Punishment for Cheats

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

What should the punishment for long term mass cheating be?

  • 1 relegation

    Votes: 5 6.8%

  • 2 removal of trophies won during period

    Votes: 3 4.1%

  • 3 both above

    Votes: 66 89.2%

  • 4 minimal punishment

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 5 no Punishment, cheating should be allowed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    74
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Tomo said:
That ‘journalist’ is like some troll from the Daily Star, odd they have him as a Times reporter, really basic error either done out of not knowing the facts or more likely to generate sensationalism. Luton took fines due to unregistered agents not points deductions.

Confirmed by Reuters who are a very reliable source that they got 10 points for going into administration.

www.reuters.com

Luton Town go into administration

League One (third division) club Luton Town will be docked 10 points after going into administration on Thursday, the Football League said.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

Edit they also got additional points deductions for transfers but related payments outside of the club but via the club holding company that wasnt declared and on 4 transfers they used unregistered agents. We legally used a registered agent but the question mark is whether an unregistered agent got involved off record.

Luton forced to pay a high price for minor offences | Luton Town | The Guardian

<p>Luton Town's predicament highlights why docking points is not always the right answer</p>
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Did you read the whole Guardian article?

"the club will start next season [08/09] in League Two with, as things stand, 25 points already deducted"

"Luton already had 10 points deducted last season, the automatic penalty for collapsing into administration"

Re: Agent payments:

"the club itself has been punished with the docking of 10 points and a £50,000 fine, rather than the directors who skated round the rules and have now left.

Not clear where the other 5 points comes from; but there's at least 2 deductions accounted for here........
 
Could this process bring back the super league? I assume the likes of Barca and Madrid would still be open to it. If they actually intend to punish big English clubs then they may give them the finger and walk straight towards a super league instead.
 
paddydogsstar said:
I'd hold the fucking door for them.
Click to expand...

If Chelsea, City and all the big European clubs got it done then the other big English clubs probably follow in again… including us.

It’s all very hypothetical but the FA finally trying to put pressure on the ‘elite’ clubs cheating might be a trigger.
 
Deuterz said:
If Chelsea, City and all the big European clubs got it done then the other big English clubs probably follow in again… including us.

It’s all very hypothetical but the FA finally trying to put pressure on the ‘elite’ clubs cheating might be a trigger.
Click to expand...

Bayern can’t as due to the nature of their ownership, PSG have no interest, Arse, United, us and Liverpool won’t be going after what happened last time so that leaves Real, Barca and the Italian clubs but they would need to leave their league to generate enough games to make it worth it for City and Chelsea so it wouldn’t be a replacement for the Champions League but the entire league. Don’t think that will happen.

If City and Chelsea leave I reckon that will spur Rangers and Celtic to come down.
 
I want a club statement ASAP after that cunt from the Times’ clickbait article. Ruins our image no matter how bullshit the article is 🤦‍♂️ should sue the reporter for defamation too while they're at it

Dont need people lumping us with the confirmed cheats now 🤦‍♂️
 
"It is highly unusual for a motion proposed by the league to be rejected by its shareholder clubs but with Newcastle voting against the change, alongside Manchester City, Burnley, Nottingham Forest, Chelsea, Sheffield United, Wolves and Everton there were signs of a potentially consequential divide opening up between the 20 teams."

Everton shouldn't' have been allowed to vote. And why did Burnley, Forest and Sheffield United vote against it?

www.theguardian.com

Ban on loans between associated clubs rejected after failing to reach majority

The proposal came after Saudi links in Rúben Neves’ loan to Newcastle while the long-awaited financial redistribution deal with EFL remained unresolved
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
www.thetimes.co.uk

Eight clubs that blocked ban on signing players from sister sides

Newcastle, Sheffield United, Man City, Chelsea, Everton, Wolves, Nottingham Forest and Burnley are said to have voted against the proposed Premier League rule change
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk

A proposed ban on Premier League sides signing players from related clubs in the January transfer window — which would have blocked Newcastle United signing players on loan from the Saudi Pro League — has been narrowly defeated.

Saudi-owned Sheffield United were among eight clubs who opposed the temporary ban, while 12 voted in favour at the Premier League meeting in London. At least 14 of the 20 top-flight clubs needed to back the proposal to pass the rule change.

Sources said the eight clubs that voted against the ban were: Newcastle, Sheffield United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Everton, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Nottingham Forest and Burnley. Most of those clubs are linked to multi-club ownership models so the defeat of the proposal means they can take playersfrom partner clubs on loan.

A separate vote on tougher rules on commercial deals between associated parties was also defeated, by a single vote — the same clubs voted against that, apart from Burnley, for a 13-7 outcome.

One club chief said there was particular anger among some of the 12 clubs in favour of the ban that Sheffield United had voted against it. Their owner is the Saudi prince Abdullah bin Musaid Al Saud.

The proposed loan ban had been put forward after the move in the summer by the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund (PIF), which owns Newcastle, to buy four clubs in the Saudi Pro League.

There has been speculation that Newcastle could move for Rúben Neves to replace Sandro Tonali after the Italy midfielder was banned for ten months for breaching betting rules. Sources close to the club insist there was no intention of signing Neves, who plays for Al-Hilal, one of the clubs owned by the PIF.


There has been growing concern that multi-club ownership and associated party deals are providing some clubs with an unfair advantage. In December 2021 it was agreed that every associated party transaction — including transfers of players — involving Premier League clubs over the value of £1million a year would be checked to ensure it was of fair market value.

The rules now say that if the Premier League’s board has reasonable grounds to suspect “that it is an associated-party deal or ‘otherwise than at arm’s length’ ” then an independent firm will determine whether it is of fair market value or has been artificially inflated.

The regulations also cover any extra payments from associated parties to a club’s senior officials, managers or players earning more than £1 million a year.

Each club have had to provide financial details of all sponsorship deals they have done since 2016 to form a “databank” that will be used to determine fair market value.

Meanwhile, the Premier League delayed a vote on a £915 million six-year financial settlement to the EFL.

There is still no consensus on the model for how much each Premier League team should contribute to the settlement, while some club chiefs also want to find out the value of the 2025 to 2029 domestic broadcasting deal, which is expected in early December, before finalising an agreement.
 
Jimmy D said:
"It is highly unusual for a motion proposed by the league to be rejected by its shareholder clubs but with Newcastle voting against the change, alongside Manchester City, Burnley, Nottingham Forest, Chelsea, Sheffield United, Wolves and Everton there were signs of a potentially consequential divide opening up between the 20 teams."

Everton shouldn't' have been allowed to vote. And why did Burnley, Forest and Sheffield United vote against it?

www.theguardian.com

Ban on loans between associated clubs rejected after failing to reach majority

The proposal came after Saudi links in Rúben Neves’ loan to Newcastle while the long-awaited financial redistribution deal with EFL remained unresolved
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

All previous reports said vote was 13-7, not 12-8
Why should Everton not have been allowed to vote, they are an equal member to everybody else ?

Forest owner owns Olympiakos
Sheff Utd owner owns about 3 other clubs
Everton's 777 Partners model would likely be multi-club model, but could also be a fuck you to the other clubs.
Burnley I could see due to principles, don't change rules halfway through a season
Wolves no idea why they would however, maybe got plans of going down multi-club route

Thought Brighton and Palace might have been in list due to owning other clubs at a possible suitable playing level
 
Last edited:
The argument Chelsea fans make it was under previous ownership. However does that change the fact in those seasons they cheated their rivals by gaining an unfair advantage. You just know Man City and Chelsea are on the rig and have been taking the piss for years. City were a mid to lowest tier club and in about 10 years surpassed Real Madrid in the money leagues, during a time Real Madrid won the CL three seasons on a row. City fans will say they are a 'well run club', and to that I say, the Mafia is also well run.

They need to be punished, because rival fans have been punished in the seasons they cheated. They also need to be punished to serve a deterrent to future cheating.

The calls for an independent regulator are growing. Thats the reason I think Chelsea and City actually are going to get punished severely. The Everton points deduction was the PL testing the waters. Don't think they would have pinged Everton if they weren't confident Chelsea and City are outside their crosshairs, as the optics would look terrible - punishing battling Everton who were cooperating, whilst City adopt the Mafia 'I didn't see nuthin' policy of keeping their mouth shut and non-cooperation.
 
Knowing our luck, they'll take City's & Chelsea's recent titles away, no doubt giving the Arse & Liverpool a couple of extra league titles/trophies along the way... but they'll agree decide to ONLY go back 5 years to 2018, so that WE don't get our 2017 title!

It won't be worth having it anyway, as it'll always have a MASSIVE ASTERISK next to it!!!
 
Last edited:
N17-Tommo said:
Was speaking to a mate last week, who had with him a colleague who was involved in sports law. Obviously the first thing I said to him was how come Everton got done immediately but City and Chelsea haven't.
He said Evertons was due to one breach from november to march and as straightforward as can be.
He said City's is a really complex case that goes back to the Mancini days and involves breaches from 5 different groupings.
He mentioned it is as serious as it can get and the authorities are making sure they have any appeal or counter attack in place. They have to consider what other clubs could make a claim etc.
He asked me what I think will or should happen to them. Without really thinking I said they have to be relegated surely. He said where to? I said well the Championship I guess. He said how is it fair on the clubs in the championship, they would obviously come straight back up and prevent another club from getting promoted, which I thought was a fair point.
I asked what is likely, he said the only fitting punishment for their crime is to kick them out of the league altogether, but he doubts that would happen due to the size and wealth of Man City. I said but if it was a smaller club that is what would happen? he said almost definitely.

It's very very messy but no one really knows how to punish them without it having a massive effect on may other clubs.
Click to expand...
Rangers should be the yardstick
they should be relegated to league two as a minimum, and play in empty stadiums for home games
For Chelsea, they should only be allowed to use their women's team to get back to the premier league
City can only use people over 50 years of age
 
Bill Madrid said:
If it weren't for the vile sectarianism and extremist politics of both sets of fans I'd be bang up for sacking off City and the Chavs and replacing them with Rangers and Celtic.
Click to expand...
umm Bill..........
you know about the religious thing between those two, right?
not to mention Celtic and their support for terrorist organisations

not much of a replacement
 
Mick Cooper said:
umm Bill..........
you know about the religious thing between those two, right?
not to mention Celtic and their support for terrorist organisations

not much of a replacement
Click to expand...
Hence my caveat, if it weren't for the vile sectarianism and extremist politics of both sets of fans...

As it is they can stew in their bitter heroin-drenched misery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom