Man city escape ban! Or did they? [Update 6/2/23]

Ayahuasca said:
They haven’t been found guilty of anything yet. He’s not going to walk right this minute as that would throw even more shade on all of this.
Click to expand...

They we're 100% guilty of the UEFA charges. They got off on a technicality. Everyone knows what City have been up to. The proof is in the public domain. Hes saying what hes saying because he ain't leaving the job. He will either be gone before they are punished or he will just say "I don't agree with the judgement so i'm not going".

I would have far more respect for him if he just turned around and said "so what? I don't agree with the rules and I don't care if they broke rules I don't agree with". He took a very strong position on the matter. Now hes looking silly for it.
 
Doobedoo said:
It’s rather boring though. Any other club could’ve done that, Arsenal and Leeds were the previous champions and Liverpool were the biggest team in the country. Why weren’t you continuing your previous advantage? United weren’t a sure thing Fergie was on the verge of the sack and had that had happened we wouldn’t have had the success we had.

We took advantage of the circumstances provided we didn’t receive unlimited funds, we had a perfect storm and capitalised on it. Arguably we largely made the league as big as it is. The bitterness needs to stop.
Click to expand...
Spot on. Mind boggling people mention ManU as if its in any way comparable, Just stinks of being anti Utd because they were successful.
 
Last edited:
gingergundog said:
This is absolute nonsense. The Premier league launched in 1992. Sky bought Utd shares in 1998, at the same time NTL spent millions on various clubs, Granada bought a stake in Arsenal and a 10% share in Liverpool(maybe if OnDigital had been a success you would be singing a different tune?), Sky also had shares in Chelsea, Leeds, Sunderland and ManCity.
Click to expand...

Sky was buying shares in clubs and leveraging influence over them waaay before 1998. Mainly in order to secure PL TV rights. Sky bought loads more shares in Man Utd than any of the others though, both in %age and value (more than needed to do with any of the others!) and Man Utd were the only club that they ever tried to buy outright. Granada's investment in Liverpool and Arsenal was more to do with them trying to exploit online and overseas, was a different cycle in terms of media rights and is incomparable as it never yielded any advantage. It was a move made by Granada when it looked like overseas TV rights could be split from the communal PL pot as it is in La Liga, which it never was.

The whole if your auntie had balls argument is neither here nor there. The PL clearly saw a conflict of interest with Sky owning as much of Man Utd as they did as Sky were forced to reduce their shareholding and the Monopolies Commission also clearly saw a conflict as the they refused to ratify Sky's takeover. Proof is in the pudding as they say.

Much like Man City fans and their ownership, the only people with skin in the game that didn't and still don't see a problem with Man Utd and their relationship with Sky are, surprise, surprise, Man Utd fans.
 
Last edited:
inogen said:
Sky was buying shares in clubs and leveraging influence over them waaay before 1998. Mainly in order to secure PL TV rights. Sky bought loads more shares in Man Utd than any of the others though, both in %age and value (more than needed to do with any of the others!) and Man Utd were the only club that they ever tried to buy outright. Granada's investment in Liverpool and Arsenal was more to do with them trying to exploit online and overseas, was a different cycle in terms of media rights and is incomparable as it never yielded any advantage. It was a move made by Granada when it looked like overseas TV rights could be split from the communal PL pot as it is in La Liga, which it never was.

The whole if your auntie had balls argument is neither here nor there. The PL clearly saw a conflict of interest with Sky owning as much of Man Utd as they did as Sky were forced to reduce their shareholding and the Monopolies Commission also clearly saw a conflict as the they refused to ratify Sky's takeover. Proof is in the pudding as they say.
Click to expand...
ManU floated in 1991 so the stadium could be renovated, apparently only selling half the shares available. Sky bought United shares in 1998, they received investment just like Liverpool and all the other teams from Granada/Sky/NTL etc. Again we are talking about 1998 onwards, so UTD had no advantage over other teams at the PL launch.

Sky secured the PL rights at launch after outbidding LWT(who were instrumental in setting the break away league in motion after meeting with Utd, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal and Everton) so not sure why you single out UTD.

Sky were ordered to reduce shares in late 1999 after the blocked takeover not before. NTL's takeover of Newcastle was also blocked. The Sky takeover bid has nothing to do with ManU winning the league in the 90's though so not sure why it gets mentioned.

Utd won 4 out of 6 titles between 92-99, they were terrible in Europe until the treble... that was still dominated by European teams, mainly Italy. They were successful, but its not like they won everything in sight, its like some weird obsession from other fans that they were given it on a plate.

Not sure what the auntie balls bit is about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom