FFP / PSR
- Thread starter Rising
- Start date
BamaEngineer
Alert Team
My support was never so romantic, I was told by my deceased Father in law, "you're a Blue now son", and off I went.
Buzz Lightyear
Alert Team
Too late now, we cannot introduce new evidence, the Appeal will review the case to see of the Commission was correct in its findings, but there are elements where City have a good chance of overturning some of the charges.
one question begs an answer - If the Commission was deciding what the true commercial arrangement between City and a sponsor was, why wouldn't you ask the sponsor what the agreement actually was?
Skoorb
Alert Team
From Super City....
THE APPEAL: Five key arguments that City will present.
Following the independent commission verdict, City's legal team led by Lord Pannick KC is preparing a massive counter offensive. With the official appeal deadline hitting tomorrow at 4:00 PM, here is a breakdown of how the club will likely fight the decision:
The "Irrefutable Evidence" Claim
City's defence: The initial commission relied heavily on leaked emails and circumstantial data. City argues the panel completely ignored a mountain of "irrefutable evidence" including audited bank trails and statements from global sponsors proving the cash came from their own corporate reserves, not owner-funnelled capital.
Challenging the "Sham" Label 
City's defence: Under English civil law, proving a contract is a "sham" (an intentional conspiracy to deceive) requires an incredibly high standard of proof. City will argue the commission made a major error of legal principle, as these multi-million-pound contracts were genuinely signed, and the branding services were actively delivered.
The "Partisan Conspiracy" Narrative
City's defence: In their official statements, City executives have slammed the Premier League for failing to act as an "impartial and fair-minded regulator." They will claim procedural unfairness, arguing the prosecution was heavily influenced by "partisan pressure" from rival clubs rather than a neutral reading of the rules.
Overstepping Jurisdiction
City's defence: Because the commission effectively accused City of a decade-long fraud, the club will argue that a private sports tribunal has completely overstepped its constitutional powers. They will assert that allegations of this magnitude belong exclusively in the standard UK court system, not a football panel.
The Passage of Time (Natural Justice)
City's defence: Relying on events that date back 17 years (all the way to 2009) makes a fair trial impossible. City will argue that the extreme passage of time has compromised the case, as key witnesses are no longer available and historical electronic records are naturally incomplete.
The appeals panel have the power to amend, vary and completely overturn the verdict in it's entirety if the grounds to do so are solid enough, and their decision is final. Given the public reaction the verdict and Premier League's use of the most scathing language possible in their response to it, they have cleverly engineered a situation where the appeals panel will need balls of steel to overturn previous decisions. We fight on... CTWD X
#MCFC #manchestercityfc #mancityfc #PremierLeague
THE APPEAL: Five key arguments that City will present.
Following the independent commission verdict, City's legal team led by Lord Pannick KC is preparing a massive counter offensive. With the official appeal deadline hitting tomorrow at 4:00 PM, here is a breakdown of how the club will likely fight the decision:
The "Irrefutable Evidence" ClaimCity's defence: The initial commission relied heavily on leaked emails and circumstantial data. City argues the panel completely ignored a mountain of "irrefutable evidence" including audited bank trails and statements from global sponsors proving the cash came from their own corporate reserves, not owner-funnelled capital.
Challenging the "Sham" Label City's defence: Under English civil law, proving a contract is a "sham" (an intentional conspiracy to deceive) requires an incredibly high standard of proof. City will argue the commission made a major error of legal principle, as these multi-million-pound contracts were genuinely signed, and the branding services were actively delivered.
The "Partisan Conspiracy" NarrativeCity's defence: In their official statements, City executives have slammed the Premier League for failing to act as an "impartial and fair-minded regulator." They will claim procedural unfairness, arguing the prosecution was heavily influenced by "partisan pressure" from rival clubs rather than a neutral reading of the rules.
Overstepping JurisdictionCity's defence: Because the commission effectively accused City of a decade-long fraud, the club will argue that a private sports tribunal has completely overstepped its constitutional powers. They will assert that allegations of this magnitude belong exclusively in the standard UK court system, not a football panel.
The Passage of Time (Natural Justice)City's defence: Relying on events that date back 17 years (all the way to 2009) makes a fair trial impossible. City will argue that the extreme passage of time has compromised the case, as key witnesses are no longer available and historical electronic records are naturally incomplete.
The appeals panel have the power to amend, vary and completely overturn the verdict in it's entirety if the grounds to do so are solid enough, and their decision is final. Given the public reaction the verdict and Premier League's use of the most scathing language possible in their response to it, they have cleverly engineered a situation where the appeals panel will need balls of steel to overturn previous decisions. We fight on... CTWD X
#MCFC #manchestercityfc #mancityfc #PremierLeague
neverstops
Vital Squad Member
THE RUI PINTO QUESTION
He has been portrayed as one of the great whistleblowers of modern football. But the fuller record is considerably more complicated.
Pinto was not a conventional investigative journalist or football insider. He did not acquire his hacking and computing skills through formal academic training; his technical abilities were largely self-taught. His access to information came through technical ability and unauthorised access to systems.
That distinction matters.
In 2023, a Portuguese court convicted Pinto of attempted extortion, illegal access to data and breach of correspondence. The extortion conviction concerned an attempt to obtain between €500,000 and €1 million from Doyen Sports in exchange for not publishing damaging information. Pinto has maintained that he never received money and has said he regretted making the request.
Yet his material became extraordinarily valuable to established media organisations.
Der Spiegel received access to tens of millions of Football Leaks documents and transformed them into major international investigations. Those investigations subsequently became part of the wider narrative surrounding Manchester City.
That is where the credibility question becomes unavoidable.
The issue is not whether every document Pinto supplied was genuine, nor whether every allegation arising from Football Leaks was false. The issue is whether the source, the methods used to obtain the material, the incentives surrounding it and the way it was subsequently interpreted received the same scrutiny as the allegations themselves.
Now Pinto is publicly seeking €3 million for relocation and security after Portuguese authorities decided to end his witness protection.
There is no reliable evidence that Der Spiegel paid him for the leaks. Pinto has previously said that he rejected offers to sell his information. So we should not invent a financial relationship that has not been established.
But the contrast remains striking.
The information generated enormous value for journalists, enormous attention for football investigations and enormous pressure on institutions — including Manchester City.
Yet the source himself is now publicly asking the world for financial assistance.
That does not prove a hidden arrangement.
It does, however, justify asking whether the football ecosystem that benefited from the revelations ever examined the incentives, credibility and methods of the source with the same intensity with which it examined the club accused.
And that is the larger point.
Manchester City should be judged on evidence, not on the reputation of the people who supplied it.
But equally, the people who supplied the evidence should not be treated as beyond scrutiny simply because their information was useful to a narrative about Manchester City.
If the football establishment demanded extraordinary scrutiny of City, the same standard should apply to everyone involved in building the case.
No double standards.
No automatic presumption of credibility.
No turning a source into a hero simply because his material is damaging to one particular club.
If the evidence is strong, it should survive scrutiny of its source, its provenance and its methods.7
That is the standard Manchester City deserves.
He has been portrayed as one of the great whistleblowers of modern football. But the fuller record is considerably more complicated.
Pinto was not a conventional investigative journalist or football insider. He did not acquire his hacking and computing skills through formal academic training; his technical abilities were largely self-taught. His access to information came through technical ability and unauthorised access to systems.
That distinction matters.
In 2023, a Portuguese court convicted Pinto of attempted extortion, illegal access to data and breach of correspondence. The extortion conviction concerned an attempt to obtain between €500,000 and €1 million from Doyen Sports in exchange for not publishing damaging information. Pinto has maintained that he never received money and has said he regretted making the request.
Yet his material became extraordinarily valuable to established media organisations.
Der Spiegel received access to tens of millions of Football Leaks documents and transformed them into major international investigations. Those investigations subsequently became part of the wider narrative surrounding Manchester City.
That is where the credibility question becomes unavoidable.
The issue is not whether every document Pinto supplied was genuine, nor whether every allegation arising from Football Leaks was false. The issue is whether the source, the methods used to obtain the material, the incentives surrounding it and the way it was subsequently interpreted received the same scrutiny as the allegations themselves.
Now Pinto is publicly seeking €3 million for relocation and security after Portuguese authorities decided to end his witness protection.
There is no reliable evidence that Der Spiegel paid him for the leaks. Pinto has previously said that he rejected offers to sell his information. So we should not invent a financial relationship that has not been established.
But the contrast remains striking.
The information generated enormous value for journalists, enormous attention for football investigations and enormous pressure on institutions — including Manchester City.
Yet the source himself is now publicly asking the world for financial assistance.
That does not prove a hidden arrangement.
It does, however, justify asking whether the football ecosystem that benefited from the revelations ever examined the incentives, credibility and methods of the source with the same intensity with which it examined the club accused.
And that is the larger point.
Manchester City should be judged on evidence, not on the reputation of the people who supplied it.
But equally, the people who supplied the evidence should not be treated as beyond scrutiny simply because their information was useful to a narrative about Manchester City.
If the football establishment demanded extraordinary scrutiny of City, the same standard should apply to everyone involved in building the case.
No double standards.
No automatic presumption of credibility.
No turning a source into a hero simply because his material is damaging to one particular club.
If the evidence is strong, it should survive scrutiny of its source, its provenance and its methods.7
That is the standard Manchester City deserves.
Skoorb
Alert Team
MCFC having the gall to appeal appears to be sending everyone over the edge. "How dare they" shouts the Outrage Machine.
Well, that's the way the system works.....oh and btw apparently Deloitte, the auditors, are less than pleased at effectively having the integrity of their work and their professional reputation being called into question by the Premier League after signing off club accounts. They too are considering legal action.
Wonder how Richard Master's is feeling tonight.
Well, that's the way the system works.....oh and btw apparently Deloitte, the auditors, are less than pleased at effectively having the integrity of their work and their professional reputation being called into question by the Premier League after signing off club accounts. They too are considering legal action.
Wonder how Richard Master's is feeling tonight.
Skoorb
Alert Team
Club statement.....
"Manchester City Football Club can confirm that at 7pm on Thursday 1st October 2026 the Club lodged its comprehensive Appeal against the opinion of the Premier League Commission, in relation to the Premier League disciplinary matter.
The Club’s firm position is that, on multiple grounds, the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe.
The Club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case.
We will continue to respect due process and are necessarily restricted in what we can say further until all proceedings are complete."
"Manchester City Football Club can confirm that at 7pm on Thursday 1st October 2026 the Club lodged its comprehensive Appeal against the opinion of the Premier League Commission, in relation to the Premier League disciplinary matter.
The Club’s firm position is that, on multiple grounds, the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe.
The Club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case.
We will continue to respect due process and are necessarily restricted in what we can say further until all proceedings are complete."
Buzz Lightyear
Alert Team
Sorry Skoorb, the auditors are not Deloitte. Manchester City's auditor is the accounting firm BDO LLP, which has signed off on the club's financial accounts since 2007. but still the same appliesMCFC having the gall to appeal appears to be sending everyone over the edge. "How dare they" shouts the Outrage Machine.
Well, that's the way the system works.....oh and btw apparently Deloitte, the auditors, are less than pleased at effectively having the integrity of their work and their professional reputation being called into question by the Premier League after signing off club accounts. They too are considering legal action.
Wonder how Richard Master's is feeling tonight.
Skoorb
Alert Team
I think that as City fans and the return of playing league football moves ever closer we are all going to have to hang on to messages like this….
“The hate, threats and abuse (even racist abuse) that I and many other Manchester City fans have received over the last few days simply for supporting the club we love are sickening.
Fans have no control over decisions made by owners or executives. We fell in love with a club, with the players, with the game and with the community. We haven’t done anything wrong by supporting our club. And we are not running away.
Nobody should have to live in fear because of the badge they wear. Rivalry should never cost us our humanity. Rival fans need to do better than targeting City fans with unnecessary hate.
City fans, stay safe and don’t be afraid to show your colours. Let them bark. Ignore the haters. We stand together.
City fans, stay safe and don’t be afraid to show your colours. Let them bark. Ignore the haters. We stand together.”
CTID.
“The hate, threats and abuse (even racist abuse) that I and many other Manchester City fans have received over the last few days simply for supporting the club we love are sickening.
Fans have no control over decisions made by owners or executives. We fell in love with a club, with the players, with the game and with the community. We haven’t done anything wrong by supporting our club. And we are not running away.
Nobody should have to live in fear because of the badge they wear. Rivalry should never cost us our humanity. Rival fans need to do better than targeting City fans with unnecessary hate.
City fans, stay safe and don’t be afraid to show your colours. Let them bark. Ignore the haters. We stand together.
City fans, stay safe and don’t be afraid to show your colours. Let them bark. Ignore the haters. We stand together.
”CTID.
Rising
Alert Team
JK.
Buzz Lightyear
Alert Team
I just want this to be over. Winning all or even most of the appeal doesn’t mean the underlying issues disappear; it simply means the Appeal Board has found that the Commission’s hearing wasn’t fair or didn’t follow the rules. And realistically, we only have around a 60% chance of the appeal being upheld.
My problem is that the process itself feels fundamentally flawed. The outcome is what we’re seeing now: reputable companies being dragged into doubt, not because anyone has proved wrongdoing, but because the Premier League’s case relies on possibilities, inferences, and suppositions. They don’t have to prove anything — they only have to persuade the Commission that certain things might have happened. That’s how we end up with allegations of “sham” contracts or claims that Etihad didn’t pay funds, even though these are built on inference rather than evidence.
And once you use a word like “sham”, you inevitably cast a shadow over everyone involved — Etihad, the UAE, auditors, regulators. I’m told the term isn’t meant in a criminal sense, but realistically, how else is it going to be interpreted? You can’t throw around language like that without damaging reputations, especially when the foundation is speculation rather than proof.
My problem is that the process itself feels fundamentally flawed. The outcome is what we’re seeing now: reputable companies being dragged into doubt, not because anyone has proved wrongdoing, but because the Premier League’s case relies on possibilities, inferences, and suppositions. They don’t have to prove anything — they only have to persuade the Commission that certain things might have happened. That’s how we end up with allegations of “sham” contracts or claims that Etihad didn’t pay funds, even though these are built on inference rather than evidence.
And once you use a word like “sham”, you inevitably cast a shadow over everyone involved — Etihad, the UAE, auditors, regulators. I’m told the term isn’t meant in a criminal sense, but realistically, how else is it going to be interpreted? You can’t throw around language like that without damaging reputations, especially when the foundation is speculation rather than proof.
Skoorb
Alert Team
"You can’t throw around language like that without damaging reputations, especially when the foundation is speculation rather than proof."
I have always been concerned about the language that has been & continues to be used. Certain individuals have been free and easy with the use of "cheating" and "sham contracts". These stick. Just like of recent political slogans (we can all name them) they lodge in people's conscious like ear worm songs that cannot be removed.
People then become impervious to facts or reasoned discussion. They will build a world around "City cheated" and attempts to dismantle their mental construct by pointing out flaws in the PL process or the standard of proof etc will be rebutted with versions of "Well, you would say that".
I think by the time we get to next weekend I might feel physically sick. I hope not - I hope my defiance returns but right now I'm feeling worn down by the relentless assaults.
I need to find where I have left my loin-girding equipment......
I have always been concerned about the language that has been & continues to be used. Certain individuals have been free and easy with the use of "cheating" and "sham contracts". These stick. Just like of recent political slogans (we can all name them) they lodge in people's conscious like ear worm songs that cannot be removed.
People then become impervious to facts or reasoned discussion. They will build a world around "City cheated" and attempts to dismantle their mental construct by pointing out flaws in the PL process or the standard of proof etc will be rebutted with versions of "Well, you would say that".
I think by the time we get to next weekend I might feel physically sick. I hope not - I hope my defiance returns but right now I'm feeling worn down by the relentless assaults.
I need to find where I have left my loin-girding equipment......
Last edited:
Skoorb
Alert Team
From Saturday on the Terraces.....
"Man City’s owners seemingly made one crucial mistake: they invested their own money into the club.
If they’d borrowed £900m in the club’s name and allowed the debt to climb beyond £1bn, as has happened at Manchester United, apparently the conversation around “sustainability” would look very different.
You can understand why spending rules exist, but it does create a strange situation.
Most supporters would surely rather see owners put their own money in than leave the club carrying enormous debts.
Yet one can cause problems under football’s financial rules while the other can operate within them.
The funny part is which one gets called “sustainable”.
"
"Man City’s owners seemingly made one crucial mistake: they invested their own money into the club.
If they’d borrowed £900m in the club’s name and allowed the debt to climb beyond £1bn, as has happened at Manchester United, apparently the conversation around “sustainability” would look very different.
You can understand why spending rules exist, but it does create a strange situation.
Most supporters would surely rather see owners put their own money in than leave the club carrying enormous debts.
Yet one can cause problems under football’s financial rules while the other can operate within them.
The funny part is which one gets called “sustainable”.
"
johnkelv
Alert Team
As I understand it the Premier League operates as a private business with the 20 clubs as the owners. All this investigation by the so-called independent panel with the main man, an Arsenal member, picking the other two will damage their brand and make the sporting rights much cheaper. A way out has to be found for all. Another problem is that some MPs are crying out for the tax man to move in. This could open another giant can of worms. As I continue to say, this has a very long way to go.
Buzz Lightyear
Alert Team
The “£900m” is not a one‑off payment. It’s the Premier League’s attempt to add up what they think were disguised equity injections across a long period. In other words, it’s a cumulative number built from a chain of inferences year after year. City’s position is that none of those individual yearly inferences are proven, and therefore the total itself is meaningless.
This is why the figure is so vulnerable on appeal. If the Premier League cannot prove the underlying yearly amounts, then the headline total collapses. And if the Commission allowed that headline number to colour their view of the case, that’s a procedural flaw: prejudicial narrative replacing evidence.
It also strengthens the CAS parallel. UEFA did exactly the same thing — they built a huge cumulative number out of inference rather than proof, and CAS dismantled it. City can argue that the Premier League has repeated the same mistake: constructing a dramatic multi‑year total without demonstrating the underlying facts.
This is why the figure is so vulnerable on appeal. If the Premier League cannot prove the underlying yearly amounts, then the headline total collapses. And if the Commission allowed that headline number to colour their view of the case, that’s a procedural flaw: prejudicial narrative replacing evidence.
It also strengthens the CAS parallel. UEFA did exactly the same thing — they built a huge cumulative number out of inference rather than proof, and CAS dismantled it. City can argue that the Premier League has repeated the same mistake: constructing a dramatic multi‑year total without demonstrating the underlying facts.
Buzz Lightyear
Alert Team
City’s silence is not abandonment — it is strategy
I was thinking there is no-one (except the fans) are sticking their head above t the Bunker but then.Silence always feels like isolation. When the headlines are hostile, when rival executives are whispering in corridors, when pundits are performing outrage for clicks, the absence of a counter‑voice can feel like abandonment. But City’s silence is not a void. It is a tactic. It is the club choosing the battleground rather than being dragged into one.
Right now, everyone else is fighting in the wrong arena. They are fighting in newspapers, on podcasts, in boardrooms, in WhatsApp groups, in the court of public opinion. They are fighting emotionally — loudly, desperately, and without discipline. City are fighting in the only arena that matters: the legal one. And in that arena, silence is not weakness. Silence is control.
The club knows that anything said publicly becomes ammunition. A single sentence can be spun into “defiance”, “aggression”, “non‑cooperation”, “pressure on the tribunal”. The Premier League would seize on it. Rival clubs would weaponise it. The media would distort it. So City say nothing. Not because they have nothing to say, but because saying anything would strengthen the wrong people.
Silence forces everyone else to reveal themselves. Look at what the noise has exposed: rival clubs lobbying for expulsion, executives leaking fantasies of nuclear sanctions, pundits declaring guilt before the appeal is even heard. Every shout, every leak, every performative rant is a mistake — a sign of bias, of prejudgment, of political interference. City’s silence turns their noise into evidence of instability.
And while the rivals exhaust themselves, City prepare.Not in public. Not on television. Not through friendly journalists. They prepare where it counts: in submissions, in procedural challenges, in proportionality arguments, in the architecture of an appeal that freezes the entire punishment landscape until the tribunal rules. The silence is not passive. It is the sound of work being done behind a closed door.
The rivals think silence means City are isolated. In reality, silence means City are disciplined.
They think silence means City are losing the narrative. In reality, City have refused to play the narrative game at all.
They think silence means City are vulnerable. In reality, silence protects the club from every trap the Premier League’s political environment is laying.
The clubs shouting for expulsion believe they are shaping the future. But they are only shaping the noise. The future will be shaped by the appeal — and the appeal will be shaped by law, not lobbying.
City’s silence is not abandonment. It is the club refusing to fight a battle that cannot be won in public, and choosing instead to fight the one that decides everything.
And when the appeal lands — when the legal reality replaces the hysteria — the silence will suddenly make sense. The rivals will realise they spent months shouting into a void while City prepared the only argument that mattered.
Silence is not weakness.
Silence is strategy.
And strategy is what wins.
Skoorb
Alert Team
Consequences already being felt.....
"This isn't the players' failing, it is on the club," said one leading agent. "Joining Manchester City without knowing what the punishment would be represents an undeniable risk, so any new contracts would have to have indemnities."
How will Man City manage new signings and academy talents?
www.bbc.co.uk
"This isn't the players' failing, it is on the club," said one leading agent. "Joining Manchester City without knowing what the punishment would be represents an undeniable risk, so any new contracts would have to have indemnities."
How will Man City manage new signings and academy talents?
Man City news: How will they manage new signings and academy talents?
Man City news: How will they manage new signings and academy talents?
www.bbc.co.uk
