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

[Renegade]

Hope Pep pisses off to Juve and takes KDB with him.

if this ban sticks which is unlikely I know, what does the future realistically hold for City In the short and long term?
I can’t see the owner ever leaving, after all this investment over a decade and before the Far East World Cup, I don’t see them leaving football. Especially with their sister clubs in USA & Australia.

 

[MackRobinson]

Yeah just saying from the perspective of leveling the playing field the US sport system is way more effective. It is geared towards the owners, I concede that

But it doesn't actually level the playing. It actually creates opportunities for more imbalanced teams and hamstrung competitors. A great example is the Golden State Warriors of the NBA. They were lucky that Steph Curry was on a bargain contract due to injuries and their other key 2 players signed their contracts before the new TV deal which increased the salary cap. Then, the players union voted against salary cap easing which caused the salary cap to increase by an astronomical amount rather than gradually. The result? An already great, championship-winning team had enough cap room to sign Kevin fecking Durant. There are more examples.

The salary cap alone has never and will never level the playing field. It is a myth spread by American sports owners to trick fans into thinking the cap is there for competitive balance. It's there to save the owners from themselves and to ensure they always make money.

 

[Schmeichel=God]

If someone had told them in 2008 that 12 years down the line this would be their big punishment, I'm sure they'd have bitten your hand off.

They should just accept it as lenient and feck off.

Too true actually.

Sheffield in the Champions League

Please...would love to see that! It'd be like an amped up modern day version of Ipswich in the Uefa Cup.

Brown bags will change hand, they will win their appeal and it will be reduced from 2 years down to 6 months and they will be allowed to start their Champions League campaign in February next year.

"thank you for that substantial financial sum. Now, swiftly moving on, your campaign begins in the knockout stages."

Two year ban instead of one is significant. Means they are serious. City will obviously appeal, and it will get knocked down to one year, but they'll still suffer a ban

True. I wonder if they went for two knowing that it would end up getting knocked down later; just to ensure at least a year. It's a bit like the Thai vendors starting price for knock off goods: "25,000 baht....goo' price goo' price!!!"

This means Liverpool dominates the league for a few years at least

Well, it also gives us a chance to get a head start on closing the gap to comfortable top four once more. Lesser of two evils.... hmm: let's hope City's stars stay and focus 110% on the PL then.

Ticks all his requirements - richest club in league no consistent challenge to domestic dominance.

Ooh burn.... Can see it coming though

This is how it feels to be City,
This is how it feels to be small,
This is how it feels when your passport's back in the drawer,
Back in the drawer,
Back in the drawer...

Very nice

The only club taking Brexit seriously!

Respect lads

Hahaha. We really should commend them

Ok who forgot to hit send on the last wire transfer to UEFA

Can just imagine the scenes in their offices!

 

[man united 4eva]

Is it just me... or will anyone else miss the bitter berties booing the Champs League Anthem.?

 

[adexkola]

But it doesn't actually level the playing. It actually creates opportunities for more imbalanced teams and hamstrung competitors. A great example is the Golden State Warriors of the NBA. They were lucky that Steph Curry was on a bargain contract due to injuries, their other 2 players signed their contracts before the new TV deal which increased the salary cap. Then, the players union voted against salary cap easing which caused the salary cap to increase by an astronomical amount rather than gradually. The result? An already great, championship-winning team had enough cap room to sign Kevin fecking Durant. There are more examples.

The salary cap has never and will never level the playing field. It is a myth spread by American sports owners to trick fans into thinking the cap is there for competitive balance. It's there to save the owners from themselves and to ensure they always make money.

That is a nonsense take, I'm saving this space for a more detailed rebuttal

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

Yeah just saying from the perspective of leveling the playing field the US sport system is way more effective. It is geared towards the owners, I concede that

And many of the sports are run differently. In NFL for example, I’d say about 24 of the 32 fan bases will feel they can win the Super Bowl over the next 2/3 years if things go there way. The salary cap is a large part of that even though it can be manipulated.

 

[Schneckerl]

But it doesn't actually level the playing. It actually creates opportunities for more imbalanced teams and hamstrung competitors. A great example is the Golden State Warriors of the NBA.

This is mostly due to how the game of Basketball works and not because of the US sports system/salary cap.

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

But it doesn't actually level the playing. It actually creates opportunities for more imbalanced teams and hamstrung competitors. A great example is the Golden State Warriors of the NBA. They were lucky that Steph Curry was on a bargain contract due to injuries and their other key 2 players signed their contracts before the new TV deal which increased the salary cap. Then, the players union voted against salary cap easing which caused the salary cap to increase by an astronomical amount rather than gradually. The result? An already great, championship-winning team had enough cap room to sign Kevin fecking Durant. There are more examples.

The salary cap alone has never and will never level the playing field. It is a myth spread by American sports owners to trick fans into thinking the cap is there for competitive balance. It's there to save the owners from themselves and to ensure they always make money.

As I said in the other post, sure does in the NFL.

 

[MackRobinson]

That is a nonsense take, I'm saving this space for a more detailed rebuttal

Let me ask you a question? Why do NBA owners during every CBA negotiation never want to remove max player salaries? If competitive balance was their aim, they would allow star players like Lebron, Kwahi, and Giannas to take up as much as the cap as possible so you can't have these "super" teams. The reason is pretty simple if you follow the NBA: The owners want flexibility not competitive balance. They want to limit the risk of signing bad contacts like Joe Johnson, Rashard Lewis, Amare with the Knicks, etc. They aslo don't want to pay young prospects like Zion max money until they are sure what the player is (even though Zion will probably payback is rookie contract 10x over due to his marketability) It's about saving owners from themselves. Period.

Competitive balance is usually about the nature of the game and the rule set. Here is an easy thought experiment: What do you think the list of NBA champions would look like if it were a single-elimination tournament? What do you think the NBA would look like if mid-2000 hand-checking rules weren't introduced and NBA virtually outlaw physicality against elite scores (look what happened to the NBA right after those rule changes). Even in the sport with the most competitive balance, American football, you have a dynasty like the Patriots.

I'm curious to see your detailed rebuttal.

 

[MackRobinson]

This is mostly due to how the game of Basketball works and not because of the US sports system/salary cap.

I'm saying the salary cap creates opportunities for teams to cement themselves at the top even further. But I agree competitive balance is due to the nature of game and ruleset.

 

[MackRobinson]

As I said in the other post, sure does in the NFL.

Not it doesn't (or its not the biggest reason). It's the nature of the game.

First, NFL teams get on average 12 times to score per game (I think in the NBA each team gets like 100 possessions). This smaller sample size will increase the variance of outcomes. Also teams play 16 games vs 82 in the NBA (The NHL is 82 and MLB is 162)

Secondly, the NFL is the only major North American sports league to have a single-elimination tournament. Change it to a 5 or 7 games series and you will see very different outcomes.

Thirdly, I would say baseball has the most competitive balance and it is doesn't have a cap and hasn't had a work stoppage in a long, long, long time.

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

Let me ask you a question? Why do NBA owners during every CBA negotiation never want to remove max player salaries? If competitive balance was their aim, they would allow star players like Lebron, Kwahi, and Giannas to take up as much as the cap as possible so you can't have these "super" teams. The reason is pretty simple if you follow the NBA: The owners want flexibility not competitive balance. They want to limit the risk of signing bad contacts like Joe Johnson, Rashard Lewis, Amare with the Knicks, etc. They aslo don't want to pay young prospects like Zion max money until they are sure what the player is (even though Zion will probably payback is rookie contract 10x over due to his marketability) It's about saving owners from themselves. Period.

Competitive balance is usually about the nature of the game and the rule set. Here is an easy thought experiment: What do you think the list of NBA champions would look like if it were a single-elimination tournament? What do you think the NBA would look like if mid-2000 hand-checking rules weren't introduced and NBA virtually outlaw physicality against elite scores (look what happened to the NBA right after those rule changes). Even in the sport with the most competitive balance, American football, you have a dynasty like the Patriots.

I'm curious to see your detailed rebuttal.

Over the last 15 years in the NFL the Patriots have won 3,Steelers 2, giants 2 and rest are single winners. Pretty good parity. And look at the 49ers who made the super bowl this year and were awful last year. Teams and fans feel most have a chance.

 

[MackRobinson]

Over the last 15 years in the NFL the Patriots have won 3,Steelers 2, giants 2 and rest are single winners. Pretty good parity. And look at the 49ers who made the super bowl this year and were awful last year. Teams and fans feel most have a chance.

And like I said in my reply to you earlier, that has more to do with the nature of sport and the ruleset.

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

Not it doesn't (or its not the biggest reason). It's the nature of the game.

First, NFL teams get on average 12 times to score per game (I think in the NBA each team gets like 100 possessions). This smaller sample size will increase the variance of outcomes. Also teams play 16 games vs 82 in the NBA (The NHL is 82 and MLB is 162)

Secondly, the NFL is the only major North American sports league to have a single-elimination tournament. Change it to a 5 or 7 games series and you will see very different outcomes.

Thirdly, I would say baseball has the most competitive balance and it is doesn't have a cap and hasn't had a work stoppage in a long, long, long time.

‘Bigger’ market teams with bigger payroll usually win the World Series. There are of course exceptions. ask a fan of Baltimore Orioles, Twins, Pirates etc...if they think they win the World Series in the next3-4 years. Ask the same question to ANY NFL fan and you will much different answers.

 

[The Boogeyman]

But it doesn't actually level the playing. It actually creates opportunities for more imbalanced teams and hamstrung competitors. A great example is the Golden State Warriors of the NBA. They were lucky that Steph Curry was on a bargain contract due to injuries and their other key 2 players signed their contracts before the new TV deal which increased the salary cap. Then, the players union voted against salary cap easing which caused the salary cap to increase by an astronomical amount rather than gradually. The result? An already great, championship-winning team had enough cap room to sign Kevin fecking Durant. There are more examples.

The salary cap alone has never and will never level the playing field. It is a myth spread by American sports owners to trick fans into thinking the cap is there for competitive balance. It's there to save the owners from themselves and to ensure they always make money.

Why do owners making more money and increased parity have to be mutually exclusive?

Basketball is a sport where a handful of star players carry teams to success. Of course when a team like golden state has the stars align like that, they are going to have a great team. But the benefits of a salary cap, trades, and draft mean that teams like Milkwaukee, Cleveland, and Toronto can have a chance to win titles if they get lucky and play their cards right. Those teams could never compete against the Lakers, Bulls, or Warriors without those things, as the big-market teams would always have more money to pay top players, and chance to make more in endorsements.

I will edit this to add that saving owners from themselves is just a different way of looking at the way premier league clubs are operated. With a salary cap and revenue sharing, there's basically no way for a team to buy titles like City and Chelsea, but clubs like Bolton and Leeds can't destroy themselves with reckless spending. I think most fans would be happy with that.

 

[clarkydaz]

will this have any implications for tax fraud here?

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

Why do owners making more money and increased parity have to be mutually exclusive?

Basketball is a sport where a handful of star players carry teams to success. Of course when a team like golden state has the stars align like that, they are going to have a great team. But the benefits of a salary cap, trades, and draft mean that teams like Milkwaukee, Cleveland, and Toronto can have a chance to win titles if they get lucky and play their cards right. Those teams could never compete against the Lakers, Bulls, or Warriors without those things, as the big-market teams would always have more money to pay top players, and chance to make more in endorsements.

Exactly

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

For a small market team To win the World Series, the fan base would feel they need to ‘pull a Leicester’.

 

[MackRobinson]

‘Bigger’ market teams with bigger payroll usually win the World Series. There are of course exceptions. ask a fan of Baltimore Orioles, Twins, Pirates etc...if they think they win the World Series in the next3-4 years. Ask the same question to ANY NFL fan and you will much different answers.

Sorry, but what you are saying isn't accurate. Look at the opening day payrolls for MLB teams over the past 20 years. You'll notice that usually what happens is teams will start spending AFTER they had a breakthrough year. The Yankees have won a single title in the last 20 years. Let that sink in.

 

[DJ_21]

So does 5th place definitely take the other champions league spot then?

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

Sorry, but what you are saying isn't accurate. Look at the opening day payrolls for MLB teams over the past 20 years. You'll notice that usually what happens is teams will start spending AFTER they had a breakthrough year. The Yankees have won a single title in the last 20 years. Let that sink in.

Sorry you’re wrong.

DC
Boston
SF
Chicago
Houston
Philadelphia

Are all big market teams.
I’m talking about the small market. They have no chance unless the stars align. Unlike the NFL. Ask the fans.

 

[MackRobinson]

Why do owners making more money and increased parity have to be mutually exclusive?

Basketball is a sport where a handful of star players carry teams to success. Of course when a team like golden state has the stars align like that, they are going to have a great team. But the benefits of a salary cap, trades, and draft mean that teams like Milkwaukee, Cleveland, and Toronto can have a chance to win titles if they get lucky and play their cards right. Those teams could never compete against the Lakers, Bulls, or Warriors without those things, as the big-market teams would always have more money to pay top players, and chance to make more in endorsements.

I will edit this to add that saving owners from themselves is just a different way of looking at the way premier league clubs are operated. With a salary cap and revenue sharing, there's basically no way for a team to buy titles like City and Chelsea, but clubs like Bolton and Leeds can't destroy themselves with reckless spending. I think most fans would be happy with that.

Teams like the Lakers, Bulls, and Warriors were formed because of those same rules. The Warriors were a dust-bin team until they got lucky with their drafts and the salary cap. The Bulls got lucky and drafted Jordan. It has very little to do with small or big markets. New York Knicks regularly miss out on free agents and are a laughing stock, but nobody feels sympathy for them. The big market team narrative is a myth that has been debunked numerous times. NBA players want to play on good teams. Market size isn't the biggest factor.

For the record, I am all for revenue sharing, but you don't need a salary cap to have it (baseball has the best example of this)

 

[MackRobinson]

Sorry you’re wrong.

DC
Boston
SF
Chicago
Houston
Philadelphia

Are all big market teams.
I’m talking about the small market. They have no chance unless the stars align. Unlike the NFL. Ask the fans.

You're sticking your head in the sand. You insinuated market size was correlated to payroll. I gave you a list.

For example, I was born and raised in Houston. Houston is NOT a baseball city and only increased their payroll after winning. In fact a few years before winning the world series in 2017 we were the worst team in baseball. Guess what our payroll was ranked in 2017? 20th.

In 2016 when the Cubs won? 14th highest payroll.
In 2015 when the Royals own? 16th highest payroll.
In 2014 when SF won? 7th highest payroll.

What's the point of being obstinate about something you know so little about?

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

Small market teams win on very long odds. Unlike NFL. That’s my point. Most nfl teams have a chance of their owners will spend even if they don’t, they have a chance. More parity.

I’m done. F City.

 

[rollingstoned1]

You don't understand. One of the issues with sugar daddies is if they ever decide they are bored and don't want to spend anymore the club is fecked. Look at what happened to Portsmouth.

This notion that sugar daddies are good for football is completely skewed, since fans tend to only focus on the winners (Chelsea, City, and PSG). If they are not, you can end up like Blackburn or Pompey.

Clubs that are historically 'salubrious' can also go under. Doesn't change the fact that most clubs who are given this option will take it gladly even if they MIGHT vanish into oblivion with supposedly dysfunctional owners. It's a damn sight better than perpetual mediocrity and an unchanged status quo. If you genuinely asked most fans of 'non successful' clubs theyd say this. I dont expect united fans to admit this though. Just Iike it took me a long time to admit I may very well be a glory hunter.

 

[rollingstoned1]

So we shouldn’t grow organically and maximise our potential through marketing? Because football teams have supporters we should Not have ambitions beyond attracting the wealthiest owners....well because we can all have that dream.

I run a business and work hard to make it grow. There’s people I know in my industry who do little to grow their business.....perhaps we should all just put the lottery on and whoever wins is best !

I can see why someone would enjoy the rewards, but I’d hate for that to be the limit of my ambition.

And that’s the sad part really is that those who work hard and achieve aren’t the clubs that will attract the rich owners if we allow the trend to continue. So it will be poorly managed underachieving clubs rewarded....our best hope is for us to continue being as shite as we’ve been post Ferguson, which I’ve no problem with btw it’s what we deserve as we are a very poorly run club....but perhaps it’s Ed’s master plan. Make us shite for ten years reduce the value of the club and have us taken over by an Arab state.

only three more years till major achievement!

Truly how football should be, because fans and that.

I agree with most of what you are saying yet I don't think you are making a case for saying why owners who pump in money are a bad idea. Your business story is orthogonal to the reality of the vicarious experience of glory most football fans want to experience. The idealism seems to be prevalent only among fans of dominant clubs right now though while the crapshoot of commercialism that they have won has become a reason for them to want to cement their status forever. I mean lets be honest the days of red star Belgrade winning the European cup are long gone.

 

[rollingstoned1]

This.

Side note but I've always felt that it would make more sense if the US sport system switched places with the European sport system, given the political leanings in both places.

Agreed. It has always intrigued me how european football and american sports are generally an antithesis to how American society and European society function today where economics are concerned especially.

 

[MackRobinson]

Small market teams win on very long odds. Unlike NFL. That’s my point. Most nfl teams have a chance of their owners will spend even if they don’t, they have a chance. More parity.

I’m done. F City.

And I'm trying to explain to you it's more about the nature of the game (impact of each player, the need for depth, frequency of injuries, frequency of scoring) and the ruleset (# of games a season, tournament format, ability to reduce the amount of possessions) than the salary cap.

 

[MackRobinson]

Clubs that are historically 'salubrious' can also go under. Doesn't change the fact that most clubs who are given this option will take it gladly even if they MIGHT vanish into oblivion with supposedly dysfunctional owners. It's a damn sight better than perpetual mediocrity and an unchanged status quo. If you genuinely asked most fans of 'non successful' clubs theyd say this. I dont expect united fans to admit this though. Just Iike it took me a long time to admit I may very well be a glory hunter.

Actually big clubs with worldwide fanbases are less likely to go under since they can tap into additional revenue streams. This will take a long time to "vanish". I bet if you ask fans of Pompey or Blackburn which option they would rather have you would get very different responses.

Agreed. It has always intrigued me how european football and american sports are generally an antithesis to how American society and European society function today where economics are concerned especially.

I don't see how you guys can say this. The North American system should and would be illegal if not for an anti-trust exemption. It's an anti-competitive and monopsony. Why would Europeans be more okay with cartels than Americans?

 

[RoyH1]

Actually big clubs with worldwide fanbases are less likely to go under since they can tap into additional revenue streams. This will take a long time to "vanish". I bet if you ask fans of Pompey or Blackburn which option they would rather have you would get very different responses.


I don't see how you guys can say this. The North American system should and would be illegal if not for an anti-trust exemption. It's an anti-competitive and monopsony. Why would Europeans be more okay with cartels than Americans?

I think more than anything people are sympathetic to the notion of of the salary cap. It's sounds like the kind of thing a good Nordic social democrat would cook up, not a bunch of American billionaires. I know that its a lot more complex than that though.

 

[terraloo]

Nah Chelsea tried that crap about getting their transfer ban removed until after the appeal and that was thrown out, they'll be out next year in my opinion.

Chelsea made application to UEFA to stay the ban but instead the UEFA appeal was fast tracked meaning it would have been CAS who would have had delayed the ban what was odd is Chelsea never asked CAS to delay . All the indications were had they asked for a delay it would have been agreed.

 

[NewGlory]

People comparing American franchise-based sports system and European football need to get a grip. These are two separate universies.

1. NFL, NBA etc. are franchises. There is no relegation. It makes a huge difference in the whole dynamics
2. In NFL, teams play total of 16 games per season! Fecking 16! And they have nothing like Champions League, cup games or anything like that.
3. In US, college sports is huge. Professional players predominantly first go through college leagues and then get drafted into professional teams. That is an entirely different approach to European Football where you have academies, age-group leagues etc.

You cannot just take financial part of these two radically different worlds and slap it on European football. We can talk about what the changes should be in UEFA regulations, but talking about drafts etc. is a waste of time and nonsensical.

 

[Green_Red]

I'm not saying it should mate. Believe me, i want this upheld as much as the next guy, but that's how these things often go. If not overturned, then i can definitely see a reduced sentence. I think they'll get it down to a one year suspension.

I dont know, you could be right but I doubt it's just teams in England that are battered by the rise of City, given how they've risen and who is funding it.

 

[Camy89]

What's the talk about relegation also? Is that just hear say or is there momentum behind that?

 

[Heardy]

Reading city’s title from 2014 could be under threat. Imagine it being rewarded to Liverpool so they end up on 20 titles. I thought this seasons couldn’t get any worse!

 

[0le]

Reading city’s title from 2014 could be under threat. Imagine it being rewarded to Liverpool so they end up on 20 titles. I thought this seasons couldn’t get any worse!

I was just thinking this. Is there a risk that City are retrospectively disqualified from those competitions?

 

[Finn MacCool]

Reading city’s title from 2014 could be under threat. Imagine it being rewarded to Liverpool so they end up on 20 titles. I thought this seasons couldn’t get any worse!

Gerrard would finally have a title.

 

[Rozay]

Gerrard would finally have a title.

We’d get an extra one too. Unless they just give it to you too seeing as Liverpool got all the praise for finishing 4th when Jose finished 2nd with us anyway and we were battered as if we came 6th.

 

[VorZakone]

I'm quite confident City will lose the appeal. It'd be quite the PR loss for UEFA if City would win the appeal so I'm sure UEFA have thought this through.

 

[Finn MacCool]

We’d get an extra one too. Unless they just give it to you too seeing as Liverpool got all the praise for finishing 4th when Jose finished 2nd with us anyway and we were battered as if we came 6th.

Citys 4 titles would be split 2 each to Utd and Liverpool. Can’t see it happening but I would laugh my bollocks off at City if it did. Imagine them losing the “Aguero” title winning moment.

But I read that it’s only the 13/14 one that could be in danger. Probably only social media gossip.