Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

"The only reason why I am taking Manchester City's side over FFP is because said regulation goes against the best interests of Manchester United. Regardless I would rather wish the club I actually support took such action against FFP rather than one of our biggest rivals instead".

@Red Keane .... Like giving the chosen few an even larger financial advantage over clubs, to the extent they simply can't compete? The day the big clubs "win" v FFP and help further the imbalance in finances (to a level that effectively creates a Super League) is the day I'm not interested.

I want United to be successful but if that comes at the cost of competitive football leagues and possibly the existence of some clubs, I'm against it. I'm a football fan as well as a United fan.

(Also, up to you, but REALLY long posts with multiple replies are difficult to read.)

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Don't think so. Two years for the original ban smacks of going hard as they expect it to be reduced to one year.

Getting off totally will send a ridiculous message out.

I hope you are right, but I have very little confidence in the authorities, and City have been planning to defend their position for a very long time.

hopefully from our perspective we get at least 4th, so there is minimal impact on us whatever the decision.

 

[romufc]

I hope you are right, but I have very little confidence in the authorities, and City have been planning to defend their position for a very long time.

I can see this happening. City will just put some more millions into the UEFA offshore account to make this go away.

 

[Sandikan]

I hope you are right, but I have very little confidence in the authorities, and City have been planning to defend their position for a very long time.

hopefully from our perspective we get at least 4th, so there is minimal impact on us whatever the decision.

Either way we need to make sure we get into top 4 in our own right, to end any talk about how we've been lucky because of City.

 

[acnumber9]

I want United to be successful but if that comes at the cost of competitive football leagues

What is competitive about what Man City have done? All they’ve done is buy themselves one of the top positions while cheating the rules. I don’t see how anyone can think what they do is good for the game.

 

[Sandikan]

What is competitive about what Man City have done? All they’ve done is buy themselves one of the top positions while cheating the rules. I don’t see how anyone can think what they do is good for the game.

I suppose the argument is that the money at the top makes it such a closed shop, that no other team have any chance of competing if they don't have a temporary period of utterly booting the cash in to make up the gap.

You'll get your once in 30 years aberrations like Leicester, but generally you have to spend huge to get amongst it, as per Blackburn, Chelsea and City.
Even the traditional big teams have had to spend super big - Liverpool have this perception of "doing it the right way", yet spent world record at the time sums on centre back and goalie, after a few years of big fees on Salah, Mane types.

 

[golden_blunder]

What is competitive about what Man City have done? All they’ve done is buy themselves one of the top positions while cheating the rules. I don’t see how anyone can think what they do is good for the game.

Not what he’s saying, seems to be saying that he doesn’t want United to be a club that just spends spends spends to win at the detriment to the competition

 

[acnumber9]

I suppose the argument is that the money at the top makes it such a closed shop, that no other team have any chance of competing if they don't have a temporary period of utterly booting the cash in to make up the gap.

You'll get your once in 30 years aberrations like Leicester, but generally you have to spend huge to get amongst it, as per Blackburn, Chelsea and City.
Even the traditional big teams have had to spend super big - Liverpool have this perception of "doing it the right way", yet spent world record at the time sums on centre back and goalie, after a few years of big fees on Salah, Mane types.

But isn’t what has happened. All that has happened is they replaced the previous dominant force. The league would currently be more competitive if they weren’t there. Without them there would’ve been a different champion every year since 2013.

Liverpool have the perception of doing it the right way because they have done it with their own resources. Not a bottomless pit of oil money. There’s consequences to what every other team does with their money. If they get it wrong they could be screwed for years. City can just rip it up and start again. That isn’t competition.

 

[acnumber9]

Not what he’s saying, seems to be saying that he doesn’t want United to be a club that just spends spends spends to win at the detriment to the competition

I think it is. Because FFP is the only thing stopping City from doing just that. And even that they’ve cheated. I don’t disagree with the idea that clubs should not be allowed to spend at will to buy trophies but without FFP or punishments how do you stop City from doing it?

Edit: Maybe I have misunderstood his position reading it again.

 

[adexkola]

Tear down FFP and replace with a new governance that doesn't permanently entrench a cabal of "historically elite" clubs, but rewards good club management with a legitimate shot at winning. Or don't bother at all.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

What is competitive about what Man City have done? All they’ve done is buy themselves one of the top positions while cheating the rules. I don’t see how anyone can think what they do is good for the game.

I don't... where did I say I did?

 

[Sandikan]

Tear down FFP and replace with a new governance that doesn't permanently entrench a cabal of "historically elite" clubs, but rewards good club management with a legitimate shot at winning. Or don't bother at all.

So in your new system, how would that work?
Limit every team to say 100million spend a year?
Limit a wage bill?

 

[JohnnyKills]

A lot of people say that City have made football more competitive, but all they've really done is replacing one elite with another.

When United, Liverpool and Arsenal were winning anything, football was dominated by size of club.

Now, City are trying to dominating by money instead.

Personally I'd say that this new form of elitism is even worse than the old one.

 

[adexkola]

So in your new system, how would that work?
Limit every team to say 100million spend a year?
Limit a wage bill?

Probably, I don't know all the answers/solutions, but I know the system was fecked up 10 years ago, and FFP was a bullshit attempt at making things better

But yeah, punitive taxes on excessive transfer and wage spending, limiting squad sizes, banning the loan system (except in limited circumstances) would be a great start.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Probably, I don't know all the answers/solutions, but I know the system was fecked up 10 years ago, and FFP was a bullshit attempt at making things better

But yeah, punitive taxes on excessive transfer and wage spending, limiting squad sizes, banning the loan system (except in limited circumstances) would be a great start.

Yeah there are lots of things you can do aren't there:

1. Salary caps
2. Spending caps
3. Transfer fee limits
4. Homegrown quotas
5. Spend-to-income caps

But they all depend on global co-operation and rigorous policing, which is a different story altogether.

 

[horsechoker]

A lot of people say that City have made football more competitive, but all they've really done is replacing one elite with another.

When United, Liverpool and Arsenal were winning anything, football was dominated by size of club.

Now, City are trying to dominating by money instead.

Personally I'd say that this new form of elitism is even worse than the old one.

Liverpool have done well to keep up with them the past two seasons but their grip on the top is much more fragile. Nobody could do what City did in Pep's first two years with spending a lot of money in the first season and then following it up with even more spending whilst keeping your best players.

 

[adexkola]

Yeah there are lots of things you can do aren't there:

1. Salary caps
2. Spending caps
3. Transfer fee limits
4. Homegrown quotas
5. Spend-to-income caps

But they all depend on global co-operation and rigorous policing, which is a different story altogether.

It's possible, but some clubs won't go for it because they feel it'll negate their advantage of being big clubs. If Agnelli at Juventus had his way the CL would be a closed shop.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Liverpool have done well to keep up with them the past two seasons but their grip on the top is much more fragile. Nobody could do what City did in Pep's first two years with spending a lot of money in the first season and then following it up with even more spending whilst keeping your best players.

Yeah. Had this Liverpool team come along in the pre-City era they'd probably have won won consecutive PL titles by a big margin.

 

[christinaa]

I hope that the authorities have the guts to stick to the suspension for City.

 

[awop]

Yeah there are lots of things you can do aren't there:

1. Salary caps
2. Spending caps
3. Transfer fee limits
4. Homegrown quotas
5. Spend-to-income caps

But they all depend on global co-operation and rigorous policing, which is a different story altogether.

I think this bit is very important. Whatever happens, imagine the absolute chaos it's going to be to regulate everybody from Europe to Africa to Latin America.
We couldn't even have 4 countries to agree on a transfer period where clubs can flush their millions. I think it would need to be done in multiple steps and gradually increased. There is also a need for a better justice system. Less loopholes, and no more infinite appeals and year-long waits to decide if obvious cheaters cheated. One can only hope...

 

[Sandikan]

Yeah there are lots of things you can do aren't there:

1. Salary caps
2. Spending caps
3. Transfer fee limits
4. Homegrown quotas
5. Spend-to-income caps

But they all depend on global co-operation and rigorous policing, which is a different story altogether.

Your number 5 is what financial fair play should be isn't it?

 

[JohnnyKills]

Your number 5 is what financial fair play should be isn't it?

Yeah, pretty much haha. To be honest it's probably the hardest of all of them to implement, because it requires every club's accounts to be audited individually.

 

[padr81]

Doesn't City's entire defense hinge on how the evidence was obtained rather than the evidence not being correct? They basically admitted they've cheated with that tactic, but they hope to be let off on a technicality or more likely and ironically, by buying their way out of trouble. Out of interest, do you think they broke the rules? If United were in the exact same circumstance would you not think they should be banned in the same manner? It seems not to be a case of finding out if they're guilty, more if anyone has the balls to actually do something about it.

End of the day they've been winning for no other reason than they broke the rules to buy a lot of players, they've cheated other more honest teams out of trophies (Liverpool would only have had to wait for 29 years!) and prize money time and time again, their illegally obtained team could have made a difference to relegation battles costing honest clubs countless millions. For me a 2 season CL ban seems light, I'd be looking to take any trophies away that were won since the first instance of financial cheating backed up by evidence, I don't see why they would be allowed to enter any competition until they've balanced their books to meet FFP.

I'm also sure that Man City aren't the only team guilty of this, but unfortunately for them they're the ones who've managed to leak evidence and someone needs to be made an example of to try and deter it. I hope all other clubs get the same punishment or worse if they're found guilty, even if that were to be United.

We have no clue thats what it hinges on. City tried to get charges dismissed on that in the first place. If that is their entire argument they aren't getting off and will be rightly punished.

Do I think we broke the rules? Honestly, yes. But if CAS comes out and says they didn't and they do have irrefutable proof (which City claim to have) they didn't, than I will believe the club.

 

[padr81]

As I said in the post, getting off on a technicality isn’t proof of innocence. It’s just proof of being able to play the system. We can all see clear as day that they’re guilty as sin. They’ll get off based on the “validity or jurisdiction” of the investigation. Not the facts of it.

Your pithy response doesn’t actually counter anything I wrote. Probably because there’s nothing you can say that does.

Isn't that exactly what I posted and you quoted in the first place? Did you read the entire message sequence before jumping in with your wannable funny comment, or stop with the If because its City because you are clearly taking my point out of context.

"Honestly I have no clue. I think if our case boils down to "UEFA were out to get us" we will lose. I just dont see how we prove that. Even if we get off on that kind of technicality it's a hollow win as it doesn't make the leaks less credible.
We need to win and disprove the allegations to come away from this rep in tact.
Outside of reputation losing this could have a knock on effect with the premier league.
The club have appeared pretty confident from the start so I hope they have good reason but I've no idea why. "

I mean I posted it again because you clearly couldn't follow the convo the first time, before jumping in trying to be funny but completely missing the context. But yeah, my pithy response was to your stupid wannabe funny oomment when you had no clue of the convo you were jumping into. It didn't deserve a more thought out one if you are incapable of following whats being said.

But hey, you showed all the reds here how funny you are, how hardcore red you are an how you KNOW how guilty City are because you've seen all the evidence already, you either work for Uefa, City or CAS right?
And you sure schooled me by saying exactly what I said after I had said it, so much so you can put your top red pyjamas back on when going to bed tonight.

 

[JPRouve]

It's possible, but some clubs won't go for it because they feel it'll negate their advantage of being big clubs. If Agnelli at Juventus had his way the CL would be a closed shop.

It's not possible because football is an open shop. What you guys are suggesting only works in a single closed league.

 

[padr81]

That makes sense for your owners don't you think ? They don't seems to care about rights in their own country unless if it's in their favour.

You're right, I think you should bring a placard to Abu Dhabi and protest. You feel that strongly about it right. What has that comment to do with this case? Have I said our owner (we only have 1 btw) is a good man? No its another jump on the City fan comment with a message that;s nothing to do with the ongoing discussion.

 

[adexkola]

It's not possible because football is an open shop. What you guys are suggesting only works in a single closed league.

Then let's dispense with this farce of a framework then, if football being an open shop nullifies any genuine theory of fairness regulation

 

[Sandikan]

Yeah, pretty much haha. To be honest it's probably the hardest of all of them to implement, because it requires every club's accounts to be audited individually.

Next to impossible. How long did it take for city to get scrutinised when people have whispered about their antics for years.

 

[JPRouve]

Then let's dispense with this farce of a framework then, if football being an open shop nullifies any genuine theory of fairness regulation

I agree, football has never been equalitarian or fair and there has always been a massive disparity between the have and have not. The only thing that limited it was pre-Bosman football where football players were close to slaves for their clubs since they weren't free when their contracts were over and limit drastically the amount of foreign players that can be registered. Outside of it people should keep in mind that most top clubs weren't spending their own money, they were for a large part sugar daddied, the idea that it only started 10 or 15 years ago is totally wrong.
Clubs in large urban areas will be richer, clubs in wealthy countries will be richer, clubs where football is competing with other large broadcasted sports will be poorer. There is no way to change that fact outside of directly taking money from the players pockets to give it to owners, broadcasters and manufacturers that profits from the sport's popularity that's what a global and relatively low salary cap will do, if you put a high salary cap, something close to the current highest salary budgets then you may as well do nothing.

The other option is, a super league.

 

[welshwingwizard]

Yeah. Had this Liverpool team come along in the pre-City era they'd probably have won won consecutive PL titles by a big margin.

They would still have been competing with top Chelsea, Arsenal and United sides managed under prime Mourinho, prime Wenger and Fergie respectively.

City being around has actually cooincided with a drop in team and manager quality. I don't see Liverpool beating those teams.

 

[acnumber9]

I don't... where did I say I did?

Yeah I misunderstood your stance. Apologies.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Yeah I misunderstood your stance. Apologies.

Okey dokey.

 

[mazhar13]

There is no way to change that fact outside of directly taking money from the players pockets to give it to owners, broadcasters and manufacturers that profits from the sport's popularity that's what a global and relatively low salary cap will do, if you put a high salary cap, something close to the current highest salary budgets then you may as well do nothing.

You hit the nail on the head. This is my biggest gripe with most suggestions of financial restrictions. Even in closed, single-entity leagues like MLS & the NBA, owners have been profiting off of the growth of the sports. The only way the players are able to keep them in check is via their unions, but there are 2 problems with that:

1. Player associations would have to be recognised as unions, or unions would need to be created.
2. The owners are still paying the players' salaries; that alone gives them a minor advantage over the unions in collective bargaining agreements.

Regardless, players can still hold out on their contract and move to bigger clubs/clubs of their preference.

At least with FFP, teams that earn more money can still spend more money on players & staff. The biggest benefit of FFP is that clubs with wild spending can still be saved. Spending lots of money alone doesn't grow a club; that money needs to be spent wisely. Otherwise, clubs like Portsmouth and QPR wouldn't have struggled as much as they did. We're a great example of that, too. The fact that Chelsea, City, and PSG have risen to the top at this time isn't solely due to large spending; they have been well-managed throughout this time, too.

Still, just because a club is well-managed doesn't allow it to bend/break the rules. If other well-managed clubs are not being funded directly by their owners, then teams like City should suffer the consequences for breaking the rules.

 

[Fox_Chrys]

I am sure Chelsea, Leicester City and Manchester United all want this ban to be upheld.

But I think UEFA asking for a it to be delayed until 13 July is a bad omen. They would want bad news delayed to not overshadow the draw.

 

[BobbyManc]

I am sure Chelsea, Leicester City and Manchester United all want this ban to be upheld.

But I think UEFA asking for a it to be delayed until 13 July is a bad omen. They would want bad news delayed to not overshadow the draw.

City should have been informed of the decision by now, or likely very soon anyway. Be interesting to see if it leaks. From what I’ve heard the City hierarchy felt confident after the hearing. I wouldn’t read anything into UEFA delaying it though. It’s a minor detail and there may be a multitude of reasons for why they wanted to do it, all independent of the outcome.

 

[KChucky88]

i hope man city beat this verdict for epl's sake

 

[VanGaalEra]

There’d surely be gagging orders on the news being released.

 

[BobbyManc]

There’d surely be gagging orders on the news being released.

Officially you’d assume something like that but there’s nothing to stop a leak happening. With the amount of clubs who’ll be eager to find out I’d be surprised if someone in the press did not get wind of the result before the 13th.

 

[SuperiorXI]

Officially you’d assume something like that but there’s nothing to stop a leak happening. With the amount of clubs who’ll be eager to find out I’d be surprised if someone in the press did not get wind of the result before the 13th.

I'd be very surprised if it didn't leak.

 

[Speedy30]

Like everyone, I'm really interested to see what happens here. City have been found guilty already so either:-

1. City have something that they withheld from UEFA but were willing to disclose to CAS

2. UEFA have a major issue with City and ignored the evidence and found them guilty anyway

Or

3. City actually are guilty.

If it's either of the first two, then the UEFA finding should be quashed and no punishment handed down. If it's the third, then I don't see how CAS can overturn or reduce the ban that City got. It may be deemed unfair that they were given such a long ban but surely if City are guilty, then they didn't really give a feck about fairness themselves so why should they be given any leeway now?