Have you not read Barney before? He always writes like a high school kid taking the piss (except apparently he's not).
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 was posted as I was typing my post. Pretty much what I thought
Stupidest post ever on here? Have a word with yourself. I love how City fans are unable to understand how corrupted their owners are, it's legitimately hilarious.
FFP was brought in to stop clubs spending more than they earn. Man city have been spending more than they earn for years - hence why FFP had to be brought in. Once FFP was brought in in 2011-2012 your club then started to hide the fact that it was still doing so. You hired Mancini in 2009 but the records showed that he had a second "consultant contract" way before FFP was brought in.
And the banner says "where were you when we were shit" Not when you were shit. City fans are trying to say that FFP was only created to keep them down it's nothing to do with Manchester United despite every City fans obsession with us.
Some odd reasoning there
we only broke the rules because the rules existed. Before the rules existed we did not break the rules.
I may try this if I ever flee the scene of a car accident which is my fault and then claim my wife was driving. I only lied to you about my wife being the driver because there is a law that says I would be prosecuted if I am the driver at fault in a car accident. Back in 1910, before this law I would not have said my wife was driving.
YCNMIU
we only broke the rules because the rules existed. Before the rules existed we did not break the rules.
I may try this if I ever flee the scene of a car accident which is my fault and then claim my wife was driving. I only lied to you about my wife being the driver because there is a law that says I would be prosecuted if I am the driver at fault in a car accident. Back in 1910, before this law I would not have said my wife was driving.
YCNMIU
Yeah, but I can never make it past the waffle and the endless comparisons: 'Messi flew past the defence, like a kite escaping a child's forlorn grasp in a twisting wind; like a budgie on rollerskates; like a-' etc etc.
When do we get the results on this?
Wolves - Chelsea on 26 July could potentially be a huge match.
Wolves - Chelsea on 26 July could potentially be a huge match.
When the court dates were first announced the claim was July, seeing a few places claiming it will be August now. Guessing the season will be over before we get the verdict.
A 2 year ban is probably the worst you can get realistically. That will be a big blow to the De Bruyne types, but at least means you can concentrate on knocking Liverpool back off.
However, it does give Pep a potential out from his least favoured mission, rebuilding a team after the initial wave of success - usually heavily relying on players he's inherited.
Hopefully CAS do the right thing and keep them out for 2 years. I'd add a 2 windows transfer ban for frivolous appeal
Is this an insight into how court cases go in the middle east?
"You can't ban us because this rule didn't exist once upon a time therefore does it really exist now? What is time anyway? But a theory, and relative the planet we live on."
"You sir have presented undeniable evidence. You are free to do as you so please from now on"
It's fecking madness.
"You can't ban us because this rule didn't exist once upon a time therefore does it really exist now? What is time anyway? But a theory, and relative the planet we live on."
"You sir have presented undeniable evidence. You are free to do as you so please from now on"
It's fecking madness.
Isn't that the concern though? If KdB, Sterling, etc, request immediate transfers then 1) their minds are already not on staying and fighting for the PL and 2) weakens City because it takes time to replace proper talent without lure of CL. For example Mbappe or Neymar (just examples) wouldn't come for huge salaries alone.
We'll all laugh if they get 2 years, Pep and DeBruyne walk out, and they get the range of clowns they had managing them before that.
Until we then realise it gives Liverpool a stroll to Number 21 next year as we won't be ready next year.
Until we then realise it gives Liverpool a stroll to Number 21 next year as we won't be ready next year.
Will they argue FFP breaches competition laws?
That would be an interesting argument (and of course a lot of ramifications if they won) and I guess if that was the defense it would potentially open up further legal avenues with the European Courts of Justice
They'll get proven guilty but reduced to 1 year, i'm quite confident of that.
If they got given not guilty then FFP would be destroyed.
If they got given not guilty then FFP would be destroyed.
If they're guilty why would it be reduced?
The CAS will feel it's "overly harsh" and reduce it down as a bit of an olive branch.
Uefa care more about the guilty verdict than the length of the ban.
Doesn't seem logical. You're guilty so we'll lessen your punishment.
Hopefully UEFA hammer them. If they are guilty, the punishment should be increased for frivolous appeals. Plus the Premier League should take action.
I know but these courts aren't always as simple as that, they can change punishment to how they like.
fingers crossed, we shall see.
I agree. City arent rationalising their actions for an appeal, its flat out saying the evidence shouldn't be used.
If said evidence is used then it has to be fully implemented.
City appeal both the adjudication that they are guilty, and the harshness of the sentence. It's very possible that the finding is that they were guilty, but that the punishment is too harsh and should be reduced to one season.
Liverpool will be drawn back into the pack next season. They've had 2 great seasons culminating in winning the trophy they've craved the most. They won't be able to muster the intensity & desire to go again. Utd, Chelsea & Arsenal should also be much better next season & will provide meaningful competition.
I'm more worried about what the outcome will be to the PL if City are cleared. It will basically give them carte blanche to fullfil their ambition to assemble 2 world class 11's. This could easily see the PL becoming another 1 team league.
That's how a legal appeal system works. If I'm caught spitting in the street and a judge decides to sentence me to six months in prison, I can either appeal it on the basis that I did not do it and the evidence is flawed, or I can accept that I spat in the street but dispute that I have to sit in prison for six months because of it. It's not a simple binary between 'Guilty' and you have to accept whatever punishment is dished out or 'Not Guilty' and you walk away completely exonerated.
So this is the strong evidence we've been hearing of. Really "explosive". Get caught committing an offence and have your defence be that the law shouldn't exist. So brilliant, Can't see UEFA having a counter to that. Might as well just give upOn a serious note, governing bodies in sports have the right to decide rules of competition and that stretches to financial requirements. They can decide a salary cap or whatever rules of financial fairness. If you don't like the rules of entry feel free to stand outside
Next up: Does the offside rule impede players' fundamental right to freedom of movement?
Last edited:
On a serious note if that competition is in europe then it has to abide by the competition laws in place in the eu
On a serious note, governing bodies in sports have the right to decide rules of competition and that stretches to financial requirements. They can decide a salary cap or whatever rules of financial fairness. If you don't like the rules of entry feel free to stand outside
Next up: Does the offside rule impede players' fundamental right to freedom of movement?
I cant for example set up a competition and ignore employment law... same for competition law
It is rumoured one avenue for city is to test this... that case would not be a case for c.a.s. but the eu courts of justice
It's the only way we're getting in the UCL next season imo so keeping everything crossed the ban is upheld
On a serious note, you’re gravely mistaken. Governing bodies have to adhere to EU law. There is some room for flexibility, as with FFP. As UEFA is considered a monopoly its ability to create rules as it sees fit are also curtailed. Besides, I have not read anything that says City’s intent is to challenge the legality of FFP. It seems that reality has been accepted for some time, City are challenging the ban on other aspects (conflicting evidence, UEFA’s impartiality, reinvestigating a period City have already been punished for). It will be interesting to hear what comes out of this appeal, how much shit City have been talking or whether there’s any substance to its claims.
On a serious note, governing bodies in sports have the right to decide rules of competition and that stretches to financial requirements. They can decide a salary cap or whatever rules of financial fairness. If you don't like the rules of entry feel free to stand outside
Next up: Does the offside rule impede players' fundamental right to freedom of movement?
You sure it would be number 21 mate?
Is this years league title like away goals does it count double? laugh out loud (because L0L isn't allowed apparently)
Yeah think you have hit the nail on the head regarding no middle ground.
It doesn’t have to abide by that which is why they are allowed to invite more competitors from richer countries than they do from poorer countries.
Take it up with the lawyers
https://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog...t=The challenge of EU law,in breach of EU law.
Why would I? You’re the one stating they have to abide by the rules when they clearly don’t. It is specifically to stop monopolies. What do you think the Champions League is?
Yes, but he did once describe Andy Carroll as having an affect on the pitch akin to a "burning mattress being dropped into the penalty area from a helicopter" which seemed apt.
Rules of private sporting competition are in a category of its own. There are a number of sporting rules that would contradict regular law otherwise. For instance that's why salary caps dont get struck down for issues of their legality. It's more complex than citing employment law. Think of the differences between what's possible in a public/private places. Some basic rights carry over while some don't. Sporting competitions are a similar situation. It gets murky no doubt because there haven't been enough sporting lawsuits to form a coherent picture of what's legal and what's not. They are often decided in private arbitration. If FFP could be so easily struck down in an international court the oil clubs would have begun fighting it a long time ago. The difficulty of winning that case is why the Oil clubs would rather just start their own superleague
Last edited:
There are numerous lawyers... one cited in the example I gave giving multiple reasons they believe it is a grey area and worth a challenge to the European courts... your answer as a non lawyer is yeah but no... so ill leave mine as meh... jog on
Last edited:
Not sure if you actually read the article I posted but that aspect is covered... its a grey issue but I think it would be hard to rule that elite football clubs are pure sport and not a business
Hope they aren't banned. In years to come you'll get, "Yeah but we'd have won it that year."
Last edited:
I read it. I'm on my phone so I can't go as deep as I would like without turning this hobby into an academic writing class, but the first paragraph is basically all you need to know about 'what is' and the current leeway governing bodies are allowed by European courts in making their own rules. The rest is how he thinks things should be with some admittedly valid theoretical reasons (doctrine of specificity etc). It's not some conclusive piece that will change the Court's minds. It's just a take on why European courts are wrong and why sports should be treated the same. In a hypothetical court case the other side will present an equally persuasive take on why the Europran courts are right and why theoretical and practical considerations make it impossible to treat it the same. The courts have tended to side with the latter with good reasons