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

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
14,839
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
Insignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no 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.
:wenger:
 

GwilDor

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,892
Location
Norway
City always claimed the emails were out of context, there is a big difference
Hahaha, do you even believe that yourself? How does blatant attempts to funnel cash through other companies hidden as sponsorship change meaning due to context? Are you saying it was meant as a joke? Sarcasm?
 

fps

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
5,523
Go on City, you got away with it but you know what's coming. Go and form that European super league you and the other clubs want.

I honestly think it would be death of the unfairness of all leagues. Get City, Juventus, Bayern, Real and Barca and the rest of them, remove them from their leagues, and watch competition blossom. I reckon the clubs that broke away would die a death.
 

Posh Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
3,477
Location
Peterborough, England
Insignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no 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.
You're having a laugh surely? Do you honestly believe Man City didn't break the rules?
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
Well then they probably shouldn't go branding terms like "significant" around...

Considering this sets a precedent for clubs not to share information they may deem to be harmful with UEFA (I mean why after this any sane club would be open/assist with any investigation I do not know) I would say that's a pretty big deal. Is 10million the standard fine for not cooperating? Seems pretty low if it is.

Also do we definitely know the ban was just for the breach and the fine was for the breach+not sharing info? I assume this must be the case/we do know this but I'm not sure.
No, it only sets a precedent for clubs to not share information if they believe UEFA are pursuing a flawed case against them that will not stand up in an independent court. If UEFA had a stronger case, I can guarantee City would have done everything they could to cooperate and push for a settlement with them, as the club have done previously. It was a risky strategy for City but it tells you that they must have been very, very confident in their position.
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
12,853
Meh, what a joke. I mean, I can’t say I expected anything different, but it’s still a complete farce.

It felt as if football was at a crossroads with this moment. One road would be leveling the playing field between the top clubs somewhat, and the other road being the clubs fueled by state money knowing now that they can completely act without any consequences. We went down the latter road.

City have given the blueprint as to how to avoid facing consequences for obscene amounts of spending.
 

Barnslig

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
2,470
Insignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no 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.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Thunderhead

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
3,156
Supports
City
UEFA did it’s bit. They just never knew they didn’t have ultimate jurisdiction over their own business!
they did though, City refused to do a deal with UEFA last year and wanted it to go to CAS straight away as they believed they were in the right.
 

Rolaholic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
11,163
Insignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no 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.
Here I thought Scousers were the most deluded fanbase :lol: :lol:
 

Untied

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
4,480
Insignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no 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.
 

CM

Full Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
7,397
UEFA did it’s bit. They just never knew they didn’t have ultimate jurisdiction over their own business!
Maybe this time, though I'm not sure what took them so long. I'm sure City have been involved in similar practices which saw Chelsea get their transfer ban, too.
 

Pep's Suit

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
1,705
It appears that most people commenting don't even understand the case. The whole case was that the owners were injecting money directly not the club and disguising it as sponsorship money. CAS have vindicated them and the fine is NOT for breaking FFP rules, but for NOT co-operating with UEFA's investigation.

If anything, this shows incompetency and perhaps an agenda from UEFA. Every sponsorship deal with ties to the owner is investigated by UEFA, as per their FFP rules. Any deal found not to be fair market value will be adjusted to fall in line with it. Sponsorships cannot be inflated.
This! It's clear City did something but it's time-barren now and UEFA didn't follow their own rules. Sometimes two things can be right at the same time.
 

eire-red

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
2,657
Really? Because I haven't a clue what he's on about in the first half of it.
Bartomeu and Hoeness were both vocal about City's finances and the original investigation and ruling back in February and March. Barcelona have also been outspoken against the likes of City and PSG since the loss of Neymar. It's fairly well documented...
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,939
Location
France
Im confused. If the decision was made because of time-barring (ie City were guilty but the information was brought forward too late) but City themselves have been found guilty of not cooperating (ie kicking the can down the road) then surely that should impact the decision to throw the case out purely on a time technicality??
If I'm not mistaken that decision isn't even that waterproof. It's based on a problem of language, CAS created a jurisprudence based on the fact that these financial statements weren't in the last three years in 2019, as far as I can see nothing says that it has to.
 

macheda14

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
4,646
Location
London
No. Any single lawyer would advise you the exact opposite. Whether you are guilty or not becomes immaterial. If they cannot prosecute you, (a) it is not in your benefit to cooperate, (b) you would likely conclude they are not acting fairly or impartially if they want to prosecute you for something on a clearly flawed basis.
I mean CAS did allude to the fact that City breached some of the regulations and those could not be charged due to UEFA’s self imposed statute of limitations. The severity of these breaches remains to be seen (we will find out in a few days when the full report is published). However, we do now know that city’s lack of cooperation hid certain breaches from UEFA’s initial investigation and therefore the investigation wasn’t flawed.

Anyway I don’t buy this being the end of FFP I just think/naively hope it will give UEFA the kick up the arse to formulate more solid protocols in how they investigate. It seems more likely that they were foiled by their own ineptitude rather than City’s legal defence.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
You're having a laugh surely? Do you honestly believe Man City didn't break the rules?
I always listen to thee justice system. I told duffer yesterday we're innocent like OJ.
nah dude we're guilty as feck.
 

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
23,816
UEFA did it’s bit. They just never knew they didn’t have ultimate jurisdiction over their own business!
Of course they knew that. They didn't just find about the existence of CAS when City lodged their appeal...
 

Untied

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
4,480
they did though, City refused to do a deal with UEFA last year and wanted it to go to CAS straight away as they believed they were in the right.
… isn’t that … suspicious?

“We want to take it to this particular court immediately”
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,939
Location
France
I always listen to thee justice system. I told duffer yesterday we're innocent like OJ.
nah dude we're guilty as feck.
It's worth remembering that this isn't The justice system, it's a private arbitration court linked to the IOC.
 

MalcolmTucker

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
1,810
Have to laugh at the City fans trying to fool themselves and others that they're now innocent.

We've seen the emails, the whole of the football world knows you cheated and that's why no one takes your trophy wins or club seriously any more.
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
I mean CAS did allude to the fact that City breached some of the regulations and those could not be charged due to UEFA’s self imposed statute of limitations. The severity of these breaches remains to be seen (we will find out in a few days when the full report is published). However, we do now know that city’s lack of cooperation hid certain breaches from UEFA’s initial investigation and therefore the investigation wasn’t flawed.

Anyway I don’t buy this being the end of FFP I just think/naively hope it will give UEFA the kick up the arse to formulate more solid protocols in how they investigate. It seems more likely that they were foiled by their own ineptitude rather than City’s legal defence.
No, CAS did not allude to that. They said 'alleged breaches'. They are not making a comment on the legitimacy of those claims whatsoever. No, we do not know that City's lack of cooperation hid certain breaches from UEFA. Yes, we do know the investigation was flawed, otherwise City would now be banned for two-years.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,955
Location
W.Yorks
No, it only sets a precedent for clubs to not share information if they believe UEFA are pursuing a flawed case against them that will not stand up in an independent court. If UEFA had a stronger case, I can guarantee City would have done everything they could to cooperate and push for a settlement with them, as the club have done previously. It was a risky strategy for City but it tells you that they must have been very, very confident in their position.
But how will UEFA ever build a strong case against a club if they don't have access to that clubs shit?

It's different when it comes to transfers because there's other clubs/people involved... but when you're talking FFP its what one club is doing, and if that one club won't cooperate then I'd say it's nigh on impossible for UEFA to ever build a strong case.

From the initial statement, CAS have not cleared City of not breaking FFP rules, only that UEFA couldn't prove it... and I imagine a large part of them not being able to prove it was Citiy' lack of cooperation.
 

Denis' cuff

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
7,771
Location
here
I always listen to thee justice system. I told duffer yesterday we're innocent like OJ.
nah dude we're guilty as feck.
= guilty

dont know why they didn’t award Ciddy compensation for the stress theyve been put under

10m fine? fecking corrupt.
 

Verminator

Full Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
8,134
Location
N3404 The Island of Manchester United
There is a reason why "failing to provide a specimen" in a DUI, carries a high penalty. And, allegedly, why Rio got such a large ban for missing a piss test.
It is to ensure that justice for wrongdoing cannot be subverted, by simply refusing to cooperate.
CAS has done the football World a disservice here, by allowing non-cooperation to be a valid tactic to avoid fraud.
UEFA has also failed by not having that loophole removed as a possible tactic.

I'm guessing that the time-barring relates to the previous case, when City were fined, and that previous infractions were deemed to have needed to be raised then.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
30,615
Supports
Everton
Imagine killing someone and not getting caught until 5 years later.

Here’s a fiver lad, all square?
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
… isn’t that … suspicious?

“We want to take it to this particular court immediately”
I think it was more you guys are incompetent and are trying to make a case off dodgy newspaper articles, we'll let people who arent sort this.

UEFA are incompetent and I cant recall them ever winning a big case at cas.
 

Pablo18th

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
108
If you thought someone was pursuing a flawed case why wouldn’t you just prove to them they are by cooperating?

‘I think you might be doing something against the rules’
‘Yeh well we aren’t but you can’t see the proof’
Vs
‘I think you might be doing something against the rule’
‘We aren’t, why don’t you take a look and after you see there is nothing wrong then stop pestering us.’
I hope you do not take this approach in real life. No matter how clean you think you are, if you have the option, never let the police/the government in to your business. They will look for something else to stick on you.

Every lawyer worth their salt will tell you that.
 

United Hobbit

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
8,943
Makes a mockery of any "rules" and will encourage teams to break them going forward. Ridiculous its been lifted as they had an opportunity to make a statement for the future

Why am I not surprised though
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
Imagine killing someone and not getting caught until 5 years later. Here’s a fiver lad, all square?
"I'm sorry if you feel you've been killed but, in fairness, your murder was out of context."