|
Post by wilmslowgas on Feb 16, 2020 11:18:18 GMT
My mate is season ticket holder (with son) at Etihad and Maine Road before that.
He vaguely remembers playing Rovers at Twerton.
Man City fans are not plastic. They had great support even in the lean years. It was tough times when the other club in Manchester were winning everything under SAF. Man City got lucky with their owners. The new owners have ploughed a fortune into that club and the City Council have been very supportive. Remember, Man Utd play in Trafford not Manchester - two different councils.
I wish we had a fraction of the investment and civic support that Man City have received.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Feb 16, 2020 11:23:54 GMT
Not Man City. Most of their regulars were there in league 1 not that long ago. They won the lottery but that doesn’t make their die hard fans plastic. I’ve yet to speak to a Bristolian that’s said they support Man City. Again what does the term mean? What are "Plastic Fans"? What makes you a non Plastic Fan? Whats a Plastic Club? I'm still none the wiser. It still seems to me a term people use that has no meaning. I never use the term bit when hearing it I interpret it as meaning something that is made up very quickly, not something that has evolved. Or a quick fix to somebody wanting something, not completely real. In football terms I interpret it as a very new club that satisfies someone’s ego or desire to “own” a football club but which hasn’t grown through the community wanting it. So Salford, Rushden and Diamonds even Forest Green to an extent are plastic clubs as far as I’m concerned. Many Man U, Liverpool and Chelsea fans are “plastic” but I don’t think Man City fans or even the club is. And earlier I said about “soul less bowl” and perhaps you thought I had accused you! What I meant was I think those of us who have older, more “characterful” grounds call the new grounds that. Actually we’re probably a bit jealous that they have a new ground and we don’t. It was an attempt at a joke. Obviously didn’t work. 😉 UTG!
|
|
socrates
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,467
Member is Online
|
Post by socrates on Feb 16, 2020 11:32:56 GMT
Not Man City. Most of their regulars were there in league 1 not that long ago. They won the lottery but that doesn’t make their die hard fans plastic. I’ve yet to speak to a Bristolian that’s said they support Man City. Again what does the term mean? What are "Plastic Fans"? What makes you a non Plastic Fan? Whats a Plastic Club? I'm still none the wiser. It still seems to me a term people use that has no meaning. I think by plastic fans people mean fans who just say they support Man UTD or whoever but never go and actually watch them. It’s almost as if they pick which club they’re going to support based on something like if they like the colours of the kit or the sound of the name. Many kids my generation chose Liverpool and probably a lot of those still “ support “ now but never see them play except on tv. I don’t know if that does make them plastic , I suppose it’s no different to liking a band , listening to them lots but having never seen them live. You can still like them. I also think the word support is used a bit losely, I support Bristol Rovers because I pay money to the club for a season ticket every year which pays the staffs wages and sing my heart out on the terraces to get behind the team and support them. Going to the pub to watch Liverpool isn’t supporting them is just liking them more than whoever they’re playing. Maybe fans wouldn’t be accused of being plastic if they said they like Liverpool , Man Utd or whatever rather than they support them.
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 16, 2020 13:53:33 GMT
Again what does the term mean? What are "Plastic Fans"? What makes you a non Plastic Fan? Whats a Plastic Club? I'm still none the wiser. It still seems to me a term people use that has no meaning. I think by plastic fans people mean fans who just say they support Man UTD or whoever but never go and actually watch them. It’s almost as if they pick which club they’re going to support based on something like if they like the colours of the kit or the sound of the name. Many kids my generation chose Liverpool and probably a lot of those still “ support “ now but never see them play except on tv. I don’t know if that does make them plastic , I suppose it’s no different to liking a band , listening to them lots but having never seen them live. You can still like them. I also think the word support is used a bit losely, I support Bristol Rovers because I pay money to the club for a season ticket every year which pays the staffs wages and sing my heart out on the terraces to get behind the team and support them. Going to the pub to watch Liverpool isn’t supporting them is just liking them more than whoever they’re playing. Maybe fans wouldn’t be accused of being plastic if they said they like Liverpool , Man Utd or whatever rather than they support them. It's always been the case though hasn't it? I know people in their 60's and 70's who "Support" Leeds because of Don Revies side of the 70's. I know people in there 50's, 40's and 30's who say they "Support" Liverpool because of their teams of the 70's and 80's. The same goes for United since the 90's, and Chelsea and Man City over the last couple of decades. You see young kids who are first getting into Football in Man City kits over the park, is it fair to call 6,7,8,9 or 10 year old kids plastic? People are always drawn to the teams that are the most successful in any era. Even clubs like ours, the crowds usually go up when we get promoted or start winning more matches than we lose, 40k suddenly turn up when we get to Play Off finals, that's generally what happens everywhere. Isn't the reason for us wanting a new stadium, to be able to attract new supporters, the scope to get more people through the turnstiles, to improve our income, to make more money, to be able to sign better players, and to make the club more appealing full stop? Does that make us plastic? I still don't understand the term, and as others have said it just seems its used by people who are envious and jealous of other clubs who are improving a lot more than we are. Its just a Buzz Word or statement that has no meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Feb 16, 2020 18:19:00 GMT
I think by plastic fans people mean fans who just say they support Man UTD or whoever but never go and actually watch them. It’s almost as if they pick which club they’re going to support based on something like if they like the colours of the kit or the sound of the name. Many kids my generation chose Liverpool and probably a lot of those still “ support “ now but never see them play except on tv. I don’t know if that does make them plastic , I suppose it’s no different to liking a band , listening to them lots but having never seen them live. You can still like them. I also think the word support is used a bit losely, I support Bristol Rovers because I pay money to the club for a season ticket every year which pays the staffs wages and sing my heart out on the terraces to get behind the team and support them. Going to the pub to watch Liverpool isn’t supporting them is just liking them more than whoever they’re playing. Maybe fans wouldn’t be accused of being plastic if they said they like Liverpool , Man Utd or whatever rather than they support them. It's always been the case though hasn't it? I know people in their 60's and 70's who "Support" Leeds because of Don Revies side of the 70's. I know people in there 50's, 40's and 30's who say they "Support" Liverpool because of their teams of the 70's and 80's. The same goes for United since the 90's, and Chelsea and Man City over the last couple of decades. You see young kids who are first getting into Football in Man City kits over the park, is it fair to call 6,7,8,9 or 10 year old kids plastic? People are always drawn to the teams that are the most successful in any era. Even clubs like ours, the crowds usually go up when we get promoted or start winning more matches than we lose, 40k suddenly turn up when we get to Play Off finals, that's generally what happens everywhere. Isn't the reason for us wanting a new stadium, to be able to attract new supporters, the scope to get more people through the turnstiles, to improve our income, to make more money, to be able to sign better players, and to make the club more appealing full stop? Does that make us plastic? I still don't understand the term, and as others have said it just seems its used by people who are envious and jealous of other clubs who are improving a lot more than we are. Its just a Buzz Word or statement that has no meaning. Jealous? You can be jealous of someone who has a better job than you, more money than you, a better car than you, a better girlfriend / wife / boyfriend/ husband than you etc but someone who supports a better football team? Nah unlike those other things we can all have that in an instant so long as we are a fickle parasite coward (plastic) who hasn’t got the bottle to support a football club that doesn’t win stuff!
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Feb 16, 2020 18:52:09 GMT
Not Man City. Most of their regulars were there in league 1 not that long ago. They won the lottery but that doesn’t make their die hard fans plastic. I’ve yet to speak to a Bristolian that’s said they support Man City. Again what does the term mean? What are "Plastic Fans"? What makes you a non Plastic Fan? Whats a Plastic Club? I'm still none the wiser. It still seems to me a term people use that has no meaning. It’s a; Pathetic Loser Arsewipe Supporting The In Clubs. Or Person Lacking Any Strength Tenacity Integrity or Courage And they do it because they think that makes them also a successful person better than the rest of us and can look down on those of us who support sh** football teams.
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 17, 2020 11:41:09 GMT
Again what does the term mean? What are "Plastic Fans"? What makes you a non Plastic Fan? Whats a Plastic Club? I'm still none the wiser. It still seems to me a term people use that has no meaning. It’s a; Pathetic Loser Arsewipe Supporting The In Clubs. Or Person Lacking Any Strength Tenacity Integrity or Courage And they do it because they think that makes them also a successful person better than the rest of us and can look down on those of us who support sh** football teams. So you're calling 6,7,8,9 or 10 year old kids "Parasites" "Cowards" "Pathetic" "Losers" and "Arsewipes". Stay classy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 11:50:56 GMT
Back on subject :- I do feel there is something wrong with what is happening to Man City though. For example, PSG, on average gates of around 35,000 can afford to spend hundreds of millions buying Neymar and Mbappe. The pay for these two players alone is around one million per week, and that's before the host of other stars they have playing for them......on crowds of 35,000? There is obviously some dodgy accounting going on there.
The cynic in me would suggest that as PSG are owned by Qatar, have thrown money at FIFA and EUFA......no, surely I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 17, 2020 12:54:14 GMT
Back on subject :- I do feel there is something wrong with what is happening to Man City though. For example, PSG, on average gates of around 35,000 can afford to spend hundreds of millions buying Neymar and Mbappe. The pay for these two players alone is around one million per week, and that's before the host of other stars they have playing for them......on crowds of 35,000? There is obviously some dodgy accounting going on there. The cynic in me would suggest that as PSG are owned by Qatar, have thrown money at FIFA and EUFA......no, surely I'm wrong. Makes you wonder if it's all slightly crooked doesn't it.
|
|
|
Post by toddy1953 on Feb 17, 2020 13:36:16 GMT
Whichever way you look at things, the money in the PL & top European teams is obscene & IMO it’s just a business & no longer a sport. You have clubs like PSG & Man C, state owned or part state owned & corrupt authorities such as UEFA & FIFA who don’t give a monkeys about the supporters or players for that matter. For me you either have FFP rules & Adhere to them or you don’t. City will get away with because money is no object. I don’t know about plastic clubs, but there are enough plastic fans out there, who have never been inside a football stadium or not been in one for over 30 years - I personally know 3 Rovers fans, who live in Bristol that have never been to the Mem, but went regularly to Twerton & are glued to Sky for every live game. The game has never been a level playing field, there has always been the clubs a bit richer, fashionable, with better players, better managers, but there was always a dream, especially in the cups, of seeing us pit our wits against the big clubs and either causing an upset or taking them to a replay. Nowadays, I wouldn’t want to see us in the PL, pricing out real supporters & as for the cups, we only see their u23 teams now & replays are being phased out, even talking about scrapping one of the cups. Yeah, football’s changed, it’s been manipulated by super rich people & organisations, some people might call it plastic for that reason, is it better or worse than 30 years ago? Who’s to say?
|
|
|
Post by theduke on Feb 17, 2020 13:44:38 GMT
Man City deserve everything they get. This whole "FFP is designed to keep the elite clubs at the top" is nonsense. FFP concerns the sustainability of clubs. When a state-funded Man City come in and inflate the transfer fees and wages, because they can and have unlimited funds, the other clubs in their division either accept that they can't compete and let City just steamroller everybody every season or they try and compete by spending outside their financial means which places them at significant risk of collapsing one day in the near future. I just cannot accept the argument that football should just be about who has the deepest pockets. Of course, there's always going to be rich and poor clubs but there has to be a form of competitiveness to keep people interested in the competition.
Look at Liverpool. A huge and rich club of course, but they're doing what they're doing with little net spend in relation to what their rivals are doing. They've just been smarter and more organized than their competitors, including Man City. Isn't this a better story than "the richest team" always wins?
I agree on the PSG comparisons. I don't understand how they've managed to get away with it either and UEFA should feel embarassed about that. As for Man City, they've been caught cheating and that's that. They knew the rules of the competition they signed up for. Why is it alright for others to follow the rules and not them?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 17, 2020 13:49:20 GMT
Whichever way you look at things, the money in the PL & top European teams is obscene & IMO it’s just a business & no longer a sport. You have clubs like PSG & Man C, state owned or part state owned & corrupt authorities such as UEFA & FIFA who don’t give a monkeys about the supporters or players for that matter. For me you either have FFP rules & Adhere to them or you don’t. City will get away with because money is no object. I don’t know about plastic clubs, but there are enough plastic fans out there, who have never been inside a football stadium or not been in one for over 30 years - I personally know 3 Rovers fans, who live in Bristol that have never been to the Mem, but went regularly to Twerton & are glued to Sky for every live game. The game has never been a level playing field, there has always been the clubs a bit richer, fashionable, with better players, better managers, but there was always a dream, especially in the cups, of seeing us pit our wits against the big clubs and either causing an upset or taking them to a replay. Nowadays, I wouldn’t want to see us in the PL, pricing out real supporters & as for the cups, we only see their u23 teams now & replays are being phased out, even talking about scrapping one of the cups. Yeah, football’s changed, it’s been manipulated by super rich people & organisations, some people might call it plastic for that reason, is it better or worse than 30 years ago? Who’s to say? It would be nice too see if a club is found guilty of FFP iregularities, drop them down 2 divisions. No questions asked, just dump them. Fines are pointless when owners earn £1 mil a week if not more. How would Man City enjoy being in Lg2 next season?
|
|
|
Post by theduke on Feb 17, 2020 13:55:49 GMT
Whichever way you look at things, the money in the PL & top European teams is obscene & IMO it’s just a business & no longer a sport. You have clubs like PSG & Man C, state owned or part state owned & corrupt authorities such as UEFA & FIFA who don’t give a monkeys about the supporters or players for that matter. For me you either have FFP rules & Adhere to them or you don’t. City will get away with because money is no object. I don’t know about plastic clubs, but there are enough plastic fans out there, who have never been inside a football stadium or not been in one for over 30 years - I personally know 3 Rovers fans, who live in Bristol that have never been to the Mem, but went regularly to Twerton & are glued to Sky for every live game. The game has never been a level playing field, there has always been the clubs a bit richer, fashionable, with better players, better managers, but there was always a dream, especially in the cups, of seeing us pit our wits against the big clubs and either causing an upset or taking them to a replay. Nowadays, I wouldn’t want to see us in the PL, pricing out real supporters & as for the cups, we only see their u23 teams now & replays are being phased out, even talking about scrapping one of the cups. Yeah, football’s changed, it’s been manipulated by super rich people & organisations, some people might call it plastic for that reason, is it better or worse than 30 years ago? Who’s to say? It would be nice too see if a club is found guilty of FFP iregularities, drop them down 2 divisions. No questions asked, just dump them. Fines are pointless when owners earn £1 mil a week if not more. How would Man City enjoy being in Lg2 next season? Take your point, but what about the League Two club that doesn't get promoted as a result of Man City being in their division? Genuinely don't see how anything else but CL exclusion and maybe a points deduction hurts City.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 17, 2020 14:00:26 GMT
It would be nice too see if a club is found guilty of FFP iregularities, drop them down 2 divisions. No questions asked, just dump them. Fines are pointless when owners earn £1 mil a week if not more. How would Man City enjoy being in Lg2 next season? Take your point, but what about the League Two club that doesn't get promoted as a result of Man City being in their division? Genuinely don't see how anything else but CL exclusion and maybe a points deduction hurts City. Yea there is that. But exclusion from CL at £170 mil, a £25 mil fine from the FA, is that really going to hurt them?
|
|
|
Post by theduke on Feb 17, 2020 14:03:42 GMT
Take your point, but what about the League Two club that doesn't get promoted as a result of Man City being in their division? Genuinely don't see how anything else but CL exclusion and maybe a points deduction hurts City. Yea there is that. But exclusion from CL at £170 mil, a £25 mil fine from the FA, is that really going to hurt them? It won't affect the ownership but it does the club because they'll still have to remain compliant of FFP rules moving forwards and will now have 200 million less in their accounts meaning less money to spend on players and wages.
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 17, 2020 14:06:24 GMT
Man City deserve everything they get. This whole "FFP is designed to keep the elite clubs at the top" is nonsense. FFP concerns the sustainability of clubs. When a state-funded Man City come in and inflate the transfer fees and wages, because they can and have unlimited funds, the other clubs in their division either accept that they can't compete and let City just steamroller everybody every season or they try and compete by spending outside their financial means which places them at significant risk of collapsing one day in the near future. I just cannot accept the argument that football should just be about who has the deepest pockets. Of course, there's always going to be rich and poor clubs but there has to be a form of competitiveness to keep people interested in the competition. Look at Liverpool. A huge and rich club of course, but they're doing what they're doing with little net spend in relation to what their rivals are doing. They've just been smarter and more organized than their competitors, including Man City. Isn't this a better story than "the richest team" always wins? I agree on the PSG comparisons. I don't understand how they've managed to get away with it either and UEFA should feel embarassed about that. As for Man City, they've been caught cheating and that's that. They knew the rules of the competition they signed up for. Why is it alright for others to follow the rules and not them? The counter argument to that though is that isn't the reason all these Billionaires are buying clubs is to try and make it more of a level playing field and to give other clubs a chance of success? United used to have the monopoly, if it wasn't for Chelsea and then Man City, United would of continued to dominate. Blackburn and Newcastle also made it interesting for a couple of years in the 90s with wealthy backers. Before PSG had money, Lyon were winning the French League 8 years in a row. Real Madrid and Barcelona continue to dominate La Liga. In Germany its always Bayern Munich with Dortmund winning it sporadically, now Leipzig have backing to make it a bit more interesting, people don't like it. I actually think the money in the game now has made it more interesting, Spurs for example are no longer pushovers and Uniteds feeder club, star players like Kane are now able to stay at Spurs and not sold to United after a good couple of seasons anymore. It depends how you look at it.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 17, 2020 14:08:41 GMT
Yea there is that. But exclusion from CL at £170 mil, a £25 mil fine from the FA, is that really going to hurt them? It won't affect the ownership but it does the club because they'll still have to remain compliant of FFP rules moving forwards and will now have 200 million less in their accounts meaning less money to spend on players and wages. Unfortunately, we both know they'll either buy there way out of trouble or just ignore it and carry on. It makes me sick over the amount of money floating around the Premiership.
|
|
|
Post by theduke on Feb 17, 2020 14:39:23 GMT
Man City deserve everything they get. This whole "FFP is designed to keep the elite clubs at the top" is nonsense. FFP concerns the sustainability of clubs. When a state-funded Man City come in and inflate the transfer fees and wages, because they can and have unlimited funds, the other clubs in their division either accept that they can't compete and let City just steamroller everybody every season or they try and compete by spending outside their financial means which places them at significant risk of collapsing one day in the near future. I just cannot accept the argument that football should just be about who has the deepest pockets. Of course, there's always going to be rich and poor clubs but there has to be a form of competitiveness to keep people interested in the competition. Look at Liverpool. A huge and rich club of course, but they're doing what they're doing with little net spend in relation to what their rivals are doing. They've just been smarter and more organized than their competitors, including Man City. Isn't this a better story than "the richest team" always wins? I agree on the PSG comparisons. I don't understand how they've managed to get away with it either and UEFA should feel embarassed about that. As for Man City, they've been caught cheating and that's that. They knew the rules of the competition they signed up for. Why is it alright for others to follow the rules and not them? The counter argument to that though is that isn't the reason all these Billionaires are buying clubs is to try and make it more of a level playing field and to give other clubs a chance of success? United used to have the monopoly, if it wasn't for Chelsea and then Man City, United would of continued to dominate. Blackburn and Newcastle also made it interesting for a couple of years in the 90s with wealthy backers. Before PSG had money, Lyon were winning the French League 8 years in a row. Real Madrid and Barcelona continue to dominate La Liga. In Germany its always Bayern Munich with Dortmund winning it sporadically, now Leipzig have backing to make it a bit more interesting, people don't like it. I actually think the money in the game now has made it more interesting, Spurs for example are no longer pushovers and Uniteds feeder club, star players like Kane are now able to stay at Spurs and not sold to United after a good couple of seasons anymore. It depends how you look at it. Surely clubs have more of a chance to organically rise up and compete if they aren't competing against, not just billionaires, but oil-rich states dominating the landscape? I think what you're saying is that FFP prohibits clubs from gatecrashing the elite level, but it's not a closed shop by any stretch. Look at Leicester for instance. Won the league a few years ago and likely to finish 3rd this time around. They're competing against the top teams, despite not being bankrolled like a Man City. It can be done. You talk about Man Utd, but often the likes of Liverpool, Leeds and Arsenal were outspending them at the time. They were rich, but they weren't at a Man City level of spending. They still had to balance their books and run a business. They just had the better manager and set-up, it wasn't just about money, it was about being smarter than the competition.
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 17, 2020 14:59:15 GMT
The counter argument to that though is that isn't the reason all these Billionaires are buying clubs is to try and make it more of a level playing field and to give other clubs a chance of success? United used to have the monopoly, if it wasn't for Chelsea and then Man City, United would of continued to dominate. Blackburn and Newcastle also made it interesting for a couple of years in the 90s with wealthy backers. Before PSG had money, Lyon were winning the French League 8 years in a row. Real Madrid and Barcelona continue to dominate La Liga. In Germany its always Bayern Munich with Dortmund winning it sporadically, now Leipzig have backing to make it a bit more interesting, people don't like it. I actually think the money in the game now has made it more interesting, Spurs for example are no longer pushovers and Uniteds feeder club, star players like Kane are now able to stay at Spurs and not sold to United after a good couple of seasons anymore. It depends how you look at it. Surely clubs have more of a chance to organically rise up and compete if they aren't competing against, not just billionaires, but oil-rich states dominating the landscape? I think what you're saying is that FFP prohibits clubs from gatecrashing the elite level, but it's not a closed shop by any stretch. Look at Leicester for instance. Won the league a few years ago and likely to finish 3rd this time around. They're competing against the top teams, despite not being bankrolled like a Man City. It can be done. You talk about Man Utd, but often the likes of Liverpool, Leeds and Arsenal were outspending them at the time. They were rich, but they weren't at a Man City level of spending. They still had to balance their books and run a business. They just had the better manager and set-up, it wasn't just about money, it was about being smarter than the competition. Leicester are owned by multi billionaires too. They won The Championship because they spent more than their competitors doing so. Likewise Wolves did by spending £30M bringing in Neves and Jota when they were in the 2nd tier. Leeds were spending money back then trying to compete with Man United. Leeds won the title a year before The Premier League, it didn't stop United poaching their best player the season after, they were also still signing Rio Ferdinand for a record fee for a defender. United used to poach most clubs best players whether it was Eric Cantona, Andy Cole, Dwight Yorke, Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney, Michael Carrick or Dimitar Berbatov. It was still their financial clout.
|
|
|
Post by theduke on Feb 17, 2020 15:35:30 GMT
Surely clubs have more of a chance to organically rise up and compete if they aren't competing against, not just billionaires, but oil-rich states dominating the landscape? I think what you're saying is that FFP prohibits clubs from gatecrashing the elite level, but it's not a closed shop by any stretch. Look at Leicester for instance. Won the league a few years ago and likely to finish 3rd this time around. They're competing against the top teams, despite not being bankrolled like a Man City. It can be done. You talk about Man Utd, but often the likes of Liverpool, Leeds and Arsenal were outspending them at the time. They were rich, but they weren't at a Man City level of spending. They still had to balance their books and run a business. They just had the better manager and set-up, it wasn't just about money, it was about being smarter than the competition. Leicester are owned by multi billionaires too. They won The Championship because they spent more than their competitors doing so. Likewise Wolves did by spending £30M bringing in Neves and Jota when they were in the 2nd tier. Leeds were spending money back then trying to compete with Man United. Leeds won the title a year before The Premier League, it didn't stop United poaching their best player the season after, they were also still signing Rio Ferdinand for a record fee for a defender. United used to poach most clubs best players whether it was Eric Cantona, Andy Cole, Dwight Yorke, Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney, Michael Carrick or Dimitar Berbatov. It was still their financial clout. Well, most of the Premier League and the Championship have billionaires behind them. Most of them multi-billionaires. I still don't equate that as equal to a state-funded club who are happy to spend endless amounts, incur incredible financial losses, without a care for the bottom line. How's that sustainable in the longer-term? How does that promote fair competition? I'm not even going to discuss the entire sport-washing element behind City's ownership and their deplorable human rights record. This entire argument of City cheated because they had to is absurd. They knew the rules of the competition they competed in. Why should other clubs suffer due to a rival club gaining an unfair advantage? City knew they were breaking the rules and the reason they've been punished so severely is because they lied and deceived the authorities. I genuinely don't understand what else UEFA and the Premier League could do in this situation. Should they just look the other way and tell them not to do it again?
|
|