14–2017/18 • Premier League PSR: 2015/16–2017/18 From December 2018 onwards, the charges were about City’s cooperation with the investigation — not allegations that City continued breaching FFP/PSR or falsifying their financial position. That distinction matters. If the argument is that City’s entire era of dominance only happened because they were financially cheating, you then have to explain the period after 2017/18, because that is where a huge amount of City’s success occurred. City won the Premier League in 2018/19, 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24, as well as the Champions League and Treble in 2022/23. Those seasons are not the subject of the substantive financial-accounting charges in this case. Obviously, you can argue that investment in the earlier period helped build the foundations of the club. I think that is fair. And if City improperly increased their allowable spending during those earlier years, that could have provided a competitive advantage. But that is very different from saying “City cheated, therefore the trophies are only because they cheated.” To establish that, you’d need to show what the actual financial advantage was, how much extra spending it permitted, and how that advantage caused the subsequent sporting success. Simply saying “114 charges” doesn’t answer any of those questions. There’s also a massive difference between saying: “City breached financial regulations.” and: “Without those breaches, City would not have won their trophies.” The first now appears to be the commission’s finding, subject to appeal. The second is a counterfactual claim that hasn’t been established just because there are a large number of charges. So I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge that if the findings stand, City broke rules and should be sanctioned accordingly. What I don’t accept is rewriting nearly two decades of football as though 114 charges means 114 instances of buying success illegally. Especially when the substantive financial allegations themselves end in 2017/18, while much of City’s greatest period of success came afterwards.

Gigi is a massive liability anytime the balls in the air. Trafford was a much better keeper.

Hey @AlboMP, could Labor put as much effort into ensuring first home owners can afford to keep their homes as you are getting people into their first home ?

Isn’t it funny how we only see these type of antics from the “tolerant” left.

Imagine thinking you could win the Champions League by getting a sneaky goal then defending from the 6th minute. Arsenals anti-football play style might work in the PL, but it will never work in one off games. 1 SOT and 25% possessions 😅 They think they were the “better” team and deserved to win it. Stats say otherwise. Football won last night.

City has no fans ……………