Cant believe not much has been made in the media of cheatchester city winning trophies on the back of..cheating (probably reflects on them being such a small and insignificant club anyway). I know they still have time to respond but everyone knew what was going on. I wont be surprised this ban is overturned as the football authorities are run by crooks. They have a fantastic team, manager and play great football but thier success will always seem fabricated.
Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
This is what should happen. Obviously it will hurt City’s genuine fans, and I feel for them, but these titles have been achieved by cheating and breaking the rules, by having players scoring goals that other teams would not have been allowed to buy.
They defeated 19 other teams who were playing by the rules set out by the governing body of the game. All their trophies from whatever period they have been found guilty from, should be taken away.
Maybe supporters will actually be happier with a fresh start, and an opportunity to build naturally. Maybe Foden will actually get a game now in a natural team!
Wait, did he just liken the Windrush scandal to City's situation?
That will not go down well.
What fecking Cabal? The Liverpool, Leicester, Chelsea version?
What utter horseshit
Oh I don’t want endless success. I’ve no problem with being where we are now. Behind Sheff Utd and Leicester. Out of CL again.
What I don’t want is to sit behind Sunderland because they were bought on the cheap while I long that the next despot takes over United.
There’s plenty of opportunity for clubs to earn the right. We don’t need Yeovil in the CL just because fans.
And this is exactly why the ban won't be overturned..It is quite obvious that we did cook the books. Maybe still are doing, but does it really matter? For you lot it definetely does, you might actually get into CL...
If we get cleared, this wishful thinking thread can go into the muck, as according to the letter of the law we will be innocent. Like OJ is. Ended up paying a hefty fine after the civil case but still walked free.
Personally I think 2 yrs ban will be overturned and nothing will happen as we will defend by all means.
Even if it won't and even if we end up in League Two, we will come back. Majority of us seen the club wandering through lower leagues, we will manage, won't we?
But now... Endless trunks of oil money guys, endless trunks. We can buy everyone and everything, like you could when Sky streamlined cash towards United in the 90's.
If it comes to an unlikely event of player exodus, you won't even have a sniff of a single one of them, will you? At this moment in time there are at least 4 clubs in Prem much more attractive for top top top players. None of yours will get nto our or dippers squad.
See you in few weeks after CAS suspends the ban until the case will be looked at...
End of an era for you lot im afraid. Good luck finding a manager as good as Pep who is happy with no European football for two years and willing to take a points deduction or even relegation out of the top flight. Then with that comes all your players. The old ones will be off and you'll have no chance of attracting fresh talent with normal wages and no real prospects whilst the ban is implemented.
The issue you now have is quite serious. You don't generate much legitimate money so how you're going to continue to fund what you do will become impossible. Your club has no history or real pedigree, like Juventus, so don't expect any loyalty from your mercenaries.
Id be pretty worried right about now.
This is simply not true. You are completely ignoring examples like Portsmouth and Blackburn. You are completely ignoring the financial implications of a wealthy owner saddling a club with huge contracts and then simply deciding to turn off the money tap.
Leicester City didn't engage in financial doping to get where they were. Neither did Sheffield United. This notion that you need a sugar daddy owner to stand a chance is false and reeks of glory hunting.
They benefitted from being the most successful club up until that point. The commercialization of the game was chance but no fault of theirs. Let's not forget that every PL has benefited from the commercialization of the game. Not just United or Liverpool
It's neither selfish nor a double standard. It's the fecking reality of the situation. Sport is not designed to give everyone a trophy or to punish those who win too much. It's a competitive endeavor where there will be successful outliers. What you are proposing is allowing the increased risk of clubs becoming insolvent and potentially stipping fans of something they cherish. And I'm the one in denial...
FFP as the rules are currently set, was just the elite at that time trying their best to pull the ladder up behind themselves. It's not about bringing any ideas of "financial fair play" for all , being fundamentally against state ownership, sugar daddies and making sure clubs can't go under...it's about success and who is allowed to easily acquire and maintain it.
I'm sympathetic to any smaller club or team from outside the biggest leagues that tries to circumvent it. The others i expect to be trying to at various levels anyway, city have just been careless and gone all in on sidestepping it.
I'm sympathetic to any smaller club or team from outside the biggest leagues that tries to circumvent it. The others i expect to be trying to at various levels anyway, city have just been careless and gone all in on sidestepping it.
Arrogance is a better word to describe them. It's true that many clubs are openly circumventing FFP, they just happen to be the biggest twats doing it.
Aren't Leicester (champions a few years back and practically top 4 certs this year) and to a much lesser extent Spurs (already a pretty big club but a regular CL team now) an example of smaller clubs breaking into the big time fairly and squarely? I just don't see how you can paint City as victims. If they had operated within the law and achieved the level of success they have had over the years then that would be fine. They've cheated though, soooo....yeah, not sure how you can play the victim card.
Regarding Leicester what do you mean by fairly and squarely, their owner is/was a sugar daddy?
When can we expect the FA’s response then?
No it’s not. Could not beat the big teams to win WS so they cheated.
I am fine with sugar daddies tbh.
What I am not fine with is sugar daddies skewing everything by spending orders of magnitude more than their neared competitors, whose response to failed big money signings is just to put them on the bench and buy another big money signing. Chelsea was bad enough, but the state funding that City and PSG introduced just took the piss.
I do think the FFP should be more lenient towards sugar daddies putting money in, in a sustainable manner.
Am only glad to see the corrupt piss take the city owners have attempted being flushed down the drain.
What I am not fine with is sugar daddies skewing everything by spending orders of magnitude more than their neared competitors, whose response to failed big money signings is just to put them on the bench and buy another big money signing. Chelsea was bad enough, but the state funding that City and PSG introduced just took the piss.
I do think the FFP should be more lenient towards sugar daddies putting money in, in a sustainable manner.
Am only glad to see the corrupt piss take the city owners have attempted being flushed down the drain.
What would happen if, theoretically, Man City didn't qualify for Europe next season? Does the ban get rolled over
You forgot to mention stealing signs with cameras in their particular skills. They were a great team because they cheated.
Leicester have been funded by their owner though, as have many other teams unfortunately. Currently it is going well for Leicester (and I don't see anything drastic happening to them in the near future) but there's actually been lots of clubs in England recently who have had money pumped in or severely mismanaged what money they did have, had a fleeting moment of success, of varying levels and have then ended up somewhere in the lower leagues.
Leeds, Villa, Newcastle, Blackburn, Portsmouth, Fulham, Sunderland, Bolton, QPR just off the top of my head and I'm sure there are many more.
I can see both sides. I do think FFP was ultimately put in to protect the very top clubs but some of the spending from City (and Chelsea before) has been outrageous. They've clearly broken the rules and I'm glad they're getting punished. Hope this sends a message but I'm sure instead they'll just pump money into fighting it in the courts.
They have had money pumped into the club but it's nothing like any of the other top clubs especially City's or United's spend. Also they won the league with Wes Morgan and Robert Huth as centre backs, danny simpson as a right back and Drinkwater as a midfielder. Combined spend there wouldn't even get you a quarter of Laporte. I believe Leicester have complied with all FFP rules too. They are a pretty well run club I'd say.
Do I get anything for totally predicting Samuel's response? I said yesterday he would be on sky booing about City, with his bribe burning a hole in his back pocket.
Leceister have been in FFP troubles and settled them around 2016, they definitely didn't comply with the rules. And your benchmark is kind of flawed, basically fair and square only look at the big clubs but all the clubs that they jumped in the Championship and the PL don't really matter, when it's actually them that you should look at not United, City or Liverpool but the likes of Bristol or Bournemouth because they suddenly could afford wages that others couldn't that's how they got the likes Kanté and Mahrez. And depending on who you are it quickly becomes not fair and square.
Must be that shadow elite in that there Europe thing across the channel consisting of AC Milan.
How can anyone see them as the victim is a bit... funny
Honestly it was obvious for years that City's numbers are cooked up. In 17/18 City announced 235M from commercial deals. Pool 151, Chelsea 170, Arsenal 107 and Spurs 103. I mean it's so obvious... unless you post it on Blue Moon. No other team has 2 world-class players for every position, no other team. And no one can argue that the amount of money City spent is good for football and should be allowed, that's obvious.
If anything FFP should be replaced with transfer / agent fees caps and wage caps. There's increase in TV money? Well it all ends up in players' pockets.
If this 2-year ban stands but City continue in PL I wouldn't expect that many players to leave. Sane and Silva are gone anyway so maybe Sterling plus underperforming players who earn too much money like Stones, Gundogan, 1-2 of the fullbacks, Otamendi.
From the viewpoint of Football economy, caps only mean something within the same league because at UEFA level leagues do not have the same financial realities. It's also a terrible idea in general because you are basically only limiting the amount of money that the actual actors of the game, the ones that generate the money through their work and images can gain, everyone else will have a bigger share of the pie.
Maybe Ed thought he was ceo of city when he said we can do things others only can dream of.
I think the rules regarding FFP should be more stringent as a means to discourage other potential buyers from getting involved in football.
The Saudi regime buying United is a very frightening prospect and an altogether real one by all accounts. City's ban may help prevent that from happening by way of acting as a deterrent.
As far as I can tell, the FFP rules for UEFA and the EPL are very similar. Would it be possible to breach one set of rules and not the other?
Yeah, the fit and proper test should be a lot more stringent.
It’s still utterly remarkable that that team could win the PL on that budget though. They might have had an advantage over other smaller teams but breaking into the top 4 this year and winning the league a few years back are outstanding achievements. Their improved financial status shouldn’t have even took them above teams like Everton or Spurs who themselves must have still spent as much, if not more than them and yet they won a league title.
Imo, it’s a bit different from City and Chelsea (initially) spending hundreds of millions in very few seasons to achieve their success. Also, those two clubs mentioned have repeatedly broken rules put in place. I honestly don’t recall Lecister breaching FFP in 2016 but have they been in trouble with the law since?
That is genuinely disgraceful.
By fostering this anti-UEFA attitude amongst their fanbase over the past few seasons, the folks running City have developed their own personal army of international PR drones who will defend them against any such charges to the death. The club statements I'm referring to serve as a bullhorn to endorse the kind of behaviour you're referring to while inflaming the fans further. This shit that's boggling your mind is the sole reason City's owners bought them in the first place: soft power through PR.
That's not the point, you asked about fair and square, the answer is no. It can be remarkable and still not fair and square, It doesn't mean that they didn't do an excellent job aside of it which is why I don't have particular issue with sugar daddies. I like Monaco and they are basically in a similar situation, to call it fair and square would be a travesty when you consider the dozens of clubs that didn't benefit from the same "outside" support. It's also worth mentioning that for teams that are in the Championship or the bottom of the PL, the most important thing is to reach the PL and be stable in it because the increase in revenue through broadcasting and prize money is considerably bigger that's why you can't really brush away the way Leicester reached the PL because that's the crucial part.
All the anti-FFP backdraft is a straw man. Pro-City journalists are pushing that angle hard as some kind of reasoning or mitigation, but it’s a false equivalence.
Regardless of the legality or merits of FFP: City accepted it and then deliberately obfuscated their books and lied about their conformance to it.
Simple as that.
Regardless of the legality or merits of FFP: City accepted it and then deliberately obfuscated their books and lied about their conformance to it.
Simple as that.
Just saw headline on daily mail where they say City might get points deduction for their 2014 title. Does that mean Gerrard gets his PL medal?
Yeah. Theoretically.Just saw headline on daily mail where they say City might get points deduction for their 2014 title. Does that mean Gerrard gets his PL medal?
But that's a premier League decision who probably won't want to change the history of their competition.n
Don't count on it.
Your second sentence is key. I can understand people or clubs being against it but in that case blatantly don't respect it, you don't have to be in UEFA competitions. But the hypocrisy is to claim that you are against it that you don't like the UEFA and then happily take the TV and prize money, if anything their shouldn't be any fine, just the full reimbursement of all broadcasting and prize money that they got from playing in UEFA competitions.
I can see it now. Liverpool lifting up the PL trophy. And out of nowhere Gerard with his full kit, celebrating alongside Henderson.
Yeah. Agree, very unlikely to happen. But if PL gives point deduction for all titles City won then United too might get their 21st for the season they were 2nd in the league under Mourinho