General EPL Discussion/Housery Thread

582,249 Views | 3491 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by deadbq03
fightingfarmer09
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deadbq03 • 12:17p, 10/12/26
So they broke rules a decade ago. Why is this team illegitimate? They haven't been found in violation. They get to play out the season, if they win they get to celebrate and raise the trophy. They earned that.

If they want to come back in a year on a technicality and make the public pretend they didn't win that's fine. We do that with those random BCS championships and Ohio St championship because the QB got a free tattoo.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:47p, 10/12/26
I think another thing EPL is dealing with and will be even more as the season goes on, is the level of increased interest and eyes that will be tuning in to ever City match because of all the high drama around them all. The boom of viewers and readers to all EPL related media and articles about city.

Drop a sentence now like 60 point deduction or auto relegation, and within a few weeks, everything goes almost back to normal and people move on. Less interest than the constant drama of "what will happen to them?"

Also, knowing how City owners have shown plenty of interest in taking this to the high court if the appeal fails, it would seem risky to apply any punishments now when they could be overturned in the coming months, years bringing countersuits for any damage done.

7nine
Reply Quote
texagbeliever
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fightingfarmer09 • 1:08p, 10/12/26
fightingfarmer09 said:
So they broke rules a decade ago. Why is this team illegitimate? They haven't been found in violation. They get to play out the season, if they win they get to celebrate and raise the trophy. They earned that.

If they want to come back in a year on a technicality and make the public pretend they didn't win that's fine. We do that with those random BCS championships and Ohio St championship because the QB got a free tattoo.

They are still breaking the rules. Their reported incomes are just as fraudulent after the investigation period as they were during it.
Reply Quote
5
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to texagbeliever • 1:13p, 10/12/26
texagbeliever said:
fightingfarmer09 said:
So they broke rules a decade ago. Why is this team illegitimate? They haven't been found in violation. They get to play out the season, if they win they get to celebrate and raise the trophy. They earned that.

If they want to come back in a year on a technicality and make the public pretend they didn't win that's fine. We do that with those random BCS championships and Ohio St championship because the QB got a free tattoo.

They are still breaking the rules. Their reported incomes are just as fraudulent after the investigation period as they were during it.

That argument doesn't hold water. City's global popularity is now up there with the top 4 teams in the league. Their revenue is going to be right up there with that group as well.
7nine
Reply Quote
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:47p, 10/12/26
AG


The whole Premier League season is.

It can still be saved, just. But in truth we all know it's probably going to continue to drag for a few months at least before we get anything close to clarity.

So we'll see those scenes again and again this season because they are a great team with great players who are going to keep winning. It's just going to make such a mockery of this season.

Every goal, every celebration, every glance at the league table, you just ask yourself the same questions. What does it mean? What's the point of this all? What's the point of spending our money to watch?

Of course we will still do it and come kick-off of most games. (when City aren't playing in them), we'll probably forget about it and get caught up in what we're watching.

But then the full-time whistle will go and it will start all over again.

So many seasons/moments have been lost for millions of fans around the world already because of what they've done and this season is going to be no different. Such a shame.

Reply Quote
4
1 edit
AustinScubaAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 1:47p, 10/12/26
AG
Texaggie7nine said:
texagbeliever said:
fightingfarmer09 said:
So they broke rules a decade ago. Why is this team illegitimate? They haven't been found in violation. They get to play out the season, if they win they get to celebrate and raise the trophy. They earned that.

If they want to come back in a year on a technicality and make the public pretend they didn't win that's fine. We do that with those random BCS championships and Ohio St championship because the QB got a free tattoo.

They are still breaking the rules. Their reported incomes are just as fraudulent after the investigation period as they were during it.

That argument doesn't hold water. City's global popularity is now up there with the top 4 teams in the league. Their revenue is going to be right up there with that group as well.


You are being obtuse. Even if the books are clean today, they are where they are on revenue now based on years of rule breaking. Do they become a perennial top 4 now without that? Who know. Are they able to buy and sell players like they do now without the years of rule breaking? Who knows.

Todays team was built on the back of years of rule breaking. Or is the argument city would be the same today it is just the earlier years that had this advantage. At what point do they get where they are today ( I have previously acknowledged they could have possibly built to this but it might be less of a super team most years ) without the rule breaking. No one knows.

The key is when you build on financial rule breaking of this scale there is no way to know where a club really would be. You can't say the books were good the year after the investigation range and say there was no impact.
Reply Quote
6
2 edits
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:05p, 10/12/26
ok, I think we can all find this funny.

7nine
Reply Quote
1
fightingfarmer09
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinScubaAg • 3:46p, 10/12/26
So if they get a point deduction and somehow remain in the Premier League and then win it all for the next 3 years it's legit, but not this year.

Honestly the best move for the EPL is to delay announcing the penalty until they have a solid idea of what the table will look like. Give them enough room to make the end of the season a fight to stay up. And then move on. It would be an epic TV event.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fightingfarmer09 • 3:49p, 10/12/26
AG
fightingfarmer09 said:
So if they get a point deduction and somehow remain in the Premier League and then win it all for the next 3 years it's legit, but not this year.

Honestly the best move for the EPL is to delay announcing the penalty until they have a solid idea of what the table will look like. Give them enough room to make the end of the season a fight to stay up. And then move on. It would be an epic TV event.

If they did that it would be a multiple year point deduction which it still might be.
Reply Quote
2
deadbq03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:47a, 10/13/26
AG
More I think about it, the more I think the hammer is inappropriate, for many reasons, but a big factor I had never considered was one that Independent article from the previous page mentioned… it makes EPL investment more risky. Say you're a minority owner and the majority owner + a few bad apples in the organization cheat and coverup… now your investment gets wiped out due to draconic punishments from EPL.

Furthermore, if the intent of the rules are to protect clubs' communities from seeing their club crumble due to bad ownership… it doesn't follow that the best way to punish a bad owner who broke the rules is to try and crumble the club.

Also, I'm not sure you want a protracted legal battle after wiping out a sovereign owners' investment.

In short, I feel like this is on its way into turning into a "two wrongs don't make a right" situation. People want blood, but it might cause more harm, and it's certainly not gonna change what happened.

But punishment does still need to be serious and most certainly needs to require independent financial oversight for a long period of time.

It's a really tricky situation all the way around. Gonna be interesting to see what happens.
Reply Quote
1 edit
texagbeliever
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deadbq03 • 9:54a, 10/13/26
The classic too big to fail situation.

If you let the banks fail for their fraud it will cause more economic damage. If you bail them out you let them be there to make the same mistake with other people's checkbook again.

I think the right punishment is to demote them. Then give them a 15 point deduction for 5 years and enforce strict financial rules. That way you dont kill the club but you also financially reset them to the budget of a mid table club. Which is where they should be.
Reply Quote
4
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:19a, 10/13/26
To me, the best outcome is that ADUG takes the case to the high court after the Appeal fails. The high court overturns it all by ruling FFP type rules anti competitive.

Deduct 60 pts for like 1 season, which would likely send us to the lowerleague for a year if we are still guilty of "covering up" But any punishment for breaking the unfair rules themselves goes away.

Now other clubs that can afford it, can finally spend like the big boys and we won't have to watch the pathetic floundering like Newcastle is forced to do because they can't spend their own money.

The league then becomes ultra competitive at the top. Winners all around.
7nine
Reply Quote
deadbq03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to texagbeliever • 10:28a, 10/13/26
AG
I think relegation is probably too much.

I think you make the punishment fit the crime. Require independent financial and governance oversight as a requirement of City's owners' ability to pass owner fitness.

Require them to make up the difference in player spending across 5 years. Making numbers up here… if they overspent by 1 billion, then you'd make them underspend by 200 million a year, but maybe structure it so that year one is more painful. Hurt them in the exact same way they cheated.

Use the proceeds from the above underspending as compensation payments to the rest of the league, especially those who missed out on championships and UCL/UEL.

If they're savvy, they can survive and maybe even thrive, but I suspect the forced underpayment on players would cause them to drive to mid-table, at least.

And given those harsh financial punishments (that for the crime), I don't see much of a need for a sporting consequence.

Key thing for me would be to keep the club as a lucrative asset - because you very well could entice the owners to just sell. The whole venture just may not be worth it to them anymore, but if you gut the value of their asset, you make them fight instead of bail.
Reply Quote
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:41a, 10/13/26
AG
Reply Quote
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PJYoung • 11:50a, 10/13/26
Yeah, more clickbait trash.

They started counting from when the "investigation was looking" which was a few years before the FFP rules even were put in in the EPL. Then they just assume City would stay bottom tier EPL club without the illegal spending. Totally ignoring that City already put in a massive amount before the FFP rules took affect. So their statement that "city was a 5th from the bottom team before the owners got them so lets just assume they would stay that bad if not for the illegal spending" is just laughable.
7nine
Reply Quote
Bull Meachem
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:17p, 10/13/26
I don't understand why we're still having this conversation. You broke the rules of the group you willingly joined. Take your medicine and stop with BS.
Reply Quote
5
AustinScubaAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 12:38p, 10/13/26
AG
Texaggie7nine said:
To me, the best outcome is that ADUG takes the case to the high court after the Appeal fails. The high court overturns it all by ruling FFP type rules anti competitive.

Deduct 60 pts for like 1 season, which would likely send us to the lowerleague for a year if we are still guilty of "covering up" But any punishment for breaking the unfair rules themselves goes away.

Now other clubs that can afford it, can finally spend like the big boys and we won't have to watch the pathetic floundering like Newcastle is forced to do because they can't spend their own money.

The league then becomes ultra competitive at the top. Winners all around.

I need the the laugh cry emoji for this. This would not make the league ultra competitive at the top. This just means the owner with the biggest wallet would win. Do you think for a minute city would not outspend the market to have a super team every year. You are delusional. You just want rules that benefit your club and hurt poor clubs. For all your whining about fairness, you are advocating for a system that creates a "blue cartel".

With all of that said, the UEFA rules would still be in place where are stricter than EPL. In fact city could be damned by this because it is highly unlikely a high court says the EPL can't have explicit rule require its clubs to follow the UEFA rule. The best they can hope is the high court in that case says the EPL must follow time limitations of UEFA rules.

Reply Quote
2
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinScubaAg • 12:48p, 10/13/26
Quote:
This just means the owner with the biggest wallet would win.



The highest net spenders haven't been winning the past several years, including when City won it. So I think that argument doesn't stand.
7nine
Reply Quote
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deadbq03 • 12:54p, 10/13/26
AG
deadbq03 said:
More I think about it, the more I think the hammer is inappropriate, for many reasons, but a big factor I had never considered was one that Independent article from the previous page mentioned… it makes EPL investment more risky. Say you're a minority owner and the majority owner + a few bad apples in the organization cheat and coverup… now your investment gets wiped out due to draconic punishments from EPL.

Furthermore, if the intent of the rules are to protect clubs' communities from seeing their club crumble due to bad ownership… it doesn't follow that the best way to punish a bad owner who broke the rules is to try and crumble the club.

Also, I'm not sure you want a protracted legal battle after wiping out a sovereign owners' investment.

In short, I feel like this is on its way into turning into a "two wrongs don't make a right" situation. People want blood, but it might cause more harm, and it's certainly not gonna change what happened.

But punishment does still need to be serious and most certainly needs to require independent financial oversight for a long period of time.

It's a really tricky situation all the way around. Gonna be interesting to see what happens.

Punishment for committing a crime isn't a second wrong.

Until Abu Dhabi money showed up, Man City was always a mediocre club. They had exactly 2 league titles to their name - with the last dating to 1967. So "severe" punishment that "crumbles" the club is a bit of a misnomer. Punishment that puts the club back to where it was before the dirty money started flowing is perfectly appropriate. They were a perennial relegation contender that bounced up and down.

And it doesn't make investing in an EPL club any more or less risky. New owners know the rules. They're not a secret. And new owners know that they're buying a club, not a franchise.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
deadbq03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconBird • 1:08p, 10/13/26
AG
I agree with nearly everything you said.

That's a far cry from expulsion from the EFL, which is what some people want.

Expulsion from the league would come with all the negatives I described.
Reply Quote
1 edit
texagbeliever
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:15p, 10/13/26
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/50174651/independent-football-regulator-english-address-finances-too-late

32 teams could not survive more than 30 days without owner funding.
94% of clubs in the top 5 divisions lost money last season.

Concerns over pending financial disaster.

City started an Arms race and the nuclear war fallout might hit sooner than later.
Reply Quote
4
PatAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:38p, 10/13/26
AG
new offside that was discussed awhile back is being trialed out.
I think we were all pretty split on it, but I find myself still thinking it is worse.
Here's an example of it being applied.

Reply Quote
wangus12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:55p, 10/13/26
AG
Just luke to comment that I miss when ESPN had the CL rights and you could see most of the games.

The only televised game is PSV vs RB Leipzig when Arsenal, Man United, Bayern and Barcelona are all playing. ****ing Paramount
Reply Quote
1
AustinScubaAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PatAg • 2:20p, 10/13/26
AG
PatAg said:
new offside that was discussed awhile back is being trialed out.
I think we were all pretty split on it, but I find myself still thinking it is worse.
Here's an example of it being applied.



I am ok with this but do prefer the standard from when I officiated in my youth which was daylight between chest to hips so a trailing foot would not keep you onside.
Reply Quote
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:05p, 10/14/26
AG
Reply Quote
1
deadbq03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PatAg • 1:56p, 10/15/26
AG
To me it solves nothing.

It's not gonna move the needle for casuals who don't understand offside. Might even be more confusing for them because it's harder to see.

It's not gonna work for the minority of soccer fans like myself who do understand the rule and why it exists but want serious revisions or outright scrapping. (Seriously, I want all of Van Basten's 2017 proposals… huge change to the game but it would make it better).

It's not gonna work for soccer fans who think the rule is necessary but hate VAR taking goals away… this just moves the goalposts… VAR will still take goals away.

I suppose it will make the game slightly more attacking, but it doesn't solve most of people's biggest concerns. And if I'm right about it being harder to see live, then it likely means even more VAR stoppages to try and get it correct. (I'm with the comment above, either this rule or the current offside rule need to be about trunk of the body… make it as easy as possible for a ref to see it live).
Reply Quote
2 edits
deadbq03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wangus12 • 2:12p, 10/15/26
AG
wangus12 said:
Just luke to comment that I miss when ESPN had the CL rights and you could see most of the games.

The only televised game is PSV vs RB Leipzig when Arsenal, Man United, Bayern and Barcelona are all playing. ****ing Paramount
Why don't you just get Paramount?

Honestly I don't understand why any soccer fan doesn't (unless you're truly strapped for cash).

You also get La Liga, Serie A, Concacaf, EFL, SFL and more… to me it's a no brainer.

It's clear that ESPN doesn't give a rip about soccer. They just let Bundesliga rights slip away too. Support the companies that actually support soccer. Paramount's UCL show is arguably the best soccer show in the world. Pay them their dues.
Reply Quote
4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.