steeeb
Full Member
Imagine the meltdown if we ended up 5th but got in to the CL instead of them haha
Also by punishing these sort of clubs, the players would potentially move to the more traditional historic clubs with a bigger following.Why? They don't have any fans anyway, no one would miss them. If it meant Arse made it in to the CL, then that would be in the competition's favour, in terms of viewing figures.
Good callImagine the meltdown if we ended up 5th but got in to the CL instead of them haha
City are one of the best clubs in Europe. A TV company won't pay the same amount for a liscence when one of the best clubs is missing.Why? They don't have any fans anyway, no one would miss them. If it meant Arse made it in to the CL, then that would be in the competition's favour, in terms of viewing figures.
United are one of the biggest clubs especially commercial and viewership.City are one of the best clubs in Europe. A TV company won't pay the same amount for a liscence when one of the best clubs is missing.
Confirms a lot of what I expected. But, boy, if I was an Arsenal fan I'd detest Kroenke with all my soul. He puts nothing back into the club.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Part of a more interesting thread.
On the night we beat Juventus, they were also showing City winning 5-0. You literally wouldn't have known, not a single cheer. There was a table of 6 Italian Juve fans in the same pub, who were living every moment, as much as the United fans were.City are one of the best clubs in Europe. A TV company won't pay the same amount for a liscence when one of the best clubs is missing.
Well I understand you're not a lawyer but you might be able to understand that, what law are you talking about? Clubs have a contractual relationship with UEFA, there's nothing statutory about it.Since you are a Corporate lawyer - you should be able to answer this question:
Do you think you should be punished if you break the law ?
No, because it was negotiated beforehand, but viewing figures will suffer. When we dropped to the EL in 2012, there was an instant surge in EL viewing figure and dip in CL’s.United are one of the biggest clubs especially commercial and viewership.
Do you think the CL get less TV money next year if we don't qualify?
He’s pretty much detested. My own viewpoint there, but I’m sure I’m not alone.Confirms a lot of what I expected. But, boy, if I was an Arsenal fan I'd detest Kroenke with all my soul. He puts nothing back into the club.
Indeed. He's quite the opposite of a sugardaddy owner. City fans really won the lottery with Abu Dhabi buying their club and puuring billions into it.He’s pretty much detested. My own viewpoint there, but I’m sure I’m not alone.
Having him as the owner is as bad as having an oil baron but in reverse. He’s put absolutely nothing into the club but creams everything out of it.
You are right - I should have written rules rather than law - but I think you understand what I meant anyway.Well I understand you're not a lawyer but you might be able to understand that, what law are you talking about? Clubs have a contractual relationship with UEFA, there's nothing statutory about it.
Does anyone actually know City's CL ratings? Or a site which tracks such things?Why? They don't have any fans anyway, no one would miss them. If it meant Arse made it in to the CL, then that would be in the competition's favour, in terms of viewing figures.
Right, but this doesn't give UEFA legal authority to do whatever they want just because it's their tournament or their competition. UEFA and the tournaments they run are still bound by relevant legislation, which is what a legal challenge from City or PSG would be based on (e.g. EU Competition Law). I don't think it will come to this, but let's say City/PSG are banned from participating in the Champions League due to contravening FFP, then City/PSG could consider challenging that decision in court on the premise that FFP contravenes EU Competition Law. Or they could also apply to CAS on the basis of the application of FFP itself and the punishment meted out.You are right - I should have written rules rather than law - but I think you understand what I meant anyway.
Manchester City and PSG are both part of UEFA - UEFA have rules in Place for anyone wanting to participate in their tournaments. If City and PSG choose to NOT follow those rules (Which is the case here) - UEFA can punish them for instance by refusing them to participate in Champions League.
not that it matters - there simply is no chance that PSG or City will be banned. And as much as I would like to see it happening - I don't want us to get a place in the C.L because of this.Right, but this doesn't give UEFA legal authority to do whatever they want just because it's their tournament or their competition. UEFA and the tournaments they run are still bound by relevant legislation, which is what a legal challenge from City or PSG would be based on (e.g. EU Competition Law). I don't think it will come to this, but let's say City/PSG are banned from participating in the Champions League due to contravening FFP, then City/PSG could consider challenging that decision in court on the premise that FFP contravenes EU Competition Law. Or they could also apply to CAS on the basis of the application of FFP itself and the punishment meted out.
Based on what Infantino has said, it seems that the whole reason City and UEFA negotiated our original punishment in the first place was to avoid the risk of such a legal challenge.
I don't care if we get in as they got banned. I had to endure years of no European football as a result of Liverpool fans behaviour. If City have rules they need to follow, which they blatantly haven't, then they need the full concequences implemented against them.not that it matters - there simply is no chance that PSG or City will be banned. And as much as I would like to see it happening - I don't want us to get a place in the C.L because of this.
Can't simply judge an owner by how much he puts in. Have to take into account how much is taken out and where that goes as well.Confirms a lot of what I expected. But, boy, if I was an Arsenal fan I'd detest Kroenke with all my soul. He puts nothing back into the club.
Yeah, of course I understood, i was taunting you a bit, it's fair game ^^You are right - I should have written rules rather than law - but I think you understand what I meant anyway.
Manchester City and PSG are both part of UEFA - UEFA have rules in Place for anyone wanting to participate in their tournaments. If City and PSG choose to NOT follow those rules (Which is the case here) - UEFA can punish them for instance by refusing them to participate in Champions League.
This is like saying we shouldn't be using DNA evidence against people suspected of crimes many years ago. New evidence in regards City has now come to light. UEFA are well within their rights to start looking at their accounts again, especially as they now know fraudulent activity has occurred. The fact that City refused to comment on the allegations proves their guilt. If you know you are innocent you state you are innocent & fight to clear your name. City have not even tried to clear their name. They have just threatened to bankrupt UEFA if they try to take action against them.I've said that here already, I'm in favor of a well designed FFP. It means a FFP with clear rules (meaning, for exemple, that UEFA can re-evaluate your contracts once but not do it, say "ok we're good now" and then decide 2 years later the 1st re-evaluation wasn't accurate so the decide to do it all over again
City & PSG can go bankrupt at any time. If the owners decide to stop putting their own money in then they would be unlikely to be able to meet their wage bill. City's declared wage bill is already high. The recent leaks showed that in some cases they were paying double what they actually declared. Mancini was being paid as a consultant & a team manager. Pep's declared salary is £20 Mill, it's likely that his true salary will be between £30 to £40 Mill. As far as we know the likes of Silva, Aguero & Kompany have never agitated for moves. When putting 2 + 2 together you would have to conclude that players are being paid well above the norm to join & stay at City.While I hate what has happened to City and PSG wasn't FFP meant to protect against the opposite of what has happened to them? So in effect, City and PSG should be exempt- no chance of them destroying a club into bankruptcy.
Any other examples of a person/group/country pumping Billions into a football club before FFP other than Chelsea?Yeah, of course I understood, i was taunting you a bit, it's fair game ^^
Of course you're supposed to comply with the rules you agreed on, but remember that UEFA also has, by their own statute, the possibility to negociate sanctions or a bit of leeway.
I've said that here already, I'm in favor of a well designed FFP. It means a FFP with clear rules (meaning, for exemple, that UEFA can re-evaluate your contracts once but not do it, say "ok we're good now" and then decide 2 years later the 1st re-evaluation wasn't accurate so the decide to do it all over again) and a FFP that would give a bit of leeway for a couple of years when an new investor shows up in order to develop the club. Otherwise it doesn't make sense because a lot of clubs benefited from the lack of rules a couple of years back (Chelsea for exemple).
Innit, and it will be absolutely paltry as well like a hundred grand or something. Which is logical considering the offence they committed isn't it?I would be absolutely shocked if any actual punishment comes out of this. Expecting a slap on the wrist in the form of a fine.
Its arguable that a lot of the big clubs are already there without and state backing. United aren't a football team, they're a global brand. UEFA need United and the other big clubs competing in their flagship competitions because frankly, if they break away and go and set up their own (which has been mooted numerous times) UEFA ceases to be of any relevance whatsoever.City & PSG can go bankrupt at any time. If the owners decide to stop putting their own money in then they would be unlikely to be able to meet their wage bill. City's declared wage bill is already high. The recent leaks showed that in some cases they were paying double what they actually declared. Mancini was being paid as a consultant & a team manager. Pep's declared salary is £20 Mill, it's likely that his true salary will be between £30 to £40 Mill. As far as we know the likes of Silva, Aguero & Kompany have never agitated for moves. When putting 2 + 2 together you would have to conclude that players are being paid well above the norm to join & stay at City.
The big clubs wanted FFP to stop state funded clubs running amok. It cannot be good in the long run to have teams who have the financial power to turn off UEFA's lights if they don't get their way. This can only lead to corruption.
Regaring City, you obviously don't know much about the UAE Sheikhs. They aren't just using City as their PR campaign or as a plaything. They are genuinely football crazy and have a passion for the game. Of course, PR and shady sponsorship deals are perks or side-benefits.City & PSG can go bankrupt at any time. If the owners decide to stop putting their own money in then they would be unlikely to be able to meet their wage bill. City's declared wage bill is already high. The recent leaks showed that in some cases they were paying double what they actually declared. Mancini was being paid as a consultant & a team manager. Pep's declared salary is £20 Mill, it's likely that his true salary will be between £30 to £40 Mill. As far as we know the likes of Silva, Aguero & Kompany have never agitated for moves. When putting 2 + 2 together you would have to conclude that players are being paid well above the norm to join & stay at City.
The big clubs wanted FFP to stop state funded clubs running amok. It cannot be good in the long run to have teams who have the financial power to turn off UEFA's lights if they don't get their way. This can only lead to corruption.
Is that why the mighty Fan-Sheik has attended 1 game?Regaring City, you obviously don't know much about the UAE Sheikhs. They aren't just using City as their PR campaign or as a plaything. They are genuinely football crazy and have a passion for the game. Of course, PR and shady sponsorship deals are perks or side-benefits.
Dunno about PSG, but City aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
They obviously don't get kick out of coming for games as they do of watching Barca on TV.Is that why the mighty Fan-Sheik has attended 1 game?
Kick them out of the CL tomorrow and let them focus on the league.So basically we want City rightfully punished in all ways.
But not this season, as we need them to stop Liverpool
When did United ever do that?Its arguable that a lot of the big clubs are already there without and state backing. United aren't a football team, they're a global brand. UEFA need United and the other big clubs competing in their flagship competitions because frankly, if they break away and go and set up their own (which has been mooted numerous times) UEFA ceases to be of any relevance whatsoever.
United are a very well run club from a financial standpoint. They were at the forefront of taking football from where it was, to where it is today as a multi-billion pound industry. Everyone wins from that standpoint because the people at the top of the tree are raking it in through. Its not going to change and that's why UEFA won't do anything about any of this.
Its only my opinion but to be honest as a football fan I prefer the PL now to what it was before when it was United v one other club each season. There wasn't a level playing field when one club could go and buy the best players from its rivals - even if as a young lad I loved seeing United dominate and then we didn't see anywhere near the amount of peak, world class footballers here since they were all in Italy and (to a lesser extent) Spain.
I don't remember there being a transfer window in the 90sWhen did United ever do that?
Can't remember us signing anyone from Arsenal, Liverpool, Newcastle, Chelsea or Blackburn bar May when we were directly competing with them. So who did we buy to weaken our rivals?
During the 90's United were quite often not even the biggest spenders each transfer window.
Well there wasn't a formal window but you couldn't sign players between March and the end of the season. But still United didn't spend the most every summer, in fact they were probably out spent most summers.I don't remember there being a transfer window in the 90s
In somewhat slightly related news, City's Arndale merchandise shop has closed down.
Also, they were allowed to make smallish losses of about 50mil over two seasons. If they were more patient and say only signed 1 or 2 big players for a few years they would have been grand, but success would have come a lot slower, and maybe the sheikh would have lost interest.Any other examples of a person/group/country pumping Billions into a football club before FFP other than Chelsea?
Also there is leeway for new owners to develop a club, if the investor really is in for the long haul they can invest as much as they like into the clubs, stadium, training complex, academy etc.
Andy Cole from Newcastle in 1995 - I remember reading it on teletext and being shocked that they let usWhen did United ever do that?
Can't remember us signing anyone from Arsenal, Liverpool, Newcastle, Chelsea or Blackburn bar May when we were directly competing with them. So who did we buy to weaken our rivals?
During the 90's United were quite often not even the biggest spenders each transfer window.
Also, I don't know if it counts but Robin Van Persie, Berbatov and Luke Shaw who almost went to Chelsea.Andy Cole from Newcastle in 1995 - I remember reading it on teletext and being shocked that they let us