Liverpool banter 8

01 Oct 2026
New image uploaded to the
Liverpool Player Sightings page entitled,

Click picture for larger image

01 Oct 2026 15:03:51
We're definitely not state owned, but our state owners are the ones who funded us, not the sponsors who are owned by the same state. However that state don't own us anyway. Got it? Irrefutable!

01 Oct 2026 15:04:47
Man I hate legal documents.

Minimum 33 Appendices.

I'm not reading those.

Reading those few paragraphs tired me out.

GUILTY I say.

{Ed666's Note - Im not reading all that either I’ll just wait for Indykalias version 🤣

01 Oct 2026 15:08:07
So City's 'defence' was to essentially admit they did it. 🤣 I made a comment talking about how brash they were in their cheating yesterday, but this is just 'wow'. They've not even tried to hide the fact that they didn't even try to hide the money, this is like an episode of Americas Dubmest Criminals.

The blatantness of it all means serious, serious questions have to be asked of the Premier League and what it is they actually do, to ensure clubs aren't cheating, because if it wasn't for Rui Pinto handing over 5 hard drives worth of hacked information, this probably never would have come to light.

01 Oct 2026 15:18:18
I think this is what the PL meant by retrofitting the evidence to support the explanation. Or in otherwords. This is what a lie looks like.

01 Oct 2026 19:54:00
This wouldn't save city any way. The panel has already taken it into account. Given they never declared it to the Premier League as an associated party payment to begin with they're trying to say we didn't break this rule. We broke this rule.

But the panels already considered this in their verdict.

{Ed666's Note - not disputing that mate and I’m not saying they won’t be found guilty but when you go to court anything’s possible. Remember OJ Simpson?

01 Oct 2026 21:09:36
They won't go to a criminal court Ed666 this is not a legal matter.

The only thing they might do is go to the High Court claiming that the Premier League's process was biased but given that they agreed to the rules themselves and proceeded to systematically break every single one of them I can't see the High Court getting involved.

Although I do hear they are quite partial to the odd back hander so you never know.

{Ed666's Note - I personally feel this will go to the highest courts in the land. This will take years of litigation unless there’s a compromise that Man City take a lesser punishment for not dragging the whole process out. Will they do that? Your guess is as good as mine..if they think they’re innocent why heel?

01 Oct 2026 20:30:32
Was just a general reply ed not to you specifically about going to court. I get what you mean by OJ.

I don't think this would go to a crown court for a jury though as it's not a serious matter in that regards for any Clancy type activists.

I just can't get how city think this is a winning strategy. They still know it fails the associated parties rules. They had the chance to bring this up in their original rebuttal to call on 3 parties and other witnesses and evidence. They did not do this. And as above they panel already are aware of it and considered it.

Just feels they're delaying this. Probably hoping to get to Jan 27 transfer window.

{Ed666's Note - it doesn’t matter mate City have lots of money and can fight as long as it takes. If they feel they are innocent why not appeal and drag it out.

02 Oct 2026 01:04:35
@Rios, it will go to a criminal court if the £ 830, 000, 000.00 (or parts thereof ) are proved to have 'by-passed' applicable taxes.

02 Oct 2026 00:53:01
Fraud on any scale is treated as a serious matter but in this scale it's certainly very serious.
The problem is the chairman is a UK recognised diplomat, the PM is on their payroll supporting them and casting doubt on their guilt and the UK is reliant on foreign investment.
I can see them getting away with it.

{Ed078's Note - I can't see them getting away with this.

02 Oct 2026 01:09:37
If ever we needed Ed02 to dumb down the football financials for us . Still very much missed.

01 Oct 2026 13:13:54
Ed666 loads of posts about the pm and him not wanting to lose city owners.
People saying he should stick to his am not a fan of Labour government for a long time but I would say he probably was thinking of his job if they get booted out of city like they should he knows they will probably take there ball in and not play what would mean a lot less investment in the country from them and it's something the government and any incoming government will know with the state of the country it can't afford to lose big overseas investment.
He should have been wiser with his response and he should have known the question would have been coming.
This is a massive problem Ed because they need to be removed from the club the club need at least a 2 division demotion really 3 down to league 2 but then the value of the club would not cover the money owed to all the effected clubs.

I see a United fan state something the other day about them missing on champions league football not just the income from that but the income they lost off adidas for not being in it.
This has got to be one of the biggest cans of worms ever opened.
Once city have the punishment what ever it is that could take years if they don't just hold there hands up and get it over then all the other clubs players managers staff from effected clubs will be after them.
What a total mess they have maid over our league just to try to make there country look better for a pr stunt as they try to move away from being oil dependent.
The city fans are mainly still backing there club am guessing mainly out of fright wondering what could happen to them like fans of all clubs if they was put in this position.

{Ed666's Note - Obviously I can’t predict the future but what I will say is that’s it’s gonna be a murky and messy one. I don’t get involved with politics as the subject is to emotive for people to be objective and calm which is understandable but one thing I will say is that i wouldn’t want to be a city fan at the moment not because of any possible sanctions but because the future is so unpredictable. And what about this season? What motivation do they have to play as a team? Let’s say they win the league will it be taken away from them?

Their coach has a monumental task motivating them now. Let’s just hope whatever happens the verdict is handed down quickly, I doubt it tho because I think if City feel the punishment is unfair this goes to the appeal court and that could take some time. How will rival fans perceive City now? As I said this has all the hallmarks of turning ugly.

01 Oct 2026 14:22:27
Ed666 this is why city's owners and Newcastle's owners should not be allowed to own football clubs same goes for PSG.
There needs to be a complete reset I like the German model where there is always a fan owned percentage to make sure things like this the super league crap does not happen.

{Ed666's Note - i disagree mate. If whoever pass the stringent tests that govern ownerships and takeovers in football why shouldn’t anyone be allowed to purchase football clubs?

01 Oct 2026 15:05:37
I think the far simpler and more likely explanation is the amount of alleged backhanders involved in allegedly selling of huge parts of Manchester for allegedly below market rates to Abu Dhabi whilst he was mayor (allegedly)

01 Oct 2026 15:39:22
Then again, Labour seems more than happy to tax billionaires out of the country, ultimately leaving ordinary people to pick up the bill. Yet somehow, keeping a questionable, sports-washing football club happy remains a priority. Crazy world, isn't it?

01 Oct 2026 16:37:30
Most likely, the AD government tried to put pressure on the UK government to push back against the Premier League, and the statement was the Government doing the bare minimum. Typical international politics, and nothing that wouldn't come from any other UK government.

01 Oct 2026 17:41:36
Now pm back tracking on comments from yesterday feels like we are going to get one big cover up.

01 Oct 2026 18:17:39
Wait until the journalists start digging into his dealings as mayor of Manchester with AD.

A Labour PM bought with oil money 🤔.

01 Oct 2026 17:31:13
Ed666 so city's defence is the money was from there government not from the owners but considering the government there royal family are all one over there this is why people like that should not be allowed to own football clubs.
Also they have immunity from prosecution because of who they are so they will never truly face true justice.

{Ed666's Note - I don’t know what city’s defence is mate. The owners clearly passed the Premier Leagues ODT test and I’m sure the PL did some stringent background checks and financial due diligence. They have the right to appeal and if I’m being quite honest I’m a massive proponent of innocent until proven guilty. If that’s the case they should be dealt with and punished according to the severity of their crimes.

01 Oct 2026 21:58:37
Rulers of countries or foreign governments shouldn't be allowed to own football clubs in this country. End of story.

02 Oct 2026 00:43:36
Hang on @Grino, what have Newcastle done wrong?

To be honest I think Newcastle look like thay are complying and not inventing massive sponsorship deals to sneak funds into the club.

In fact it seems to me they are falling over themselves to comply with PSR, or whatever this month's TLA is.

02 Oct 2026 01:07:00
@666, As far as I can tell City's defence is that they are saying what they have said so far was, in fact, lies. Which is a novel defensive strategy.

01 Oct 2026 01:41:56
First point: Manchester Cheaty won all that they did because of their strength in depth. For 10 years, whenever they got an injury, they had a full international replacement player to come into the position with no drop off in performance. This was unprecedented in the history of football. No other team could do this. This is what made it an unfair competition. Financial doping.

The players who took those massive wages to sit on Cheaty's bench should be ashamed of themselves. Spending their peak years where they could have been a first teamer anywhere else to sit on the bench in return for money and trophies. Mercenaries.

Secondly, the sad thing is that we'll never know whether City might have won all those leagues and trophies without the doping. Their funds weren't unlimited (hence the cheating) but they still had massive resources beyond those of their opponents, and they may well have been good enough to win trophies without colouring outside the lines. Its just such a shame that their owners took the decision not to compete fairly.

01 Oct 2026 12:05:18
I imagine they took the risk with either the thought that they either wouldn't get caught or that if we're caught the punishment would not impact the clubs astronomical rise over the last 15 - 20 years.

Let's be honest - pre cheating City were a regular Championship level club, with regular occasional visits to the Prem. The rules now make what they did, and Chelsea before them, impossible.

01 Oct 2026 12:09:19
I'm not going to have a go at the players over this, far be it from them to know much about financial regulation. It's the owners and in some cases the FIFA-regulated agents who accepted dodgy behaviour.

It seems like such a coincidence that these investigations and legal arguments have been going on so long and then just before the verdicts are leaked - Kier Starmer resigns and ex-mayor of Manchester, someone well known to the City owners, involved in a lot of their business dealings in Manchester, vocal supporter and influential voice in the establishment of the IFR is suddenly parachuted in as an MP and subsequent PM. Now that PM is speaking up for the City owners.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the timing is strange especially as Starmer was adamant he would fight the next election as leader. Now he's out of UK politics completely and eyeing a job in 'global politics' 🤔.

01 Oct 2026 13:15:19
Agree with the first two paragraphs; you can leave that 3rd one to the City fans thanks, couldn't give a rats what they 'could have done' had they done things right.

Good point Ron, never thought of that, it's almost a little too coincidental, especially when you take into account the fact that he had a bit of a Freudian slip, essentially admitting that he's already tried to influence the process.

01 Oct 2026 15:12:17
Worst of all they took a Premier League winners medal from Aly Cissokho. Unforgivable.

01 Oct 2026 18:45:06
TBH in my opinion City should be massively punished as a club for their behaviour but the PL need to draw a line under all the compo claims going in immediately otherwise we'll be dealing with all this noise for the rest of our lives. I've no idea how they do that as I'm not a lawyer but there must be a way.

Time to move on, deduct enough points so that City have a long period outside the PL top 6 (e. g. starting each season on -30) and let's get going again rather than getting bogged down in legal action from players who might have won a £50k bonus in 2015, most of these blokes have plenty cash and don't need money towards another supercar.

02 Oct 2026 00:46:11
It'd be appropriate for the players and managers to repay the money they received that was 'off the books'. Perhaps they could donate it to charity or to getting a more comfortable cell when HMRC have concluded their investigations.

30 Sep 2026 22:04:47
Ed001, I asked you a question the other day regarding reports of the government being worried about the Man City verdict affecting relations between the UK and the UAE and you said you doubted that was the case. I was hoping you were right.

What do you make of the prime ministers statement today? I think it's an absolute disgrace he's even gotten involved. It's a football matter and the prime minister should not be commenting on the matter before the punishment has even been handed down!

{Ed001's Note - I never realised how much of a dick he would turn into once he had something to lose. He should have kept out of it and instead should be doing stuff that matters, but he has shown himself to be open to corruption by accepting enormous donations to get him in office.}

01 Oct 2026 07:26:07
If it was a small business caught doing what they doing the book would be thrown at them immediately.

01 Oct 2026 07:38:10
It'll be interesting to see what happens because they really should throw the book at them but I fear that they won't because they are afraid to. But if they don't throw the book at them, then it takes the whole game into disrepute. It's kind of like in Northern Ireland, where I live and I'm sure the same in rest of UK. 2 people from different social backgrounds commit the exact same crime, and the person from the more affluent social background will usually get off with it. "Boys will be boys" and all that.

I really hope they do get a reasonable punishment but as a Liverpool fan, I want to look forward and not back. I get no pleasure from being awarded a 2019 title in 2028. If they start doing that, then relegated teams and teams that missed Europe will also want to be acknowledged. I think a big points deduction and a hefty hefty fine which should go into grass roots football would be the most sensible thing to do.

01 Oct 2026 08:22:01
Andy Burnham was asked a question and answered it. Maybe he should have been more evasive but a lot of other PL clubs will be 'very concerned' if City's owners sell up because of the uncertainty and for commercial reasons.

Jurgen Klopp was also asked a question, answered it and and spoke respectfully about Man City.

The independent commission will decide the sanctions on City. If you want City expelled from the PL, then Liverpool FC and all other clubs, will vote on that. Again, for commercial reasons, there's a chance that Liverpool will vote against the expulsion of City from the PL.
Clubs know what sort of revenue City bring and they will be very reluctant to lose it.
It's the modern game.

01 Oct 2026 08:42:11
@rigsby Jurgen Klopp isn't the prime minister so is free the comment on it however he wishes. Andy Burnham should know any comment the leader of the country makes could easily influence any decision or punishment handed down. It is at the very best naive, at worst prejudicial!

01 Oct 2026 08:43:26
Fact is he wasn't more evasive did he Rigsby, he was very clear on his thoughts.

01 Oct 2026 08:51:58
Barnham should have just moved away from that issue and just said it was a PL/City issue and would wait for all the facts to come out when all is said and done esp. as the leader of the country.

01 Oct 2026 09:23:18
Rigsby - can you explain to me exactly how any other premiership team benefits from the revenue City generate?

Unless I am wrong this whole issue is a direct result of how every other club has not benefited by the revenue they have been generating?

City are 1 of 20 teams that form the premiership - I would argue the opposite to your suggestion, should all these charges play out - the Prem and every other club stand to be tainted if City are allowed to stay.

01 Oct 2026 09:12:48
I fully agree Oli. Stupidity at its finest.

01 Oct 2026 09:13:44
"I do actually thank the City Football Group and the wider ownership for the money that they didn't just put into the Etihad and the campus around it but also into the city, " Burnham said.

He's up to his neck in it.
Better start drafting his resignation speech.

01 Oct 2026 09:15:30
Burnham should have kept his mouth shut.

01 Oct 2026 09:46:58
I'd agree with that Crazyhorse.

The PL has benefitted from the players City have brought into the competition no doubt. Haaland, Silva, De Bruyne etc. and even Pep would have increased the PL's popularity and global interest but the top players will still play in the PL without City.

If City go back to the EFL where they undoubtably belong the PL will be just fine.

I'd worry more about not expelling City and what kind of message that sends out. It would show the world that the PL is happy to accept corruption and cheating as long as it makes money from it.

The whole league would be tainted. I've loved football all my life and it would certainly make me have a rethink about where football is headed.

The sanction has to be similar to an athlete who has taken PEDs. A ban from competing at the highest level for a number of years.

01 Oct 2026 10:04:05
JK_RED, what did you make of Klopp's comments?
The independent commission shouldn't be swayed by comments from the PM. They could be but it wouldn't be independent and therefore not fit for purpose. But Burnham commented on a scenario that might not even happen.
He expressed concern, maybe unwisely, on the owners selling up, not being punished.

Crazy Horse, you must know what sort of revenue City generates?
Take Sky Sports, for example. How many times will City be on TV compared, to say, Hull City?

Sky Sports wants to show Liverpool v City. It wants the big games. Compare it to what Sky will pay Championship clubs.
City are also a big draw at away grounds. Fans of other clubs want to see City. They want to see Haaland, Aguero, de Bruyne etc.

Sponsorship. This will increase for other clubs because companies want to be seen when City and Haaland are in town. There will be more exposure. Smaller clubs also benefit from huge sponsorship shirt deals with the likes of City and boot deals for the likes of Haaland.

Clubs will be 'very concerned' if City is expelled from the PL. They are in the same business.

01 Oct 2026 10:07:39
Another possibility is: the independent commission votes for expulsion from the PL and the other clubs vote against it so City escape any punishment.

01 Oct 2026 10:10:03
"I do actually thank the City Football Group and the wider ownership for the money that they didn't just put into the Etihad and the campus around it but also into the city, "

Ron, this is what you get with a man who clearly has no filter and lacks any type of awareness at all. In fact, I think he is being honest here. This is not an error in judgment, imo.

Even more dangerously, this quote right here is absolute bonkers from a man who is the leader of a country esp. with all the context and information out in the public about this immense scandal.

Absolute madness.

01 Oct 2026 12:24:12
Rigsby, Klopp was denied 3 titles by the cheaters, there's nobody more affected by City's cheating, the Prime Minister should be concerning himself with homelessness and crime rates. Absolute disgrace for him to be even hinting at favouritism, as Digger said if it was a small family-owned business doing the same they'd have the book thrown at them. Burnham said

"I can't intervene MORE in the process."

So he's already showing bias in the favour of a group that's not only been cheating, but also committing fraud on an incredible scale. 'Prime minister' or not, do you take pride in defending somebody like that?

01 Oct 2026 11:47:40
It's very clear to me that Burnham is trying to influence the decision of the independent football regulator.

Burnham was a vocal supporter of the establishment of the IFR during the Premier Leagues action against Everton. So Burnham's voice was already influential regarding the IFR and now he's PM.

David Kogan is chair of the IFR and regarding the City case he said

"The IFR has powers to assess the suitability of owners, directors and executives and we will use these powers where appropriate, in the interests of protecting the sustainability, honesty and integrity of English football where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing by individuals."

Followed by Prime Minister Andy saying.

"I would be really concerned to lose them.
"They've been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester and obviously the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is."

If that's not political interference then .

01 Oct 2026 12:34:36
Bloody hell scousers turning on a Labour PM, the 'King of the North'. City's owners really have caused a ruckus.

01 Oct 2026 14:16:09
I'm not defending Burnham. I said I've no problem with him being 'really concerned' about City's owners selling up after their investment into Manchester.
Being really concerned isn't a big deal to me and the owners might not even sell up anyway.


It was a throwaway comment about a hypothetical situation.
If you lot want to be concerned about someone being really concerned about something that might not happen, it's ok with me 😉.

01 Oct 2026 14:25:44
For the record, and I've said it more than once, City should just accept the committee's decision and sanctions that are imposed.
For those advocating more extreme sanctions:: that could backfire and play into the hands of City's lawyers.

01 Oct 2026 14:56:39
You've posted multiple comments over at least 2 threads that clearly display you're leaning towards support for Burnham in the disgraceful remarks he's made, you're only backing up now because I laid it out bluntly.

01 Oct 2026 14:59:01
"I can't intervene MORE in the process."

Exactly, Chewy. This guy is a mess and a half.

I mean, who says this under these circumstances?

02 Oct 2026 05:22:42
If Burnham was any sort of politician, instead of being wrapped up in self-importance he would have batted the questions away with 'no comment' or 'can't comment at this time'.

The fact that he chose to answer (ego notwithstanding) suggests to me that he is either incredibly naive and shouldn't lead a school raffle never mind the Prime Minister, or was making an incredibly stupid political statement and was fully aware of what he was saying and why he said it. Either way, he seems to me to be unfit to run a booze up in a brewery.

02 Oct 2026 09:43:52
Ok, Chewy.
Yeah, I'm backing up because you laid it so bluntly.
Ta, lad.

30 Sep 2026 21:12:27
How embarrassing of a country are we? The prime minister saying he doesn't want to lose city owners.

Honestly, it just gets worse and worse in this country.

30 Sep 2026 22:31:25
Wouldn't be like a politician to be completely inept at reading the room and public opinion.

30 Sep 2026 22:32:19
We're poorly led. We have been for decades.
He's obviously on their payroll.

There isn't a politician out there who prioritises the nation over their own political agenda. Filthy rats the lot of them.

30 Sep 2026 22:48:03
What's wrong with that?
They have invested millions into Manchester and he is the former mayor.
They should just take their punishment.

30 Sep 2026 23:15:43
If Burnham is on their payroll, isn't that another charge? 😂
And one for Burnham? 🤨
Come on, Ron, let's see the irrefutable evidence for this claim, please.

30 Sep 2026 23:19:03
Why is he getting involved?
Where are his priorities?
He has a lot of work to do getting this country back on its feet, that doesn't not include pining for Man City's owners to remain.

If they are not 'fit and proper owners' they should be kicked out. How anyone could say they are fit and proper, especially some nincompoop unelected prime minister, beggars belief.

30 Sep 2026 23:23:35
You don't think inner city mayors have ever taken a back hander from rich developers?

You need to get out more Rigsby.

Why else would he waste his time commenting on it?

They've called in a favour.

01 Oct 2026 00:09:38
It is all very strange. Why's he getting involved? It's nothing to do with him, let the commission get on with their job without interference.

01 Oct 2026 00:20:54
It makes you wonder if Burnham is up to his neck in shady deals when Manchester Mayor. Burnham said it's got nothing to do with him so what's he opened his mouth for. Very suspicious. The plot thickens and Rui Pinto said he's got more on City. It's an utter scandal what they've been up to.

01 Oct 2026 01:33:36
It's an absolute disgrace, and it jsut goes to show you where his priorities lie. He said "I would be really concerned to lose them. I can't intervene MORE in the process." 🤔

".

01 Oct 2026 00:02:51
Ron, you're asking why Burnham is getting involved and then telling me why he is getting involved. That's up to you but I'd need a bit more evidence before arriving at the conclusions you have. There was an extensive investigation into City's dealings but I don't believe there's been one into Burnham's yet.
Do you think if I get out more there'll be an investigation into Burnham receiving backhanders?
Also Burnham said he was 'concerned' about the City owners. That's hardly pining, is it?
They've not even been sanctioned yet!
And has he ever said that they were 'fit and proper' owners?

The Labour Party was elected to govern the country and Andy Burnham is the leader.
That's how it works. Individuals don't get to elect other individuals to be their PM.
That's not how democracy works in this country.

01 Oct 2026 04:22:52
Any chance we can allow and process the current issues and let them play out before we click bait and castigate other figures?

01 Oct 2026 06:25:03
No matter where you live, what country you are in, politicians are all exactly the same.

They all take guidance from the same playbook
Corruption is rife in politics

The difference, is the actual will of a country and its people to put up with the corrupt politicians.

01 Oct 2026 06:41:48
@Rigsby, I think you might find that Britain isn't actually a democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy. The Royal Family and House of Lords aren't elected, only the members of the House of Commons are. The Commons (if you close one eye and squint through the other one sometimes tries to be democratic but they aren't very good at it. The last time there was genuine democracy, or rather things were put on place to promote democracy was the creation of the welfare state, ironically championed by a Tory, RAB Butler.

The current generation of politicians, by and large are a shower of attention seeking self- publicists and they wouldn't recognise democracy if it walked up to them and, as a wiseman once said, 'webbed them in the teds'.

01 Oct 2026 07:05:46
Rigsby still believes in democracy that's very hopeful of you, i wish i had that optimism but the world now days is being divided like a math teacher doing trig.

This whole situation shows you it doesn't exist. Rules don't apply to everyone the same. The guys watching football and paying their hard earned money to watch it every week are being moved further and further away from the game. A good example would be the Fifa world cup and now this.

Keep those despot politicians away from football, how a country was allowed to buy a club and not think they where going to try bend the rules is crazy to me.

01 Oct 2026 07:41:59
He just doesn't need to get involved does he, surely he can see he's got bigger things to be getting on with. Surely the whole thing just proves sports washing works!

01 Oct 2026 07:47:38
Absolutely spot on Ron, they've called in a favour all came the same time as Etihad Airways backed the club. All trying to put pressure on the Premier League they know they are in the poop.

The backhanders would never be found anyway so pointless looking.

01 Oct 2026 07:31:22
Surly rigsby comments like that by a prime minister are only encouraging every UK company to 'cook the books' in whatever way they can.

01 Oct 2026 07:57:08
I was talking about how democracy works in this country; more about the voting system and Burnham being unelected.
Most of us don't vote for the PM. We vote for our local MP.
It was obviously set up to allow Burnham to become an MP again so that the Labour Party could vote for him to be leader.

It turned out that he was unchallenged but that's another story.
I've never voted for a PM in my life. I vote for politicians to become MPs.
If they are all corrupt, I guess that also makes me corrupt 😂.

01 Oct 2026 08:33:45
Digger, it doesn't me to exaggerate my revenues 😂.
Seriously, Burnham was answering about the City owners leaving. We don't even know that they are yet. Many, many others will be concerned and affected if they do leave. However you look at it, City brings in a lot of money to the country and to a lot of people.


They have cheated and should be punished but a lot of other clubs and people could also be punished if some of the sanctions that I've read about are enforced.

01 Oct 2026 09:34:35
I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. Speak to real people in Manchester and you will find out exactly what he's talking about. Doesn't excuse their cheating, but after being left to rot by successive governments it shouldn't surprise anyone that the former Mayor is reluctant to join the witch hunt of those who actually improved the lives of his former constituents.

Burnham has tons of credit in the bank with me and he should with any Liverpool supporter after his efforts for the Hillsborough families. So long as he doesn't interfere in what is a Sporting matter, he should be entitled to hold his opinion.

01 Oct 2026 08:55:58
Burnham stuck both feet in his mouth right there. What he said is what he actually thinks. That was not a misspeak. He can try to walk it back all he wants but he "don messed up" royally on this.

If he is smart (which doesn't seem to be), he should just evade from talking about this because trust me, the questions won't stop esp. after that rhetorical disaster he just gratified the whole football world with.

01 Oct 2026 10:12:18
Rhetorical disaster?
Get a grip, OliRed.

01 Oct 2026 11:22:45
FORNAX:

Is it a witch hunt?

It seems there is a literal mountain of evidence that they are metaphorical "witches".

It's only a witch hunt if they are being unfairly tarnished as witches. These guys are flying around on broomsticks with their black cats casting spells and crying about a witch hunt.

01 Oct 2026 12:41:33
When I speak about witch hunts, I'm more referring to the media frenzy going on at the minute, while offering nothing new. They're just feeding and profiting off genuine feelings of outrage and confusion. Every man and his dog is being asked for an opinion, why was the prime minister being asked about this when as others rightly point out he has more important things going on?

In my view, Burnham will have had nothing but positive interactions with CFG who have invested significantly into their local area. You can argue about whether that is all down to deeper PR reason and I think you'd be right, but whatever the case their "generosity" has massively improved the lives of a lot of real people. I can understand why someone who represented those people directly would be reluctant to engage in the media storm and would obviously not want to see that investment permanently leave the area.

30 Sep 2026 21:05:15
Evening eds any word on the injury front with Isak and more so Gapko cheers Notsozippy.

{Ed001's Note - Isak is expected to be fit after the internationals but Cody is still being assessed.}

01 Oct 2026 09:21:22
Gakpo will be a big loss if he doesn't make it.

01 Oct 2026 06:13:26
Cheers Ed001 Gapko's injury looked fairly sore been our best forward this season really can't be without him for the cittee game hope he's fit.

{Ed001's Note - fingers crossed mate!}

01 Oct 2026 09:34:27
Who would you start on the right if Gakpo is out Ed001?

{Ed001's Note - Munoz.}

30 Sep 2026 20:11:23
Surely an incoming pod during this international break ed001? To touch upon the Man City charges etc.

{Ed001's Note - we were intending to do one anyway, so yes.}

01 Oct 2026 00:05:22
How do we watch these please?

{Ed666's Note - You’d be asking the opposite if you ever had the misfortune to see one mate..You can get them on YouTube if you type Liverpool-rumour.co.uk Allez Allez Allez podcast

01 Oct 2026 08:57:12
Ed666, Oh I watch you guys a lot and you guys are a riot esp. when Ed25 is on there.

{Ed666's Note - Ed’s 025 is a funny boy mate! Obviously I mean boy in the loosest term..

30 Sep 2026 12:50:01
Is anyone else thinking there is a possibility our game against City could be postponed?

I just don't see how the Premier League can allow City to play given their statement yesterday and the impending sanctions.

The problem is, until they are sanctioned it leaves a real grey area for both City and their opponents.

Do we know if this game will ultimately matter? If City are booted out of the Premier League then all of their results so for will have to be erased.

I just feel it would make more sense to suspend City from playing until they have been sanctioned.

There's obviously an issue that if they are not booted out and it's just a points deduction they would have to play the games later but that's exactly my point. Until everyone knows what the sanctions are there will be a dark cloud hanging over every game they play.

30 Sep 2026 13:59:08
Very much doubt that would work out Rio. It'd just cause a bigger mess with match schedules. Let them play and like others have said make it known what everybody else thinks of them in the process.

30 Sep 2026 14:02:21
Too messy, never going to happen.

30 Sep 2026 14:03:41
I think people are getting ahead of themselves. It's taken years to get to this point, I doubt things will all of a sudden get decided in a fortnight.

I know the game at Anfield will be spicy but it's just a game, it's starting to sound like people are calling for a firing squad for players that have done nothing wrong.

30 Sep 2026 14:07:20
All this expulsion talk. Never going to happen.

30 Sep 2026 14:23:52
Rios, that's not going to happen. That game will be played and let the sparks fly on the pitch.

City will get what's coming to them in the end but I do not see why that should affect the game going ahead, personally.

30 Sep 2026 15:15:02
They have to allow City to play incase City find a way to wriggle out of it, or if they are actually innocent all along.
So it's business as usual until the appeal is over and then the sanctions hit.

30 Sep 2026 15:15:15
While that's true, AAR, it would be a complete farce if City managed to win the league this year while all this stuff is going on, I'm not sure anybody could really afford to drag this out for another year or two. While I appreciate that they will try and drag it out, it's not a good look for the league if they are allowed to continue competing for the biggest prizes with a squad built on such a questionable foundation.

While I appreciate that the players have for the most part done nothing wrong, surely their agents will have made provisions for what might happen if City were found guilty? Everybody knows that the club had this shadow hanging over them and that they should prepare for the worst.

30 Sep 2026 15:53:19
They can't expel them once the season has started, but they could give them a 90 point penalty and ban them from rejoining once they're relegated.

30 Sep 2026 16:00:27
I don't think one other person is thinking our game against Manchester City could be postponed.

30 Sep 2026 16:15:24
Fifth, the whole internet is looking forward to it.

30 Sep 2026 16:57:28
I hope it's not as I've already bought my half and half scarf for the game.

{Ed666's Note - 114 scarf 😁

30 Sep 2026 17:41:04
It will have to go ahead city have already paid the ref and var.

30 Sep 2026 17:42:18
Absolute nonsense post, not letting them play would be a sanction itself, ahead of the appeal and the official sanction ruling which may not be delivered until as late as next summer. So in your eyes Rio we just don't let City play at all this season? Then what? And what if they won their appeal after not being allowed to play for 3/4 months?

30 Sep 2026 17:52:03
Dubai doesn't like the Flintstone's

But Abu Dhabi Do 🤣.

{Ed666's Note - I think that ones gone over my head

30 Sep 2026 22:05:41
I was just thinking out loud really no need to get all defensive Chewy.

I wasn't saying they should not let them play indefinitely but they have been found guilty so a suspension until the sanctions have been sorted makes sense.

If you are found guilty of misconduct at work they would suspend you until they had decided a sanction. They wouldn't just allow you to go about your business as usual.

Until the sanctions have been handed out, every game City play is a farce and could end up being meaningless.

I understand it's not so easy to do it but if there is any chance of them being expelled from the league it would make sense to not muddy the waters further by allowing them to play.

I'm not saying I think it should happen, just that it could happen depending on what the Premier League are thinking with regards to sanctions. Are they really going to allow a club owned by people who they have found guilty of being liars and cheats continue to play in their league?

30 Sep 2026 22:38:52
It can't happen though, can it?
What happens to the results if the teams who have played them? The injuries they picked up, the cards they picked up? Those teams will have to play 37 games and the others will only play 36.

It's just not practical to suspend them or kick them out of the league without causing more chaos.

They will get a fine, they will get a lot of points deducted. These things can easily be reversed if the appeals are successful. Suspending them cannot be reversed.
Hopefully it something like 90 points plus a future lengthy ban if they get in the promotion places - which can also be lifted pending a successful appeal.

30 Sep 2026 23:07:54
I will say I do have concerns about how this will spill over into tension in and around the ground on match day. I feel like postponing it might be best at this stage although I know that won't happen.

01 Oct 2026 09:16:50
The way forward is to ban away fans for the game to prevent any crowd trouble and let the court of public opinion show city exactly what we think. We can set a marker for the rest of the league, 90 minute of jeering and shouting cheats at them feels fair.

30 Sep 2026
New image uploaded to the
Liverpool Player Sightings page entitled, Slide away and give it all you've got

Click picture for larger image

30 Sep 2026 14:56:15
If Man City are threatened with expulsion.
The riposte will be: You do that and Qatar and the UAE will withdraw all their money from the UK.
UK economy crashes immediately.
The stakes are very high. The legal representation is very high.
Check mate.

{Ed001's Note - why would Qatar have anything to do with this? The Qataris and Emiratis don't particularly like each other. They are rivals.}

30 Sep 2026 15:25:02
You're also vastly overestimating the investments the UAE has in Britain.
They are a minor trading partner with Britain.
Plus they invest to make money, why would they cut their nose of to spite their face? It would make the pain of the city situation even worse. The UAE need Britain more than Britain needs them.

30 Sep 2026 16:18:52
Yuri, the stakes are not as high as you think. If the PL expel City, the club will eat that and the country (UAE) will move on and keep doing what it's doing geopolitically.

Also, pretty sure the UAE and other Gulf states have a literal war going on in their region that's taking majority of their time and resources. Not sure they are arsed at whatever rubbish is going on with a club they bought years ago whose fans they don't care about.

30 Sep 2026 15:11:36
Ignorance ed, all arabs are the same didn't you know? 😡.

30 Sep 2026 16:06:06
Bilateral trade between the UK and the UAE accounts for approximately 0.43% of the UK's GDP and 2.85% of the UAE's GDP.

The UAE withdrawing their money from the UK would hurt the UAE a lot more than the UK and would hardly cause the UK's economy to collapse.

30 Sep 2026 16:34:17
The country is due a recession, something will trigger it soon. But it won't be this.

30 Sep 2026 18:21:41
Agree with Mikey, City is essentially a hobby for these guys, their wealth and portfolios are monstrous. Whatever they have invested in the UK, City would only account for a minute percentage of it, probably somewhere in the region of 1-2%, they're not going to "mess around and find out" with the other 99.

30 Sep 2026 21:12:12
City were a means to an end - it opened economic doors through the guise of football, when trading directly with other countries wasn't 'acceptable'. It's not a hobby, it is and always was a business exoedient.

30 Sep 2026 23:04:45
Many have no idea, absolutely none about the middle East.

{Ed666's Note - speak for yourself mate I know Scarborough very well.

30 Sep 2026 23:20:43
Aye, it's not like we've been through a couple of world wars and forty five days of Liz Truss, is it?

01 Oct 2026 07:55:24
News today indicating the airliner emirates is threatening to sue the PL.

This is another "dirty trick" designed to take the eye off the prize. The PL have not damaged the airline in any way. But popping their heads up and getting involved at this point may well damage them. I'm not planning to travel to that part of the world anytime soon. But if this is true! I won't fly with them. Careful what you wish for.