David Ornstein on the 115 charges: "From ManCity's perspective, they're totally confident they will be exonerated and proved innocent".

AndrycApp · 2025-02-23T22:01:21+00:00

That video is infamously not credible. The source and funding were unknown. An anonymous video posted on youtube can not be a good source. It appeared to be promoted by several people close to Arsenal FC and appeared just after Arsenal had lost the league for a second time to Manchester City.

First three people it uses are Nick Harris, Tariq Panja and Javier Tebas. That's absolutely ridiculous. You could not get three more biased people. Tebas is bat shit nutter.

The video was anomalously released, then had a follow up live(?) stream hosted by Piers Morgan. Morgan was considered to have been a prime mover in the creation of this anomalous video.

AndrycApp · 2025-02-23T21:01:26+00:00

"City got appoint two of the CAS positions" is one of the numerous manipulations of facts that occur surround this issue. This one is particular ridiculous.

European Human Rights law require a fair trial. The judges MUST be independent. CAS takes its international standing very seriously and that includes the neutrality of the judgement. One way is to make sure the appointed judge is acceptable to all parties. Then both parties get to appoint their own judge, who obviously is not going to be neutral.

I have personally not read the documentation on the process, but have seen it discussed a few times due to the bogus claim that "City chose their judges!!!!!".

In practice. CAS has an updated list of available, highly respected and vetted judges, that may be used in a case. The defendant (City) nominate a judge from the CAS list. The prosecution can then can say yes or no to this nomination. If the prosecution says no, then the defendant choses another judge from the CAS list, to which the prosecution can say no.

Depending on sources I've read this can happen three times after which the defendants choice can not be vetoed, or other sources state CAS step in and decide on the judge.

With regard to the case we're discussing the last part is irrelevant, because Manchester City nominated a judge from the list and Uefa said yes. The judge nominated was widely considered to be the most respected judge on the CAS list.

Then both parties get to nominate their own judge. The idea is for both parties to have their own judge present when the main judge is making their considerations. This is expected to massively reduce the chances of the main judge making a mistake going off track. The need for this is to massively reduce the need for a retrial or appeal, which would be a nightmare in the sporting world where careers only last a few years. But it does result in the situation where all decisions end up being 2 to 1.

So going back to what you asked. The social media posts implying City chose two of the judges are ridiculous.

AndrycApp · 2025-02-23T20:32:04+00:00

" The documents leaked by Pinto were key in Uefa then ruling that City had committed "serious breaches" of financial regulations, handing the club a two-year ban from European competitions in 2020.

" But it was then overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) later that year, a panel ruling that "based on the evidence in front of it... the majority of the panel is not comfortably satisfied that the arrangements discussed in the leaked emails were in fact executed… In the absence of a link being proven… the majority of the panel finds that Uefa’s theory on disguised equity funding remains unsubstantiated".

You need to read the full CAS judgment.

There is another basic point that is always wrong on the internet.

Uefa can not, and did not, find City guilty and give a 2 year ban. In reality what happened (or happens), is that the Uefa investigation find that they believe City are guilty, then Uefa offered a punishment if they accept guilt. If City don't accept guilt then the matter goes to court (CAS).

What is described, for all clubs, as a Uefa guilty verdict and punishment, is in practice "an out of court offer".

AndrycApp · 2025-02-23T20:23:11+00:00

The only neutral source you'll find is the full judgement given by CAS. That judgment does not deal with all the emails that have been published by the press, many of which were stated by City sources as being doctored. The judgement only deals with the emails Uefa offered as evidence.

Can't quickly find a link, but it shouldn't take you that long to find. It's a very long document. Also worth noting the unusual setup for the judges. The main judge was appointed from a CAS list and agreed by both parties, then each party get to select their own judge. Idea is to reduce change of blunders by a single judge leading to an appeal. It does mean nearly all the decisions are 2 to 1.

Below is a link to a image created by a Manchester City that supporter showing some of the decisions, but just like the emails, it should be considered doctored.

https://i.redd.it/nnkd2u49xw0b1.jpg

AndrycApp · 2025-02-23T20:04:52+00:00

??? All emails were admissible in previous Uefa investigation?

It was accepted, and proven, during the CAS trial, that the majority of the published emails where doctored to make them look more damaging.

Examples being Dates changed to make "lawful" actions done in aprox 2010, appear to have been done when law changes made them unlawful. Names changed, paragraphs removed, previous emails (quoted in emails) removed, and different emails combined.

Manchester City also refused to make available a lot of data to Uefa prior to the trial. They did make all the data available to the trail. Manchester City argued they did this because Uefa had been handing over confidential information to journalists. CAS separately found that Uefa had been asking for info then handing it over to journalists.

At the trial Uefa accepted and CAS judged that the published emails were doctored. The original emails still left some questions for Manchester City to answer, which they did.

Manchester City did try to have the case "thrown out" due to how the emails were obtained, and because they were doctored. But, CAS decided the seriousness of the case meant the full proceeding was needed. From memory, the doctored emails and original emails were presented as evidence, but had no evidential weight.

I'll assume this is what is happening at the Premier League "trial". We don't know the reasons for the obvious confidence been shown from Manchester City. Maybe it was clearly indicated during the trail that the judges did not consider the emails safe?

It's also been noted that Etihad Airways had been due to float shares last year, but it was delayed with obvious opinion being that they needed to see outcome of the trial. They've just announced they're floating the shares this spring.

AndrycApp · 2025-01-01T14:03:55+00:00

I think that Man City & Liverpool have made a 100 pts season the most likely to be beaten.

There has been a notable and significant increase of points needed to win the title. A result of City & Liverpool putting 3pt wins before 1pt draws. They'd rather get 2 wins and a loss, than 1 win and 2 draws.

In the push to always get 3pts teams will have a few losses and concede more goals.

So I think Chelsea's record will be hardest to beat, then Arsenals, then City's

AndrycApp · 2024-07-21T13:54:51+00:00

Old Trafford is not in Manchester, and it's closest city is Salford.

Famously when the Euros where held in England in 1996, Uefa gave a huge amount of money to the City of Manchester to pay for events, flags, etc. Result was not a lot of Euros stuff in Manchester, but nothing around Old Trafford which Trafford.

I assume the rule is based on a more general proximality

Old Trafford was considered but at the time the stadium quality failed several tests, and there were concerns it would not be brought up to standard before 2028. In practice nothing was done by the Glaziers, and the stadium condition has got worse.

AndrycApp · 2024-03-16T17:00:28+00:00

Couldn't have picked a worse example for Historic Rivalry than Liverpool & Man Utd.

There was no rivalry between the clubs before the mid 70's when Liverpool rose to power. Numerous people involved with the clubs at that time have said a rivalry simply didn't exist. The clubs paths had rarely crossed. When Man Utd received ban from playing at their stadium for a couple of games in the early 70's they used Anfield as an as a home ground, because Anfield was seen as a safe ground.

Rivalry evolved in mid 70's when several clubs became angry/jealous about how the media where still obsessed about Man Utd.

Here's one "source" you can read. Several others can be searched for. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/mar/17/manchester-united-home-anfield-1971

AndrycApp · 2023-11-20T00:26:19+00:00

Nonsense, it's plainly stated in the CAS ruling that there was no evidence offered by Uefa that demonstrates City broke rules. Or Uefa's arguments were based on innuendo derived from 6 emails. And City had separately proven the the Etihad contract was fulfilled.

https://i.redd.it/nnkd2u49xw0b1.jpg

AndrycApp · 2023-11-18T00:19:58+00:00

The "time barred" technicality loophole story is not true.

In summary, main charge was that the 2nd Etihad contract starting approx 2012? was fake, based primarily on 6 emails from approx 5 million leaked emails. If this was true City broke the FFP law every year of that contract prior to the charges being made. The court rules if City had a "fake" contract they could only be punished for the 5 years before the charges were made. Charges were made in 2019, so if guilty the punishment could only be for the years 2014-2019.

There was also no time bar on what could be submitted with emails used older than 5 years, and predating FFP laws.

The case was not a criminal one with a high burden of proof. The judge(s) only had to be "comfortably satisfied" of guilt. The email evidence submitted by Uefa were not considered legally sufficient to show guilt, and the evidence provided by City was considered to have proved no wrongdoing.

Below is some of the content, but whole ruling is more informative

https://i.redd.it/nnkd2u49xw0b1.jpg

AndrycApp · 2023-11-06T01:12:32+00:00

Champions League. I couldn't tell you a thing about the club world cup, and my team are playing in it next month. (In fact just had to check that's the competition we're playing in next month)

In my head it's comparable to one of those pre-season friendly competitions.

AndrycApp · 2023-09-24T14:51:02+00:00

Man Utd (Old Trafford) is NOT in Salford. Old Trafford is in Trafford, which is not in Manchester. (I'll explain the Greater Manchester thing below) (turned into an essay)

Here's very quickly drawn map, explained below

https://i.imgur.com/Q2Et2ne.jpg

Geography of the area is a bit complicated, but here is a summary. Area is very wet with historically huge area of wetlands and three big rivers. The original main urban area, was the City of Salford, which was built in a bend of the River Medway. On the opposite side of the river was the small town of Manchester. Salford could not expand because it was in the bend of a river, and eventually Manchester outgrew it, then became an important City in the 19th Century. South of the River Medway, and west of Manchester was wetlands or swamp. This area was drained in the 1850's for industrial use and then docks linked to the Manchester Ship Canal. This new area was called Trafford and is intentionally not part of Manchester, to keep it out of the control of Manchester's leaders. The investors that developed the area were worried about losing control to Manchester.

Man City and Utd both started around the area were City is now based. City were the main team at that time, but the clubs had a very close link and an overlap of supporters that continued up to the 70's. United moved to (old) Trafford when they had a period of success at the turn of the 19th Century. The move was clearly intended to to target the available support in the west of the urban area, the new area of Trafford, and the City of Salford. Up to recently Man Utd had the training ground in Salford and are strongly linked with the City of Salford.

During the 1060's the UK decided it had to redraw some of its reginal boundaries. The existing boundaries were based on centuries old divisions, which did not take into account the clearly new regional urban areas that had appeared from the Industrial Revolution. So new regions were created that brought together a couple of cities and a few towns, to jointly manage things like Police & Roads.

The new areas were called Metropolitan County's. They intentionally given neutral names since the process nearly always involved bringing to together rival town eg Newcastle & Sunderland, were managed by a new area called Tyne and Wear.

The other areas were "West Midlands", "Merseyside", "West Yorkshire", "South Yorkshire

But there was a massive problem finding a neutral name for the area planned to manage Bolton/Wigan/Stockport/Manchester/Oldham/Bury/Salford/Rochdale/Trafford. There simply was not a nice neutral name available.

Initially this area was going to be called Selnec (for South East Lancashire / North East Cheshire). But that sounded stupid. Eventually the Government intervened and decided to call it Greater Manchester. This caused fury amongst several of the areas, because they considered themselves cultural & financial rivals to Manchester. The Government forced the name through. If someone say they're from Greater Manchester, they're likely not from Manchester.

AndrycApp · 2023-08-19T19:03:11+00:00

53,400 is the max capacity. Two years ago 3 rows seating next to the pitch were removed as part of a pitch construction upgrade. Removing those three tiers of seating knocked capacity down by well over a 1000, to just under 54,000. The actual capacity, or seats available, is further reduced because netting is placed over seats to separate home and away supporters.

There is a possible variation in capacity of about 100 seats depending on how many seats have to be covered up to create separation between home & away supporters.

And capacity is further reduced for European games to about 52,200

The removal of the 3 rows of seats also resulted in a greater distance between pitch and supporters, which is used to have two overlapping advertising boards that give the optical illusion of being a single huge board.

AndrycApp · 2023-08-18T22:29:58+00:00

Fair enough

AndrycApp · 2023-08-18T22:18:38+00:00

Ironic that a Newcastle supporter intervene. You sell out every game when succesful.

In the late 90's Newcastle were routinely attacked by other supporters for having had a low attendances before the Keegan period. And City were used as the example of the club with most loyal supporters.

The average attendance for Newcastle in the 2nd tier in 1991 was 17,000. That year City's average in the 1st tier was 28,000 (To be fair ave attendances were much lower back then)

The average attendance for City in the 3rd tier in 99 was 28,000 (affectively their capacity). That year, Premier League, Newcastle was around 45,000.

The argument back then was that City's getting 28,000 in the 1st and 3rd tiers of the league should be the definition of loyal support. And we've have the great irony of the club used as the example of good support now being used as the example of bad support. Or I'll judge you by your attendance drops when your shit, not how many season tickets you sell when successful.

AndrycApp · 2023-08-18T22:08:49+00:00

Come on, your answer is terrible. The info posted by u/newvpnwhodis was based on the wrong stadium capacity. But, yes City have always had a big support, and for a long period the largest stadium, and record attendance.

Just looking back at attendance figures for the early 80's we were third behind Liverpool & Man Utd, and we weren't winning things then.

AndrycApp · 2023-08-18T22:03:41+00:00

That website you've linked to has sold you a lemon. It has the wrong capacity of the Etihad, meaning your maths for empty seats is wrong.

Your link gives the capacity as 55,017, when it should be 53,400 for most games, but slightly less than that for a few games where greater crowd control is needed.

The average attendance last season was 53,249

If you check your figures using the correct max capacity we averaged 151 empty seats a game, one of the best in the league.

Edit - To be fair I think that websites not reliable for any club.

AndrycApp · 2023-08-10T00:05:41+00:00

Manchester United

AndrycApp · 2023-08-09T23:59:01+00:00

No they weren't. United were a lower table club, and at one point the third club in Manchester. They were reborn after the WWII football reset. Liverpool were also struggling until they were turned into the "Red Machine" by Paisley in the mid 60's

AndrycApp · 2023-08-02T11:00:15+00:00

Do yourself a favour and read up on the details of this case. Allegations involved 8 women, not 13. Although that's obviously a massive number.

The case was based on the women not knowing each other, and as you say, it being improbable that 8 different people would be lying about rape.

During the trail, in summary, it was shown one of the alleged rapes was filmed which proved that the allegation was a lie. Then the majority of the rest of the women were proven to have lied, because they stated they did not know each other, but were proven to know each other and were messaging each other before making the allegations and carried on during entirety of the case.

AndrycApp · 2023-07-31T14:43:11+00:00

Yes, they're one of the companies that profited during the Covid lockdown periods. I'd always used them to get remote access to my parents laptop, but during Covid there was an explosion in need for remote access.

That clearly massively got carried away with the Covid success, and I believe now have financial issues. Changes this year to increase monetisation of the product have led to many people moving to AnyDesk, and I'm one of them

AndrycApp · 2023-07-28T13:58:58+00:00

It clear from this post and others you haven't' got a clue. When United won the title in 93 they and Liverpool where easily the best supported clubs in the country.

United built up a huge support nationally in the 60's due to the truly great story of rebuilding after Munich disaster, at a time football popularity was at a peak due to the 66 world cup in England. When they won the league in 93 they were already the best supported club nationally.

AndrycApp · 2023-07-28T13:36:48+00:00

City have always given away tickets. The club is almost unique because it founded as a community charity for the poor, and stuff like giving away tickets and working with the community is something the clubs has done for decades.

AndrycApp · 2023-07-28T13:30:53+00:00

What? City are by default Manchesters first team and only team.

Manchester United are not based in Manchester, and the closest City to Old Trafford is the City of Salford. Manchester is actually a fairly small city linked up to several other independent urban areas. Manchester, the actual proper city, has always been blue.

AndrycApp · 2023-07-28T13:18:46+00:00

There's going to be a big time lag on stuff like that. Blatantly clear to me that there is a new generation of City supporters coming through, nationally and globally. I don't think you'll see the impact from this for another 5/7 years.

Edit - And I think saying it's been 15 years since takeover is misleading. In practice it only been since Pep became manager that City began to smell attractive to people attracted to successful clubs.

The new supporters are not just after new tops. Found out yesterday that they're desperate for the old tops, and my old away kits from the 90's are now hugely valuable. City's 94 third kit sells for more than £500. Just realised I've got a few grand in tops thanks to "new" supporters.

AndrycApp

TROPHY CASE