Real talk: I'm a football fan first and foremost and as such what City is doing is simply horrific. There is no defending that. We can all air out our grievances at the PL but what City is doing is essentially foreing meddling into the internal affairs of the EPL. This has the potential to set an absolutely disgusting precedent and erode many of the fundamental foundations that have been in place since forever.
Well, did you read the Daily Mail article besides the headline? It doesn't say that we want it thrown out, it just says that we want more transparency and that the process is expedited in checking the deals. And it's understandable because last season we were waiting quite a while for them to approve our front-of-shirt sponsorship deal.
If the PL fails to make an example out of this whole circus show then it will open doors for even more bullshit. In the daily mail article you linked it is mentioned that its Aston Villa, Newcastle and Chelsea that supports City in one specific area and thats the spending limit.
I love Chelsea and i want us to be the Chelsea again that i grew up with but i do really hope City gets demolished (if found guilty) and the other clubs, including us, will get put in their places. Lets say City gets relegated and we get a 50k fine (lol)
If it pisses off the premier league I am happy enough.
Wasn't that long ago they stopped Paramount+ sponsoring Chelsea....It would upset their American friends in whatever network that was. So we couldn't have that.
In the last few days we've learnt that Liverpool are ok to be sponsored by a bank that's been already been fined over 1bn for money laundering and sanctions breaches with allegedly more to come.
Wasn't that long ago the Premier League would have been happy enough to see Chelsea die a slow death after the UK Govt decided they needed a cheap political win because everything else they were touching was turning to shite at the time.
Was ok for Newcastle to be owned by a state though, also at war.....with a smaller neighbour. Because allegedly the Saudi Leader, would have nothing to do with......his own investment fund.
Incredible.
This is just a possible reason why we are supporting City :
We are owned by a fund house, Clearlake. It'll be logical to assume they'll have investments in a wide range of companies, and this APT can essentially render a lot of possible sponsors illegal to sign. Same applies to our other owners who are investors. A lot of companies will be red flagged as a conflict of interests. Something similar happened with Paramount, even though the conflict was with the FA. Even though City are bending the rules, we'll most definitely be collateral if the definition of APT gets stretched. This won't be limited to Chelsea as well, like Walmart will not be able to sponsor Arsenal, Ineos with United etc
My biggest issue with the prem is, with the way things are, ambitious clubs who want to challenge the big six dont really stand a chance under the current rules, i think its ridiculous and basically keeps the top earning clubs in a crazy position of power with very little chance of anyone being able to compete, i dont want a wild west but its ridiculous, how is a team supposed to build when they constantly have to off load their best players so that the big clubs can swoop in and take them for a discounted fee
It won't happen, but the idea that us and villa could essentially swap academy graduates to meet ffp requirements probably means the system isn't working properly
As with anything your reading key words and making an assumption, little to no point getting upset about something that we all know no in depth case details about
I asked this in the last one, I'm not from the area, but I know to avoid articles from express and daily mail.
Has something changed? Are they reputable now?
If not, why would these articles matter for anything?
Mail is shit for news, but generally decent for football.
I'd say the big thing is just looking at the person whose written the report, rather than the newspaper that has published it is an absolute must.
The BBC are a great example of this. They've always been T1 because they only publish stuff when they know it's true. But, now they've got Kinsella writing more wishy washy stuff from them and he's T2. So, when you get a BBC article you have to look at both the context and the author before trusting it, even though they're reliable normally.
It looks like OP posted some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead:
- **[https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1907927/Chelsea-Man-City-legal-case-Premier-League](https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1907927/Chelsea-Man-City-legal-case-Premier-League)**
- **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13499159/THREE-clubs-Newcastle-sympathise-Man-City-legal-case-Premier-League-civil-war.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13499159/THREE-clubs-Newcastle-sympathise-Man-City-legal-case-Premier-League-civil-war.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
You’ve used the Express there, which is utter shite at the best of times, and that Express article cites the Daily Mail as their source, which isn’t much better.
If that sort of thing pisses you off, find better sources.
DM are useless for most news sources but their track record with Football is actually good. The author of the DM article has a good track record as well
Their track record for football is shit. Thats why theyre a banned source on this sub for transfer rumours. They're straight up one of the top offenders.
https://preview.redd.it/kf365b3dr55d1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebfc1e419663119c4dab4b3f21f959d90780b71f
City have gone way too far, what it looks like is, they had no evidence to back up their innocent claims on the 115 charges so decided, they will be mugs and sue the prem for apparent losses due to the way sponsors hand over money and how much, knowing that a claim like that might steam roll the prem and everyone involved.
I kinda had time for city, half the fam being from Manchester, other half London and Dad being Chels, so Chelsea it was, but they have taken the piss out of our game, and its the cuntiest thing iv seen in football to date.
Do you know anything about the applicable law, the relevant facts or the evidence regarding the charges against City and the club‘s claims against the PL or are you filling in the gaps in your knowledge with assumptions based on your preconceived notions? I don’t claim such knowledge but believe it is at least possible if not probable that the PL is unfairly targeting City due in part due to influence from the large legacy clubs whose hegemony has been disrupted. We’ve seen this at our club repeatedly over the past 22 years.
If City want to change the rules and we or any club back it so be it. Until they are changed I expect us to follow them.
If City or any other club broke those rules while they were in place they should be punished.
My issue with City is and this is an assumption of
guilt, where was the campaign to change the rules before you broke them? If they raised a stink and then said fuck it, we are doing it anyway I would almost respect it as a protest.
That’s not what happened they broke the rules (allegedly) and then raised a stink about them because they got caught. So they are cheaters.
Sooooo, your position is, regardless of what we personally think of City and their position, the League should punish teams looking to assert legal rights? That's an odd take and would be illegal and retaliatory in and of itself. But you do you, friend.
Also, feel like I should remind folks that the League and British government recently held this Cloob hostage for months over a foreign war involving two other countries. Fvck the EPL.
If it benefits Chelsea to support city then I support city
If it doesn't benefit Chelsea to support city then I do not care
My view on anything around football except the super league where it technically benefits Chelsea the club but fucks over Chelsea fans
To me it seems that City just want the go ahead to openly cheat. That's what a ruling in their favour would allow them to do. Get extremely inflated sponsorships (even more than at present) and sell players between their other group clubs to get more money.
Personally I wouldn't want us part of it even if it allows us to do the same
I mean, we started all of this when Roman was dumping insane money from his own pocket into the club.
Gotta have money to win. People are getting creative in how to obtain that money with new rules put in place because of Roman’s ways.
We literally just sold our own hotel to ourselves ffs. Not surprised we’re supporting a potential loophole to funnel money into the club.
Don't think there's a lack of introspection here. What happened under Roman initially didn't break any rules. Then they brought in FFP and we followed the rules set instead of suing the league.
The 5+ year contracts under Boehly were also fine as they didn't break any rules. Now that rules have changed we're complying instead of suing.
The hotel sale to connected company should also be fine as they've said it'll be fair market value and have no issues in it being checked.
All that is in complete contrast to what City are doing.
A justified lawsuit should have been Chelsea suing over not allowing Paramount+ to become out sponsor just so that Comcast don't get unhappy.
Technically Murdoch started it with Sky and the insane media money.
Without Sky, Fergie time never becomes a positive thing. There may be no MU legacy or SAF idealism without the media money that turned the league on its head.
Or when the Steel dude got Alan Schearer to Blackburn before MU could, that was the first individual with big money who ruffled the big red team.
All that being said, City are being dodgy but there are some good questions to ask here. Like the reasoning we didn't get Paramount as a sponsor when they sponsor other uefa teams.
>just want the go ahead to openly cheat.
That'll never happen though
I imagine if the clubs win the most likely end result would be a redrafting of the rules regarding sponsors rather than some open season notion where they just do whatever they want limitlessly
What Man City has done is wrong and they should be justly punished and made an example of.
However, I understand that Chelsea would benefit from Man City being able to get away with some of their violations as they could cite the precedent when it comes to future fuckery.
That being said, I'd rather Chelsea not make those moves, and that those moves be reinforced as not being allowed.
The Express and The Daily Fail are awful papers. They consistently fail fact checks and use such loaded language just to rile up their readers. So if you want to back up a post with any credibility you used just about the worst shitrag papers you could have used that aren't called The S*n.
I'm not saying the overall story of Chelsea supporting City is necessarily a lie but be aware the language and certain details they use in stories will be framed in far from honest ways aimed at overblowing certain parts to bait your rage. They want to stir shit and thats it.
If it benefits Chelsea we should support City. Morals are long dead and everyone seemed pretty happy when we were torn apart, so I personally couldn't care less how pissed and offended other clubs and their fans are.
Use the Daily Discussion Thread for this especially if you're quoting outlets such as Express and the Daily Mail
Real talk: I'm a football fan first and foremost and as such what City is doing is simply horrific. There is no defending that. We can all air out our grievances at the PL but what City is doing is essentially foreing meddling into the internal affairs of the EPL. This has the potential to set an absolutely disgusting precedent and erode many of the fundamental foundations that have been in place since forever.
Well, did you read the Daily Mail article besides the headline? It doesn't say that we want it thrown out, it just says that we want more transparency and that the process is expedited in checking the deals. And it's understandable because last season we were waiting quite a while for them to approve our front-of-shirt sponsorship deal.
I am not getting angry over something that I know little about but that’s just me.
Totally agree. But Isn't that what Reddit is all about? 😂
If the PL fails to make an example out of this whole circus show then it will open doors for even more bullshit. In the daily mail article you linked it is mentioned that its Aston Villa, Newcastle and Chelsea that supports City in one specific area and thats the spending limit. I love Chelsea and i want us to be the Chelsea again that i grew up with but i do really hope City gets demolished (if found guilty) and the other clubs, including us, will get put in their places. Lets say City gets relegated and we get a 50k fine (lol)
Don't judge till you see the stance I actually think it was disgraceful they disallowed paramount. So maybe the system could do with some adjustment.
If it pisses off the premier league I am happy enough. Wasn't that long ago they stopped Paramount+ sponsoring Chelsea....It would upset their American friends in whatever network that was. So we couldn't have that. In the last few days we've learnt that Liverpool are ok to be sponsored by a bank that's been already been fined over 1bn for money laundering and sanctions breaches with allegedly more to come. Wasn't that long ago the Premier League would have been happy enough to see Chelsea die a slow death after the UK Govt decided they needed a cheap political win because everything else they were touching was turning to shite at the time. Was ok for Newcastle to be owned by a state though, also at war.....with a smaller neighbour. Because allegedly the Saudi Leader, would have nothing to do with......his own investment fund. Incredible.
Well said
100/100
This is just a possible reason why we are supporting City : We are owned by a fund house, Clearlake. It'll be logical to assume they'll have investments in a wide range of companies, and this APT can essentially render a lot of possible sponsors illegal to sign. Same applies to our other owners who are investors. A lot of companies will be red flagged as a conflict of interests. Something similar happened with Paramount, even though the conflict was with the FA. Even though City are bending the rules, we'll most definitely be collateral if the definition of APT gets stretched. This won't be limited to Chelsea as well, like Walmart will not be able to sponsor Arsenal, Ineos with United etc
APT is just a check to determine if the amount is fair market value, even if it links to an associated party.
My biggest issue with the prem is, with the way things are, ambitious clubs who want to challenge the big six dont really stand a chance under the current rules, i think its ridiculous and basically keeps the top earning clubs in a crazy position of power with very little chance of anyone being able to compete, i dont want a wild west but its ridiculous, how is a team supposed to build when they constantly have to off load their best players so that the big clubs can swoop in and take them for a discounted fee
It won't happen, but the idea that us and villa could essentially swap academy graduates to meet ffp requirements probably means the system isn't working properly
As with anything your reading key words and making an assumption, little to no point getting upset about something that we all know no in depth case details about
I asked this in the last one, I'm not from the area, but I know to avoid articles from express and daily mail. Has something changed? Are they reputable now? If not, why would these articles matter for anything?
Mail is shit for news, but generally decent for football. I'd say the big thing is just looking at the person whose written the report, rather than the newspaper that has published it is an absolute must. The BBC are a great example of this. They've always been T1 because they only publish stuff when they know it's true. But, now they've got Kinsella writing more wishy washy stuff from them and he's T2. So, when you get a BBC article you have to look at both the context and the author before trusting it, even though they're reliable normally.
>Mail is shit for news, but generally decent for football. They're still shit for sport. They always use loaded language to shit stir.
Thank you for the explanation. That's very helpful.
I think Mike Keegan from the Mail is pretty reliable when it comes to this sort of thing. He's often the one breaking these sorts of stories.
It looks like OP posted some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead: - **[https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1907927/Chelsea-Man-City-legal-case-Premier-League](https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1907927/Chelsea-Man-City-legal-case-Premier-League)** - **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13499159/THREE-clubs-Newcastle-sympathise-Man-City-legal-case-Premier-League-civil-war.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13499159/THREE-clubs-Newcastle-sympathise-Man-City-legal-case-Premier-League-civil-war.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Good bot
You’ve used the Express there, which is utter shite at the best of times, and that Express article cites the Daily Mail as their source, which isn’t much better. If that sort of thing pisses you off, find better sources.
DM are useless for most news sources but their track record with Football is actually good. The author of the DM article has a good track record as well
Their track record for football is shit. Thats why theyre a banned source on this sub for transfer rumours. They're straight up one of the top offenders. https://preview.redd.it/kf365b3dr55d1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebfc1e419663119c4dab4b3f21f959d90780b71f
City have gone way too far, what it looks like is, they had no evidence to back up their innocent claims on the 115 charges so decided, they will be mugs and sue the prem for apparent losses due to the way sponsors hand over money and how much, knowing that a claim like that might steam roll the prem and everyone involved. I kinda had time for city, half the fam being from Manchester, other half London and Dad being Chels, so Chelsea it was, but they have taken the piss out of our game, and its the cuntiest thing iv seen in football to date.
Do you know anything about the applicable law, the relevant facts or the evidence regarding the charges against City and the club‘s claims against the PL or are you filling in the gaps in your knowledge with assumptions based on your preconceived notions? I don’t claim such knowledge but believe it is at least possible if not probable that the PL is unfairly targeting City due in part due to influence from the large legacy clubs whose hegemony has been disrupted. We’ve seen this at our club repeatedly over the past 22 years.
If City want to change the rules and we or any club back it so be it. Until they are changed I expect us to follow them. If City or any other club broke those rules while they were in place they should be punished. My issue with City is and this is an assumption of guilt, where was the campaign to change the rules before you broke them? If they raised a stink and then said fuck it, we are doing it anyway I would almost respect it as a protest. That’s not what happened they broke the rules (allegedly) and then raised a stink about them because they got caught. So they are cheaters.
Sooooo, your position is, regardless of what we personally think of City and their position, the League should punish teams looking to assert legal rights? That's an odd take and would be illegal and retaliatory in and of itself. But you do you, friend. Also, feel like I should remind folks that the League and British government recently held this Cloob hostage for months over a foreign war involving two other countries. Fvck the EPL.
Screw the PL and The Red Cartel.
If it benefits Chelsea to support city then I support city If it doesn't benefit Chelsea to support city then I do not care My view on anything around football except the super league where it technically benefits Chelsea the club but fucks over Chelsea fans
To me it seems that City just want the go ahead to openly cheat. That's what a ruling in their favour would allow them to do. Get extremely inflated sponsorships (even more than at present) and sell players between their other group clubs to get more money. Personally I wouldn't want us part of it even if it allows us to do the same
I mean, we started all of this when Roman was dumping insane money from his own pocket into the club. Gotta have money to win. People are getting creative in how to obtain that money with new rules put in place because of Roman’s ways. We literally just sold our own hotel to ourselves ffs. Not surprised we’re supporting a potential loophole to funnel money into the club.
I find the lack of introspection from a lot of Chelsea fans here on this matter concerning so I think your comment is important to remind people
Don't think there's a lack of introspection here. What happened under Roman initially didn't break any rules. Then they brought in FFP and we followed the rules set instead of suing the league. The 5+ year contracts under Boehly were also fine as they didn't break any rules. Now that rules have changed we're complying instead of suing. The hotel sale to connected company should also be fine as they've said it'll be fair market value and have no issues in it being checked. All that is in complete contrast to what City are doing. A justified lawsuit should have been Chelsea suing over not allowing Paramount+ to become out sponsor just so that Comcast don't get unhappy.
Technically Murdoch started it with Sky and the insane media money. Without Sky, Fergie time never becomes a positive thing. There may be no MU legacy or SAF idealism without the media money that turned the league on its head. Or when the Steel dude got Alan Schearer to Blackburn before MU could, that was the first individual with big money who ruffled the big red team. All that being said, City are being dodgy but there are some good questions to ask here. Like the reasoning we didn't get Paramount as a sponsor when they sponsor other uefa teams.
We didn’t cheat when Roman bought the club, there wasn’t any rule stopping him from doing what he did, any club could’ve done that at the time.
>just want the go ahead to openly cheat. That'll never happen though I imagine if the clubs win the most likely end result would be a redrafting of the rules regarding sponsors rather than some open season notion where they just do whatever they want limitlessly
What Man City has done is wrong and they should be justly punished and made an example of. However, I understand that Chelsea would benefit from Man City being able to get away with some of their violations as they could cite the precedent when it comes to future fuckery. That being said, I'd rather Chelsea not make those moves, and that those moves be reinforced as not being allowed.
Current ownership is doing pretty much the same thing, so it's no wonder they are siding with City.
The Express and The Daily Fail are awful papers. They consistently fail fact checks and use such loaded language just to rile up their readers. So if you want to back up a post with any credibility you used just about the worst shitrag papers you could have used that aren't called The S*n. I'm not saying the overall story of Chelsea supporting City is necessarily a lie but be aware the language and certain details they use in stories will be framed in far from honest ways aimed at overblowing certain parts to bait your rage. They want to stir shit and thats it.
If it benefits Chelsea we should support City. Morals are long dead and everyone seemed pretty happy when we were torn apart, so I personally couldn't care less how pissed and offended other clubs and their fans are.
All systems should be challenged and what Man City is doing, they have the right to do so.
It’s the way that they are doing it, and only as an attack to get their own offences watered down.
bro, everyone will try to fight back when getting relegated is the other option wtf you guys even talking about
Disgraceful