City avoid transfer ban

andyox

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2018
Messages
475
Supports
Manchester City
The point of being punished for breaking the rules is not only to deter you from repeating that offence but to deter others from committing the same offence. Giving City a slap on the wrist as it was only their first offence simply encourages other clubs to break the same rule, confident of receiving similarly light punishment.

Whichever way you look at it, FIFA have set a dangerous precedent for themselves. What's to stop a multitude of other clubs going out to sign under-18 players safe in the knowledge that their punishment, if caught, will be meaningless?
Genuinely I can see your point on the punishment. A small fine is obviously irrelevant to City and any PL club, obviously. But there has to be some degree of matching the size of punishment to the size of offence, and I think all City fans have been trying to say is that City's offence in terms of scale was very different to Chelsea's.

In terms of future punishments, City's statement says that FIFA's regulations were updated in Dec 2016 (City's offences occurred before then), so maybe it'll be easier for FIFA to punish clubs more heavily if they now breach the updated regulations (no-one can plead ignorance or confusion of the regulations).
 

Wedge

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,631
Location
Various fields
Supports
a soft spot for Ajax
“The disciplinary committee took into account the fact that Manchester City FC accepted its responsibility”

Great, now take responsibility for where your money is coming from
They generate their own money you know :nervous::lol:
 

Gentleman Jim

It's absolutely amazing!
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
2,376
Location
Salford
Supports
city
The offences aren't similar, they're identical. You're missing the point in any case.

Chelsea sign 14 players under the age of 18, which is a clear breach of FIFA rules. They receive a transfer market ban for their troubles.

City sign 2 players under the age of 18, also in breach of the rules but to a lesser extent. They receive a paltry £300k fine that will have no effect whatsoever.

FIFA is saying, essentially, that it's perfectly okay to break their rules a little bit but go too far and they will give you a proper punishment, which is ridiculous. All this fine has achieved is to encourage other clubs to break the rules further. If all you're going to get is a meaningless fine, what's the big deal?
Disagree (surprise, surprise).
The number of breaches, past infringements and cooperation with the authorities when caught rulebreaking are all factors in determining the punishment meted out. Presumably there is a tariff for guilty parties and both City and Chelsea were punished according to that tariff?
City have been dealt with in line with FIFA's rules. You may not think the rules fair but that's another issue.
 

SquishyMcSquish

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
8,228
Supports
Tottenham
Scumbag club led by scumbag owners in getting away with scumbaggery shocker.


Also :lol: at City fans pulling the race card because people are calling out their owners for being the fecking pond life that they are. They're absolutely the scum of the earth and shouldn't even be allowed to step in to the country, the only reason they're tolerated anywhere is because of their blood stained money.
 

Gentleman Jim

It's absolutely amazing!
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
2,376
Location
Salford
Supports
city
They are but when it suits all parties they'll work together. Fifa get to keep our owners on side, Uefa get their fake pound of flesh. I mean Fifa could have banned us from the January window (1 window, half Chelseas punishment), It would effect us feck all as we wouldn't be shopping then anyway but people would probably feel the decision was stronger and Fifa took some other action than lining their pockets for a change.

Essentially it looks week to me that its pretty much 1.5 weeks of KDB's wages. Had they said 300k and no spending in January, it would have been much firmer without changing the game much. People would be much more accepting.
As I just said to @Random Task the punishment is (presumably) in line with FIFA rules and is not means tested.
Maybe in future fines should be a percentage of turnover so that financial giants will feel the pain as much as Forfar Athletic would if they were the guilty party but for the moment the rules have been enforced.
 

mad1max954

Full Member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
538
What do you get when you have a corrupt organisation that’s state sponsored, investigated by a corrupt organisation that has proven state doping?

Nothing.
 

Reiver

Full Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
1,182
Location
Near Glasgow
They were fined what? £315000? Wow, that'll make them think twice. FIFA might as well have done nothing, it would have had the same effect.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
6,230
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
The offences aren't similar, they're identical. You're missing the point in any case.

Chelsea sign 14 players under the age of 18, which is a clear breach of FIFA rules. They receive a transfer market ban for their troubles.

City sign 2 players under the age of 18, also in breach of the rules but to a lesser extent. They receive a paltry £300k fine that will have no effect whatsoever.

FIFA is saying, essentially, that it's perfectly okay to break their rules a little bit but go too far and they will give you a proper punishment, which is ridiculous. All this fine has achieved is to encourage other clubs to break the rules further. If all you're going to get is a meaningless fine, what's the big deal?
If I was a lawyer of another big club who was found guilty of signing 2 underage players, I'd be quoting this as a precedent... I can't see how FIFA could argue that anything other than a fine is passed else said club/lawyers go straight to CAS who'd surely have to overturn it.

Between Chelsea's fine/ban and City's "fine", FIFA are effectively creating a scale for clubs/lawyers. At some point between 2 and 29, a pittance of a fine turns into a 2-window ban. Maybe worth risking 3-4 players.... just say you're sorry and await a fine?
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
4,278
Basically were docked Aguero's salary for a week, a drop of water in the ocean.
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
2,200
Location
Manchester
Have you. You have a personal count on people killed by Mansour? Or even proof of any?
Don't play dumb. It doesn't have to be a personal count. You are effectively a state run club. Look at the state.

Also, if you're going to respond to a question, not directed at you, with another question then just give it a rest.
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
2,200
Location
Manchester
Correct, the point was that it has been suggested that a factor in City's lighter punishment was that it was a first breach of FIFA rules, and therefore a first punishment meted out by FIFA.

Whether a different governing body has punished City for breaching different rules related to youth players is obviously completely irrelevant to the punishment that FIFA imposed in this case.

If we break rules we should be punished, I don't think anyone is denying that. But there's so much confusion and conflation in this thread about the details of this case.
Point is there has been a systematic breaking of the same rule by the same club.

Dodgy dodgy City. UAE FC.
 

Needham

Full Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
10,462
Basically were docked Aguero's salary for a week, a drop of water in the ocean.
This post has a hauntingly beautiful melody but it misses the point. Aguero won't have to pay the fine out of his wages.
 

noodlehair

"It's like..."
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
12,240
Location
Flagg
I don't understand these rules. Why is this a lesser offence than what Chelsea and the FA did? Why did Chelsea get severely punished for something the FA couldn't even get right? Did they just not cough up the bribe money?

Why aren't we breaking the rules by signing that 16 year old from Ajax? Is there an exemption for players with silly hair?

Why does Pep constantly moan about other team's spending when City spend so much the global ecomony is probably dependent on their transfers?
 

padr81

Account closed by user request
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
6,219
Supports
Man City
City fans trying to turn this thread into a race war?
Nobodies trying to turn it into a race war. The following is just plain xenophobic and its unavoidable that he'll get called out on it.
"when there is an inevitable political/ physical war between that part of the Middle East when they stop becoming useful to the west, you can bet your life City will be used as political pawns that will be drained of life as a retaliation.

It'll be nothing more than they deserved for selling their soul to the devil. Wonder how many of City's supporters realise that if their owners could click their fingers tomorrow and create their ideal world, none of them would be in it? In fact, they'd all either be enslaved or actively terminated, depending on sex, religion, ethnicity and or sexual orientation."

It's also nothing to do with the topic in question which you are debating quite fairly without resorting to said measures. His whole argument is "Cites owners hate the minorities so that somehow equates to them being guilty of buying u18s from outside Europe needing a harsher punishment".
 
Last edited:

cesc's_mullet

Get a haircut Hippy!
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Messages
26,284
Supports
Hawthorn Football Club
In totally, completely, definitely, most-assuredly, purely coincidental, please believe me, unrelated news every single Fifa big wig has bought themselves brand new mega mansions.
 

padr81

Account closed by user request
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
6,219
Supports
Man City
Don't play dumb. It doesn't have to be a personal count. You are effectively a state run club. Look at the state.

Also, if you're going to respond to a question, not directed at you, with another question then just give it a rest.
Wrong, we're not a state run club. We are owned by one member of the royal family of said state who yes uses us as a PR vehicle for his state (and have many horrid pieces of shit on the board) but we are not owned by Abu Dhabi, but by Mansour, who as far as you or I can prove has zero deaths on his cv. To suggest anything else is ridiculous. The owner of Man City (singular) as far as I know has zero murders on his cv, I thought you might be able to inform me otherwise but as usual you are putting things together regards City which just aren't true.

It's a post on a discussion forum which is hugely ill informed so I will discuss it on said discussion forum, you don't have to answer but I sure as hell can quote and try to debate said point until I'm told otherwise.
 

padr81

Account closed by user request
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
6,219
Supports
Man City
Scumbag club led by scumbag owners in getting away with scumbaggery shocker.


Also :lol: at City fans pulling the race card because people are calling out their owners for being the fecking pond life that they are. They're absolutely the scum of the earth and shouldn't even be allowed to step in to the country, the only reason they're tolerated anywhere is because of their blood stained money.
Thats a pathetic argument, the equivalent of me saying the £ is easily the most bloodstained currency in the world and the british shouldn't be allowed anywhere because of their record (I'm a brit myself btw)
.
You find the post that we all quoted all tell me its not xenophobia and you are simply a liar. The fact that you think people posting like that is fine just because they are being racist against a scum bag is Tommy Robinson like logic buddy.
 

padr81

Account closed by user request
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
6,219
Supports
Man City
I don't understand these rules. Why is this a lesser offence than what Chelsea and the FA did? Why did Chelsea get severely punished for something the FA couldn't even get right? Did they just not cough up the bribe money?

Why aren't we breaking the rules by signing that 16 year old from Ajax? Is there an exemption for players with silly hair?

Why does Pep constantly moan about other team's spending when City spend so much the global ecomony is probably dependent on their transfers?
Chelsea did it 29 times, were investigated on 93 counts. City did it twice and were investigated on 9 counts. The punishment is still far too lenient for the crime though and we should have faced somekind of reprecussions
 

padr81

Account closed by user request
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
6,219
Supports
Man City
As I just said to @Random Task the punishment is (presumably) in line with FIFA rules and is not means tested.
Maybe in future fines should be a percentage of turnover so that financial giants will feel the pain as much as Forfar Athletic would if they were the guilty party but for the moment the rules have been enforced.
Thats a fair point but the key word is presumably, with my opinion of Fifa, Whom I tend to imagine are completely inconsistent with this rule (as they are with everything else) except being corrupt (they are great at being corrupt).

Not that I'm accusing City of doing anything corrupt with this decision but I still feel the punishment is too soft.

What is to stop United or Liverpool from signing two 16 y/o wonderkids when they know the punishment of £300k is a drop in the bucket when the worst case scenario is getting millions from selling them on, even if they only become Championship or lower half of the table quality players. Best case scenario is they become superstars.

Fifa have set a precedent where imho its a risk worth taking.

Thats why I think the fine shouldn't matter and a 1 window ban would have sufficed.
Minor infraction 1 window - Major infraction 2 windows - Do an Atletico and you face 4-5 windows.
 

The Boy

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
805
Supports
Brighton and Hove Albion
This isn't the end of it, is it? This doesn't seem like it's anything to do with the FFP / "Champions League ban" investigation?
I don't care about their transfers, I just want them banned from the CL. Or is that another investigation?
The FFP investigation is separate.

What’s the point of this forum when it takes 30min to approve a message and the post gets lost in 50 new replies?
Who are you?
 

minh_loc_xoay

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2019
Messages
244
At least they can strengthen themselves properly and help us prevent Liverpool from winning the League, while we are in the process of another rebuild.
Manchester City essentially saved England from Liverpool last season, with the final blow to Liverpool dealt by us (Drawing them on Old Trafford). Beautiful Manchester teamwork there.
 

Pavl3n

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
990
Fifa said City breached article 19 of its regulations: "International transfers of players are only permitted if the player is over the age of 18."

Chelsea were banned from signing players for two transfer windows for a similar rule breach - but the club are appealing to have that overturned.

"The Fifa disciplinary committee has sanctioned English club Manchester City FC for breaches relating to the international transfer and registration of players under the age of 18," said football's world governing body in a statement.

"Manchester City FC was found to have breached, among others, article 19 of the Fifa Regulations on the status and transfer of players.

"The disciplinary committee took into account the fact that Manchester City FC accepted its responsibility and sanctioned the club with a fine of CHF 370,000."
Now one of the rules about this article 19 is that the parents have to move toit the country of the club for non footballing reasons.
If my son wanted to play for Manchester United and I believe that it would benefit his future footballing career, I'd be all for his move to the club. However these are footballing reason.
I wouldn't move to Manchester for any non footballing reasons.
How do you go about that rule?

And also we have signed a few 16/17 years old into the academy, how is it that we are not breaching the rules?
 

Jimmy_Bond

New Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
599
Nobodies trying to turn it into a race war. The following is just plain xenophobic and its unavoidable that he'll get called out on it.
"when there is an inevitable political/ physical war between that part of the Middle East when they stop becoming useful to the west, you can bet your life City will be used as political pawns that will be drained of life as a retaliation.

It'll be nothing more than they deserved for selling their soul to the devil. Wonder how many of City's supporters realise that if their owners could click their fingers tomorrow and create their ideal world, none of them would be in it? In fact, they'd all either be enslaved or actively terminated, depending on sex, religion, ethnicity and or sexual orientation."

It's also nothing to do with the topic in question which you are debating quite fairly without resorting to said measures. His whole argument is "Cites owners hate the minorities so that somehow equates to them being guilty of buying u18s from outside Europe needing a harsher punishment".
You keep saying that my post was xenophobic. Do you have any idea what Xenophobia is?

An example of a xenophobic post would be... "All Arabs don't approve of homosexuality, and would happily pass legislation to punish homosexuality by death." This is xenophobic as it wrongly perpetuates an incorrect and negative opinion based on Race/ Nationality.

However, if someone were to say "the unelected government of UAE (of which your owner is the deputy Prime Minister and Royal Family member) doesn't approve of homosexuality, and would happily pass legislation to punish homosexuality by death." This is not xenophobia, this is a fact.

Here is a link to a list of some of the things which are punishable by death in the state where your owner is deputy Primer Minister and active member of the Royal Family...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

So included in the list are the following things..

1. Adultery. This not only encompasses having an extra-marital affair, but also extends to having sex outside of marriage. It is also worth noting that if a woman is raped in UAE the burden of proof is on her is to prove she was raped otherwise she can be tried for adultery.

2. Blasphemy. This includes showing contempt or lack of reverence to a Deity.

3. Apostasy. Abandonment or renunciation of a religion.

4. Homosexuality. Self explanatory.

Other more serious crimes are included on the list, but I won't mention them as they're not 100% relevant to the point I'm making.

So, how many of City fans, United fans, and pretty much the vast majority of western citizens (or cityzens ;) ) would fall victim to at least one of these laws were they being ruled (undemocratically) by the people running Manchester City, and as a consequence be potentially subjected to the death penalty? I'd wager pretty close to all of them.

As a side note, here is the wikipedia page on human rights in the UAE...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

So, as another poster said, you are using the race card here to try and villainise me in order to defend the disgraceful regime that you have running your football club. Not a single thing I said was xenophobic nor an attack against a race of people, it was an attack aimed at the hideous laws inflicted upon the citizens and visitors to the UEA by its unelected government (of which your owner is a senior member).

I do apologise for taking the thread off topic, but I'm not willing to have lazy accusations thrown at me by people who will do anything to deflect criticism.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
25,827
Location
xG Zombie Nation
The disturbing thing is that the accusations of racism originated from their owners, a cynical tactic on their part to deflect criticism of their regime and ownership of City that is now being championed by their fans.
 

Jimmy_Bond

New Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
599
The disturbing thing is that the accusations of racism originated from their owners, a cynical tactic on their part to deflect criticism of their regime and ownership of City that is now being championed by their fans.
And most disturbing of all is that they turn up every week and sing the name of a man who could quite easily find enough offenses on the average Friday night out of any City/ United/ Football fan to have them quite literally hung, strung and quartered (were they residing in a state governed by him, of course).

It's a sad reflection of the tribalism in football that a set of fans will do anything (including calling conspiracy and cynically using the race card) to avoid highlighting and admitting that the thing bringing them so much success is truly gruesome.

I'm sure were we bought by some Middle Eastern Sheikh with similar blatant contempt for many of things that we celebrate in western culture (such as freedom of speech and expression) many fans would be singing and dancing as we'd undoubtedly dominate and rule to an extent even more hegemonic than City, as our spending spending would be even greater (no FFP restrictions, not that City have let little things like the rules stop them). I personally would stop my association with the club immediately.

Some things are more important than football, such as the championing of basic human rights. Never thought I'd have to write that sentence.

Cue the fingerpointing and the "look at you not at me-ism.."
 

Dr. StrangeHate

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,519
Guys please leave Manchester City alone. They are necessary to save us from Liverpool for the next couple of years. When we are capable of challenging for the title we can bitch about them then. For the moment let's enjoy their wins.
 

noodlehair

"It's like..."
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
12,240
Location
Flagg
Chelsea did it 29 times, were investigated on 93 counts. City did it twice and were investigated on 9 counts. The punishment is still far too lenient for the crime though and we should have faced somekind of reprecussions
How many times do you have to do it before it jumps from a nothing fine to a massive year long transfer ban? It seems like a dubious line/rule at best
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
23,898
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
I'd love for city to get a hefty ban, but taken together, these are significant circumstances to take into account:

It appears City have not breached any rules after December 2016, when the interpretation of the rule(s) where made clear, while Chelsea has breached the rules after December 2016.
“The disciplinary committee took into account the fact that Manchester City FC accepted its responsibility”
Yes but it's important to add context here, surely?

Violations of Article 19:
Atletico Madrid - 103
Real Madrid - 12
Barcelona - 21
Chelsea - 29
City - 2
 

Reddy Rederson

New Member
Joined
May 11, 2018
Messages
3,809
Location
Unicorn Country.
Guys please leave Manchester City alone. They are necessary to save us from Liverpool for the next couple of years. When we are capable of challenging for the title we can bitch about them then. For the moment let's enjoy their wins.
I would, but Im more of a 'the enemy of my enemy can feck off as well' kind of guy.
 

lysglimt

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
9,239
I still Think this is a minor thing - it's the FFP that is the big bad one - and they deserve severe punishment for that. If they get off that one Easy, then we might as well give up.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
15,451
Location
Scotland
Supports
Everton
Fifa bans the international transfer of under-18s unless they meet strict criteria. It brought in the rules to help protect children from exploitation and trafficking.

Under-18s can only be transferred abroad if:

  • The player's parents move to the country in which the new club is located for non-footballing reasons.
  • Both clubs are in the European Union or European Economic Area and the player is aged between 16 and 18. Even then, the buying club must meet more criteria relating to education, training, living conditions and support.
  • They live within 100km of the overseas club.
Monaco to Manchester is 1700km :confused:

Or does the EU rule overpower that part of the ruling?
 
Last edited:

sun_tzu

The Art of Bore
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
14,165
Location
Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.
Aren't we breaching the rules by signing Hannibal Mejbri?
No... But it will probably be the last time we can sign an U18 player from the EU as the rules are

.
FIFA'S RULES ON UNDER-18 PLAYERS
Under-18s can only be transferred abroad if: The player's parents move to the country in which the new club is located for non-footballing reasons. Both clubs are in the European Union or European Economic Area and the player is aged between 16 and 18.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
15,451
Location
Scotland
Supports
Everton
He's moving to within 100km of Manchester... Which makes that rule irrelevant.
Ah, that was a brainfart on my behalf. Makes sense now. I assumed it meant that the club you're buying from had to be within 100km. :lol:
 

AceUnited

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
73
Posted this in other thread, more apt here though.

I was fully in favour of us getting a ban as we deserved it. Was also in favour of the ban being upheld even during the appeal process. However it now feels very harsh our punishment in light of this news Can't understand why City haven't been banned though, both clubs willingly and knowingly broke the rules. Other English clubs are being investigated currently about it as well, be interesting to see if anyone else is banned or in meaningless fines are handed out as well. City signed less players than us but they were still aware of what they were doing, they should have got a similar punishment.

Seems like the rules are different for the teams with "Oily Sugar Daddies".
 

deleon

Full Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
693
Should just give City a one-year ban, and extend Chelsea's ban for another 28 windows.

Only way to make it fair :wenger:
 

Blueman

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
83
Supports
Man City
I still Think this is a minor thing - it's the FFP that is the big bad one - and they deserve severe punishment for that. If they get off that one Easy, then we might as well give up.
I suspect that might get thrown out too. Sorry to say but there has been a shedload of negative reports about City, mainly from reporters and outlets who just dont want City because they dont bring the clicks, they want the cosy big fanbase clubs bringing in more clicks and income. So what we're getting is a distorted view of the situation..

The media wont tell these details in their clamour for hate clicks but some of the facts are:

1 - The FFP relates to 2014 breach (From 2011/12 accounts) - The day after city published their 2013/14 accounts showing we had met FFP UEFA changed the FFP ruleset
2 - City have already been investigaed (and fined) by UEFA with this breach of FFP
3 - City agreed a deal with UEFA themselves to meet FFP and pay the fine for this breach
4 - The information comes from hacked email accounts
5 - Leaks to the press about a closed investigation - And then add to that the "hostile actors" of Qatar, Utd, LFC, Bayern being involved in the case
6 - The accusation that FFP has been set up by UEFA and the european elite to keep the elite at the top (For which there is a separate case)

Given all the above points I think that the FFP sanctions that the media are hoping for wont come, I also have a slight feeling it will result in FFP being changed or removed altogether.

There's a good writeup from a decent City fan, a guy who looks into these things with an impartial eye, long long read though - https://boltfromtheblue.live/2018/11/18/how-uefa-shifted-the-goalposts-to-shaft-man-city/

So, UEFA want to keep FFP. City want to be at the top table in European football. The most likely outcome (I think) is that City will be found to be compliant (Or get a hefty fine). Seems most likely to me, but tbh there's so much cloak and dagger stuff, so much money and deals involved that anything can happen I suppose