"LOOK AT YOUR PUNDITS!" Man City fan's PASSIONATE DEFENCE of his Club and Maresca in HEATED DEBATE!
Man City fan Paul clashes with talkSPORT hosts over City and Maresca, Chelsea’s fine and double standards in punishment
The video debates Manchester City’s financial case and appeal, whether the CEO should have fronted up, and how City’s treatment compares with Chelsea’s. Paul argues that City are being treated unfairly and that pundits are applying double standards; the hosts argue the cases are different, City have currently been found guilty, and any punishment should fit the conduct.
- There is no need for the Man City CEO to come out and answer everything; the club has already commented on the appeal and the manager has explained that details cannot be disclosed, so more should not be expected. — The appeal is a confidential process, and the club and Maresca have already set out what they can.
- Manchester City should have sent a senior figure or the CEO to shield Maresca from non-football questions and explain the nature of the appeal. — Maresca says he has no knowledge or information, and journalists will inevitably ask about the club’s wider situation, so leaving him exposed was not ideal.
- Chelsea admitted multiple charges and got only a £10m fine, which looks clearly unfair next to the severe sanctions Manchester City are facing. — Chelsea admitted the charges and accepted a fine, while City are being hit with calls for extreme punishment, so the treatment is inconsistent.
- The Chelsea comparison does not hold, because City are accused of inflating income by £830m and hiding it, while Chelsea self-reported and admitted the issues. — The scale of the charges, the level of cooperation and the nature of the cases are different, so the fines cannot be compared directly.
- Pundits such as Carragher, Neville and Ian Wright have called for extreme sanctions like sending City to the National League, stripping titles and forcing the owners out, which is double standards compared with Chelsea’s fine. — Chelsea admitted financial breaches and got a £10m fine, yet pundits demand the harshest possible punishment for City.
- This is not a witch hunt against City; many people are simply angry about what has happened, and City’s claimed irrefutable evidence should not just amount to “Chelsea got away with it”. — The commission has found City guilty, so public anger has a basis, and the Chelsea comparison cannot by itself prove City’s innocence.
- Other Premier League clubs are reacting strongly because they see themselves as victims: they were restricted in spending and missed out on European football and players while City spent more. — City have currently been found guilty, and rival clubs were harmed by the competitive advantage those breaches allegedly created.
- A panel is unlikely to overturn 114 guilty findings; since City have been found guilty at this stage, people can only judge on the evidence presented. — City are appealing, but the commission’s guilty verdict currently stands and it should not be assumed they will be fully cleared.
- Financial rules may be flawed but must still be followed, and breaches should be punished; the appropriate sanction, however, is multi-year points deductions over five years, not relegation to the National League. — The rules do pull the drawbridge up on challengers, but they still have to be enforced, and deductions across several years better fit the scale of the alleged conduct over a decade.
Man City fan Paul discuss Enzo Maresca's interview with Sam Matterface, Alex Crook and Scott Minto. Subscribe: https://youtube.com/c/talkSPORT?subconfirmation=1 🏆 Ready to win? Check out the latest prizes at talkSPORTwin.com Enjoyed this YouTube video? 😍 🖥️ talkSPORT's Website: https://talksport.com/ 📲 talkSPORT's X/Twitter: https://x.com/talkSPORT 📷 talkSPORT's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talksport/?hl=en 👤 talkSPORT's Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/talkSPORT/ 📱 talkSPORT's Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talksport ? 🔴 Download the talkSPORT app HERE! - https://talksport.com/apps/ 🔎 Want to see if you feature on our YouTube channel? Check out our Best talkSPORT callers playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFVMnSsi04LGLa9pS9xDvme-Gjmlu2 mancity mcfc talkSPORT PremierLeague
Transcript
Paul is a Manchester City fan, he joins us now. Hi, Paul. >> Hi, mate. >> Ah, thanks for coming on, appreciate it. Nice to speak to you. What do you want to say? >> Uh, really, there's three points I wanted to make. Um, to be honest with you. I mean, I've just been listening now regarding, you know, Maresca's press conference. Um, you lads are asking the question why um the CEO's not come on, you know, and explained explained the situation. I don't really know what you were expecting, to be honest with you. I mean, the CEO has come out, has made his sort of obviously his remarks regarding the appeal. What did you really expect him to do? >> Well, I suppose that the the the the the point of that is in response to that, Paul, is is that the manager has obviously been put into a situation where he's having to answer questions not about football, but about wider issues that relate to the club, which he says himself he has no knowledge and doesn't have any information about. I think anyone that knows anything about the situation in football knows that if you've got the opportunity to speak to an official from Manchester City, you are going to send across your journalist to ask questions about the wider situation at this juncture. So, maybe it would have been better to provide the manager with a little bit of cover and actually have someone come out and say, you know, from the Manchester City hierarchy and do that work for him rather than leaving him exposed in that situation. Now, actually, he probably handled it as best as he possibly could cuz he deflected all of the questions, but wouldn't it have been better to hear that from the CEO himself and actually get a little bit of information about what the nature of the appeal really is? >> But, but like we say, I mean, that um at the end of the day, they've explained their situation. They've They've explained the fact that they can't really go into detail regarding the appeal. So, is it not the journalists that really are sort of posing questions that they know just can't be answered? >> Well, may- maybe, but why can't they tell us what the nature of their appeal is? Because it's illegal. It's an ongoing process. They've explained that. So, obviously, they they they've told us that they've got irrefutable evidence, but they could tell us why they believe that they're innocent. There's no that that wouldn't in that's not influencing anyone. I mean, we all know that they Well, do we know that? Do we know that they can do that? I mean, like you say, it's all been it's supposed to be a confidential process. So, obviously, the probably is legal aspects to it where they can't come out and and so on and so on. But you can come and explain that as well, can't you? Pardon? You can come and explain that properly as well. You can test those arguments. Journalists test those arguments. He has already said that, hasn't he? He's already said that. It's an ongoing We are going to appeal. It's an ongoing process. It's It's bound by confidentiality rules. He's already explained that. Do you know what I mean? I think pretty clearly he's already said you had three points. Go on then, what's the other what's the other two? Right. Well, the other two is I'm a bit suspect about what this one this one charge that we was probably found innocent on. I mean, that really Has anybody asked the question in relation relation to what that charge is? From what I understand, that was one of the less serious charge. And we would probably have asked that question if the CEO had turned up. Well, yeah, I mean, I don't know again whether he would be able to say anything regarding that. And my final point really is the which one which I think it is as a Man City fan. I know obviously I'm embarrassed in this respect, but Chelsea 74 charges. All right, they admitted to them. Um 10 million pound fine. Clearly, come on. Let's have it right. So, 100 We've We've obviously Hold on, Paul. There's a slight difference though, isn't there, between 76 different charges, 114 different charges, and the inflation of 830 million pounds that didn't really come from where we said it was going to come from. That's different. And the attitude of the two football clubs and listen, Manchester City, they prove their innocence, they will say that their tactic has paid off. If they don't, I think the fact they haven't shown any contrition, they've tried to drag this out as long as possible is is going to work against them in the court of public opinion. >> Let's have it right though. Like you say, we've gone from pundits pundits yourselves, Carragher, Neville, all them, they should be national league, they should have the trophy straight, their owners should go, their should and yet Chelsea get a 10 million fine. Where's where's the disparity in those two? >> is is that Chelsea didn't inflate their income by 830 million pounds, didn't hide hide that from the organization, didn't turn around and say that it was nothing to do with us and we're completely innocent. They said, "This is what happened. We are self-reporting it and we're going to try and make it in his previous ownership as well." >> reporting it because Abramovich has done now. They probably wouldn't have sold before they did. >> I I I understand where you're coming from, Paul. I I don't think it's a witch hunt. I just think a lot of people are are very angry about what has happened and I hope from Manchester City's perspective that this irrefutable evidence they claim to have is not just, well, Chelsea got off with it. >> And Paul, by the way, you're absolutely right on one thing. If Chelsea were found to have been doing exactly the same thing as Manchester City, lied about it and made a disguised income fund as was accused by the panel itself, then we would be coming down just as hard upon them as we are on Manchester City. At the moment, the commission have found them guilty. It's not like they're they're waiting for the next stage. Manchester City are appealing that verdict, but right now they have been found guilty. So, people are going to be a little bit annoyed about the fact they've missed out on opportunities because Manchester City have spent more money than everybody else. >> I still think yeah, but look at look at the look at the sponsorships. When you look at what the commissioner saying in relation to the sponsorship deals that we had over those years, that they compare with the likes of Everton and Bournemouth and they don't those figures don't compare with where we were at that time. >> What's that got to do with a disguised funding scheme and hiding the money? And also that's part of the other issue because again Manchester City could have won all of these trophies without needing to win without needing to cheat. What they tried to do was get overnight success. >> But But let's have it right. Can I just explain? There There has been issues within legal proceedings in the past where commissions and people have been found innocent. So we are jumping to the fact that they're ultimately guilty. Everybody is. Do you know what >> You think a panel are going to overturn 114 guilty verdicts? Whether they do or whether they don't and they have been found guilty right now. So we can only go on the evidence that is presented to us, can't we? >> But like I say, it just seems overboard that everybody is jumping now. Premier League clubs are going on what sanctions they want and you know what I mean? >> Paul Paul Paul, think about this carefully. If you're another Premier League club and you've been restricted in what you can spend and you've been playing by the rules, you haven't been able to compete with Manchester City. You've lost out on European football. You've lost out on players to Manchester City. If you are part There's a lot of clubs that have been in that situation. The reason that they're reacting so badly is because they've been the victims of it. >> If you listen to Simon Jordan, he says that pretty much every club has done pretty much maybe not on the same level that City are accused of. >> We haven't got the evidence of that. They haven't been found guilty of that. The ones that have have had points deductions or fines, Paul. We can only react to what's happened. And listen, by the way, just for clarity, if you listen to the Premier League Unfiltered podcast over the last few years, you will know that we don't agree with the rules, right? We don't agree with the rules. The rules are wrong because it pulls the gate up on everybody the drawbridge up on all of those aspiring teams that want to get into the top six and it means that you have to sell your talent when it the worst thing you can do is rob your team of an of an academy player. But when the rules are there, you have to abide by them and if you've if you've been found guilty of not abiding by the rules, there has to be some level of punishment and there is going to be a lot of discussion about that, Paul. >> You might not agree with the 70 mile an hour speed limit. If you go over it and you're doing 80 miles an hour and you get caught, you're going to get fined. You're going to get you're going to get points on your license. >> Look at your main pundits that are coming out and asking for all these drastic um sanctions. It's you're never like you're Carragher, it's you're Ian Wright. Red card tell again, isn't it? >> Well, we don't we don't we we we don't I'm I'm not I don't think we're massive on punishments that send them down to National League either. I mean again, listen to what we've been saying. We've been saying multi-year points deductions over the next 5 years may be put Manchester City into a situation where they have to fight really hard to stay in the Premier League and they have a a punishment that fits what's happened over the course of the last 10 years. I I I think I listen, there is always going to be a accusations of bias. It's football, we're tribal and we've all got clubs and everybody has got their allegiances, but you have to be a little bit realistic as well about the fact that this is a seismic verdict for English football. Paul, appreciate your call, really liked it. Thank you very much for getting in touch.