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

Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,374
Location
Learn me a booke
Has he? He showed me a link to Mancini being paid by two organisations. Pretty sure he wasn't a player for one and didnt show any proof he didnt act as an advisor.
I'm not sure what you expect, a notary certified copy of his bank account with "SECRET DOUBLE SALARY" in the payment details section. These things are always disguised as some bs consultant services.
 

FujiVice

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
7,301
What does it say for the game, that lower league clubs are scrambling to stay alive, and this is the punishment for a club who have been caught out fiddling the fair play rules? This game is shit.
 

Oly Francis

Full Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2018
Messages
3,944
Supports
PSG
I have yet to read the full decision but I have a hard time understanding why people automatically assume that CAS was bribed or that FFP is dead. Like any conviction, UEFA had to prove their case. Like any conviction, statute of limitations apply. If UEFA didn't build a strong case, shame on them but their decisions can't be arbitrary and it's good the CAS can verifiy the grounds of such conviction, especially when consequences can be huge like that. I think UEFA has the financial means to hire good lawyers/investigators.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
It's quite easy to envision a Super League emerging now, replacing Champions League. If they wanted relegation and promotion, it could be done on an election based system. e.g lowest ranked club in the tournament is relegated, replaced by a league winner elected by Super League members.
Hope you guys get in.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,952
Location
W.Yorks
No, it is worded fine, you're just misinterpreting it. When they say time-barred, they mean UEFA do not have the jurisdiction to investigate anyway. The legitimacy of the breaches becomes immaterial to CAS as they've already concluded UEFA cannot act on it. That's the point - UEFA could not build a credible case even if City cooperated, as they are rendered powerless by their own rules. Now, at CAS, what City have clearly done is proven that (a) UEFA are time-barred, and (b) the substance of much of their claims was incorrect. Hence the headline: 'MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS'. That is not 'time-barred', that is quite unequivocally saying UEFA's charges in that regard are untrue. But as I said, I don't expect people on a Manchester United forum to pay much attention to the facts of the case.

Yes, cooperating with UEFA and CAS is very different - one is an independent body, the other is not. The independent one ruled in favour of City, the other did not.
It's terribly worded... I may know nothing about legal stuff, but I work with press releases as part of my job everyday, and a good press release is headline or two, and then the rest of the statement backs up /enforces that headline(s) .

The body of this press release does nothing to back up that statement and instead says things to question it - like the part that I quoted - which DOES mention things either being time barred or unable to be proven.

Also the CAS and UEFA investigations were totally different... UEFA wanted info to enforce /build their case, whilst CAS would only require info based on what UEFA had. Surely you can see the cooperation with CAS would require a different type/level of involvement?

This totally gets away from my original point, which is that UEFA will find it nearly impossible to prosecute any club of breaching FFP from now on as clubs won't fully cooperate with their investigations going forward (unless they change the rules that force them to do so - which might happen)
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
I'm not sure what you expect, a notary certified copy of his bank account with "SECRET DOUBLE SALARY" in the payment details section. These things are always disguised as some bs consultant services.
So then there is no proof he's guilty? You know proof is important right. He also isn't a player and the op said all players were being paid twice.
 

RedSky

Shepherd’s Delight
Scout
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
74,279
Location
Hereford FC (Soccermanager)
I have yet to read the full decision but I have a hard time understanding why people automatically assume that CAS was bribed or that FFP is dead. Like any conviction, UEFA had to prove their case. Like any conviction, statute of limitations apply. If UEFA didn't build a strong case, shame on them but their decisions can't be arbitrary and it's good the CAS can verifiy the grounds of such conviction, especially when consequences can be huge like that. I think UEFA has the financial means to hire good lawyers/investigators.
'UEFA notes that the CAS panel found that there was insufficient conclusive evidence to uphold all of the CFCB’s conclusions in this specific case and that many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5 year time period foreseen in the UEFA regulations.'
The above seems relevant. Seems like a flaw in UEFAs rules if there's a 5 year leniency period.
 

Rafaeldagold

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
2,036
So basically any decision that states City broke the rules proves City are bent and any decision that says UEFA got it wrong proves..............City are bent.
City are unquestionably a bent corrupt football club, spending way above their actual means as they’re owned by a bloody state. (A very questionable one at that)

City are basically everything that’s wrong with modern football. Competition is being destroyed & results are just distorted by the vast vast unfair advantage that a football club has when its owned by a state.
 

cbmufc

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Messages
187
I thought they didn't care about the champions league?

Thinking there was an agenda against city ffs :D Different breed them lot.
 

TrustInOle

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,468
Location
Manchester
Because CAS have said we're innocent of the charges they looked at. If the emails were deemed evidence enough we'd be banned. What will be interesting really is how many charges were time barred and how many were proven not guilty.



Somebodies angry. A normal person accepts the judgement of the those in the know instead of throwing around random unfounded accusations.

Here's the headline from CAS in case you forgot: MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS BUT DID FAIL TO COOPERATE WITH THE UEFA AUTHORITIES The bold part is important
Angry? :lol: I'm having a ball, didn't expect City fans to go full Trump supporter mode, even with them being off the hook.

We are aware you keep bolding the same headline, but where does it say this in the actual statement? Pretty sure you've been found not guilty based on insufficient evidence and the time barring, not exonorated.

Don't have to look far to find shady sponsor deals, off shore accounts ect. Please carry on though.:drool:
 

OleBoiii

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
6,021
I don't know enough about this to form an educated opinion. From a purely legal standpoint City are probably innocent if that is the conclusion. "Law" and "ethics" are not the same thing. There will often be loopholes for skilled lawyers to exploit. Law has very little to do with justice.

None of this changes the fact that City are a club built on rotten money.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
290
I can't be bothered to catastrophize. First major test of the FFP rules. Teething problems.

If EUFA are smart, then they will change the FFP rules and procedures, going forward, to take account of the wording of CAS judgement.

Meanwhile we are in a good position to get back into the Champions League.
 

westmeath

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
1,475
Location
Ireland
The ruling does not change much and UEFA must have known that the allegations were out of time.

It doesn’t mean that they were untrue though, just too old to be punished for.

It doesn’t change the fact that City is owned by the appalling Abu Dhabi dictatorship with its terrible record on human rights in its own country and its part in the ongoing genocide in Yemen.

Very bad day for UEFA but what’s new about that?

FFP is now dead and plastic sportswashing clubs like City will become the norm.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
It's terribly worded... I may know nothing about legal stuff, but I work with press releases as part of my job everyday, and a good press release is headline or two, and then the rest of the statement backs up /enforces that headline(s) .

The body of this press release does nothing to back up that statement and instead says things to question it - like the part that I quoted - which DOES mention things either being time barred or unable to be proven.

Also the CAS and UEFA investigations were totally different... UEFA wanted info to enforce /build their case, whilst CAS would only require info based on what UEFA had. Surely you can see the cooperation with CAS would require a different type/level of involvement?

This totally gets away from my original point, which is that UEFA will find it nearly impossible to prosecute any club of breaching FFP from now on as clubs won't fully cooperate with their investigations going forward (unless they change the rules that force them to do so - which might happen)
Doesn't saying unable to be proven mean innocence and back up the headline. I mean that's exactly how people are found not guilty, there is no proof they are guilty. That's exactly how it works...
This guys not a thief because we can't prove he stole anything... I don't understand why the goalposts are moved for City.
 

simmee

Full Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
940
Because CAS have said we're innocent of the charges they looked at. If the emails were deemed evidence enough we'd be banned. What will be interesting really is how many charges were time barred and how many were proven not guilty.



Somebodies angry. A normal person accepts the judgement of the those in the know instead of throwing around random unfounded accusations.

Here's the headline from CAS in case you forgot: MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS BUT DID FAIL TO COOPERATE WITH THE UEFA AUTHORITIES The bold part is important
So you only read the headline then?

It says that most of the alleged breaches was either not established or time-barred, i.e. in some cases it was established but time-barred and in other cases it was not established. Either the headline is just wrong or they should have added context in the statement that actually backs up the headline. Nothing in the statement implies that they could say with certainty that City did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,699
Doesn't saying unable to be proven mean innocence and back up the headline. I mean that's exactly how people are found not guilty, there is no proof they are guilty. That's exactly how it works...
This guys not a thief because we can't prove he stole anything... I don't understand why the goalposts are moved for City.
This guy had admitted he stole in a private email, but it's been 5 years since he stole, so it doesn't count any more.
 

TrustInOle

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,468
Location
Manchester
Doesn't saying unable to be proven mean innocence and back up the headline. I mean that's exactly how people are found not guilty, there is no proof they are guilty. That's exactly how it works...
This guys not a thief because we can't prove he stole anything... I don't understand why the goalposts are moved for City.
Being found not guilty doesn't mean you arn't guilty. :lol:
 

Manny

Grammar Police
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,855
:lol:

All but confirms that City are an oil club. Thats had to resort to technicalities to get off.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,699
So you only read the headline then?

It says that most of the alleged breaches was either not established or time-barred, i.e. in some cases it was established but time-barred and in other cases it was not established. Either the headline is just wrong or they should have added context in the statement that actually backs up the headline. Nothing in the statement implies that they could say with certainty that City did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions.
'UEFA notes that the CAS panel found that there was insufficient conclusive evidence to uphold all of the CFCB’s conclusions in this specific case and that many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5 year time period foreseen in the UEFA regulations.'
 

Nikelesh Reddy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2017
Messages
1,912
There you go,so much ado about nothing!!FFP is a joke!!I”m not worried about us qualifying for next seasons CL(we will finish top 4 definitely)....I”m more dissapointed that City haven’t been taken to task....
 

Untied

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
4,480
Doesn't saying unable to be proven mean innocence and back up the headline. I mean that's exactly how people are found not guilty, there is no proof they are guilty. That's exactly how it works...
This guys not a thief because we can't prove he stole anything... I don't understand why the goalposts are moved for City.
That's not what the judgement says though - it says most offences were either unproven or time-barred. So therefore some of the offences must have been neither unproven or time-barred. And the time-barred ones are still offences, you are just for some reason escaping punishment for them.

Basically until the full judgement is out we won't be able to understand what the division is between, unproven, time-barred, and neither. And where on earth this 5 year statute of limitations has come from.
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
8,165
Location
Manchester
Insignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no real evidence of any wrong doing and more than likely the time barred ones would be the same. I'd like to apologise to city for believing them guilty.

Would now be great to see uefa go over the books of the leagues 19 other clubs so they can drag them through the mud wrongly too.
Ha ha! Good joke.

You do realise they got off on a technicality right?
 

tombombadil

Full Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
2,898
Location
Some god forsaken part of Middle Earth
What a shit year it has been. All the shit around the world, with a pandemic, australia burning, etc isn't bad enough. We have all the blatant corruption worldwide getting rewarded instead of punished. From Trump to Citeh. And the icing on the cake, Liverpool finally hit no 20. It's just so frustrating.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
Angry? :lol: I'm having a ball, didn't expect City fans to go full Trump supporter mode, even with them being off the hook.

We are aware you keep bolding the same headline, but where does it say this in the actual statement? Pretty sure you've been found not guilty based on insufficient evidence and the time barring, not exonorated.

Don't have to look far to find shady sponsor deals, off shore accounts ect. Please carry on though.:drool:
So you are saying not guilty does not equal not guilty? but its City fans who don't make sense.
Do you know how not guilty works? Its because you can't be proven guilty. If you are not guilty it means legally you didn't commit the crime.
Kinda how it works explained nice and quick for you dude.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,374
Location
Learn me a booke
So then there is no proof he's guilty? You know proof is important right. He also isn't a player and the op said all players were being paid twice.
No, I'm saying in these cases there will rarely be proof in this way. It's more about discerning what's a real payment and what's obviously a cover. I don't know anything about Mancini or the City players, but this is not a unique thing with City. If Shaw indeed got his weight's pay in sausages on the side it would naturally be masqued as a cosultant fee for his outstanding gastronomical services to a local Manchester butchery, which might happen to be owned by the wife of a school buddy of Woodward. The presumption of innocence isn't as black and white in these cases, especially when it's not a criminal case.
 

jontheblue

Full Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
233
Supports
MCFC
City are unquestionably a bent corrupt football club, spending way above their actual means as they’re owned by a bloody state. (A very questionable one at that)

City are basically everything that’s wrong with modern football. Competition is being destroyed & results are just distorted by the vast vast unfair advantage that a football club has when its owned by a state.
yep that'll do it - nothing like someone else backing up your own point so emphatically
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
This guy had admitted he stole in a private email, but it's been 5 years since he stole, so it doesn't count any more.
Really, because it says allegations that weren't time barred were proven false..
 

Rafaeldagold

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
2,036
No, it is worded fine, you're just misinterpreting it. When they say time-barred, they mean UEFA do not have the jurisdiction to investigate anyway. The legitimacy of the breaches becomes immaterial to CAS as they've already concluded UEFA cannot act on it. That's the point - UEFA could not build a credible case even if City cooperated, as they are rendered powerless by their own rules. Now, at CAS, what City have clearly done is proven that (a) UEFA are time-barred, and (b) the substance of much of their claims was incorrect. Hence the headline: 'MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS'. That is not 'time-barred', that is quite unequivocally saying UEFA's charges in that regard are untrue. But as I said, I don't expect people on a Manchester United forum to pay much attention to the facts of the case.

Yes, cooperating with UEFA and CAS is very different - one is an independent body, the other is not. The independent one ruled in favour of City, the other did not.
Ha it’s obvious your sponsorship deals are inflated. You must know your club is dodgy as hell
 

TrustInOle

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,468
Location
Manchester
So you are saying not guilty does not equal not guilty? but its City fans who don't make sense.
Do you know how not guilty works? Its because you can't be proven guilty. If you are not guilty it means legally you didn't commit the crime.
Kinda how it works explained nice and quick for you dude.
Wow :lol:

Not guilty is a verdict, not a definate response to whether a crime was committed.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
No, I'm saying in these cases there will rarely be proof in this way. It's more about discerning what's a real payment and what's obviously a cover. I don't know anything about Mancini or the City players, but this is not a unique thing with City. If Shaw indeed got his weight's pay in sausages on the side it would naturally be masqued as a cosultant fee for his outstanding gastronomical services to a local Manchester butchery, which might happen to be owned by the wife of a school buddy of Woodward. The presumption of innocence isn't as black and white in these cases, especially when it's not a criminal case.
I shall concede that point as we all know Mancini was most certainly not a consultant and I was just being awkward. That said it still doesn't mean every player at the club is being paid twice or any which the op tried to use the Mancini story as proof of.
 

simmee

Full Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
940
So you are saying not guilty does not equal not guilty? but its City fans who don't make sense.
Do you know how not guilty works? Its because you can't be proven guilty. If you are not guilty it means legally you didn't commit the crime.
Kinda how it works explained nice and quick for you dude.
Seriously, you'll always be corrupt and everyone knows that (except you, obviously). Just enjoy the trophies but stop pretending you're a proper football club anymore.