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

Crustanoid

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
18,511
After a couple of decades of United fans being called plastic glory hunters by City fans who supported the "real" club of Manchester, watching them now pull all sorts of absurd metal gymnastics to justify financial doping by a murderous regime because they're so desperate for a bit more glory is genuinely amusing.
Exactly. Apart from the fact most of them are actually plastic glory hunters who switched to City or began supporting them after 2010, even the other cretins who supported them from beforehand are spouting utter defensive and inaccurate bs in a futile and desperate attempt to convince people that there is any kind of merit in anything they have done since they turned into the plastic state owned creation which currently exists in East Mcr, but literally has nothing other than geography to do with what existed previously.

There is one fundamental difference between the real clubs and these entities and that is that the money which came to United in the 90s was because of, well funnily enough given we are talking about a game called football, was through good, successful football. The football that came to Plasticville City came through money, which in turn came from suffering. However the plastic fans / massively in denial fans of the club formally known as City will still flail around inanely trying to justify their 'success' which everyone else basically laughs at.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,474
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Your proposition doesn't reduce inequality in football because you are talking about open leagues. The bolded part is the key, if you redistribute that money between the other 19 clubs then you widen the gap with all the divisions below and if you redistribute it between all professional clubs, you have basically done nothing to close the gap. Football isn't equalitarian, it has neve been and never will as long as with relegation systems and clubs/leagues with vastly different markets.
Yeah but I said I was a dumbass

It's not equalitarian and I don't think it can ever be, but I think the goal here is to increase the friction on spending money both in terms of volume and time
 

wm28600

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
22
Probably 90% of United fans are up in arms, hacked off and believe this is a grave injustice. Nearly 100% of City fans felt their club was in the right.

We can't have an objective debate on this, because we as United fans can't be objective. Neither can city.

What I will say is this - fundamentally our income is higher than theirs. The FFP rules as they stand protect teams like ours, and stop other clubs from growing into forces of their own. I despise city, and PSG and the oil money making footballl clubs, Newcastle set to follow. But it's not just about them. What about big, but not huge clubs who want to grow, they're being locked out.

What about the inequality in our own league, of commercial and match day incomes of London teams vs non London teams. Tottenham and Arsenal are just about the most expensive football teams to watch in the world. Aston Villa, Everton and Newcastle, similarly big and successful clubs with rabid fan bases can't touch them. FFP is just a sucky system.

I'm not mad City won their appeal. Not because I didn't want them banned, as rivals it would have affected them greatly and helped us. But I just don't think it's fair to single out in this case. It should be noted that as of 2020, Manchester City are profitable, and not wholly attributable to sponsorship from the Emirates. They meet the FFP regulations and have done for some years. S
 
  • Like
Reactions: Damien

KennyBurner

New Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2018
Messages
4,673
Location
ATL
You want to know something funny? I think City knew they were always going to beat the case. They probably wanted us to be comfortable getting fifth before Revealing the sucker punch. Luckily we didn’t fall for it and will comfortably finish 3rd. Dirty Scamming cnuts!
 

Tyrion

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
5,197
Location
Ireland
Only PSG can compete with City for the title of most hollow club in Europe now.

Yes, City got a reduced punishment based on a technicality. Their second fine within 5 years relating to FFP. Anyone denying that City are guilty of financial doping are like cult members at this point.
Agreed but that seems to be what happens with fans defending their club. That's why I'm so glad the Saudis arent buying United. Half our fanbase would be defending beheadings within a few years the way city fans defend their owners. City are basically a PR company owned by a 3rd world dictatorship (Russia Today but with a football) that has a small pre existing fanbase from the club they used to be so I'd much rather owners I dislike (like the glazers) than be the likes of city.

I think most of us knew city were working around the rules and getting away with it. They got off on a technicality it seems but presumably forcing them to work around the rules limits their spending somewhat.
 

Offsideagain

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,714
Location
Cheshire
I’ve posted on here sometime ago, maybe years ago that City’s main sponsor had not made any money for over a decade and yet stumped up £500m stadium sponsorship deal. The Mancini duel salary had been known for years from his own mouth plus Yaya’s annual ‘I’m looking for a new challenge’ statement probably resulted in a barrow load of cash spirited away somewhere. Some bird on five live spike about UEFA having no integrity, not laughed so much for years. The emails clearly show that the Sheik was sponsoring the club not Etihad which he and his family own anyway. They state that ‘ADUG be paying £57m as a contribution to 13/14 sponsorship and Etihad £8m’ ADUG is the Sheiks personal investment company. How they could deny it is beyond me. I think that is the bit that has ‘time lapsed’ after all then bickering. Cas stated ‘Insufficient conclusive evidence’ to uphold the ban, not no evidence.

So they have been clever and got a result on a technicality. Full judgment to appear in two days and no doubt Bayern Munich will be scrutinising that and the judges at Cas. So like saying yes I did shoot Liam Gallagher but you only found out because you stole my emails and besides, it was years ago. OK , go free.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,937
Location
France
Yeah but I said I was a dumbass

It's not equalitarian and I don't think it can ever be, but I think the goal here is to increase the friction on spending money both in terms of volume and time
You could do that by limiting the amount of transfers allowed during a certain period of time and you also put a hard cap on transfer fees while leaving wages alone. For example outside of injuries you limit clubs to 2 signings per season and 500m over 5 years. That way clubs will have to produce players and use them. It should allow smaller clubs with good academies to keep their players longer and be competitive for a longer period of times since it will be harder for clubs to poach their players quickly.

There are probably issues that I'm not thinking about at the minute but to me it's a simpler option that actually addresses the issue and can be used at all levels of football.
 
Last edited:

Maluco

Last Man Standing 3 champion 2019/20
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
5,925
A dark day for football. A really dark day that could have massive significance for the future.

Seeing Liverpool win the league hurt and fueled my desire to see United improve. Seeing Peps last title and horrible cup final humiliation of Watford was incredibly hollow. I didn’t feel anything other than sad for the sport. Their celebrations might as well have been in a Covid era for how pathetic they were.

It’s hollow, it’s empty and it could ruin the sport in the long term. Its blown the door off the hinges now and a proper team like Sheffield United will miss out on a potential CL place to accomodate cheaters.

The pain of seeing rivals do well fuels the sport. The emptiness and apathy of seeing a country cheat to dominate could kill it.
 

Striker10

"Ronaldo and trophies > Manchester United football
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
18,857
CAS have said we are not guilty, you can take digs but that's their verdict. I don't know how that doesn't sink in. Not guilty means not guilty,

Being completely honest I've said on here many times I thought we were guilty as sin but I'm not part of CAS nor does my opinion both before and after this morning matter. I also don't know the details that they do (nor do I know the law as well). I can only take the decision on here and say "Hey I was wrong", same as you.
People don't care about a verdict (and the outcome) unless it's a correct one. You want to defend your club but this ain't your clubs website. Heck, it's liberal but it ain't that liberal....you want people to say City are not guilty? That won't happen. It's not just City but that's not our problem. These types of clubs damage the sport. They are the ones who destroyed the market and so what do you want? City escaped Justice but no one will say - fair play City. You guys are well legit mate. You ain't.
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
12,557
100k per week after tax may be too little but a sensible wage cap that compensates the players appropriately for what they bring to the game is possible
What would you cap it at then?

How about when a player like Messi and Ronaldo turn up and are scoring x10 what other players are? If you are the best in your field, you want to be paid the best too.

If you cap the salary at 200k, Ronaldo and Messi getting paid the same as Martial and Rashford does not sit well.
 

Skeezix

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
431
Clubs like PSG, Man City and Chelsea are essentially loot and laundered money in the guise of diversified investments by the State or Oligarchs.
Only a Geopolitical shift (decoupling) between UK and UAE/Russia will stop the oil and blood of the money entering the Premier league.
Which is highly unlikely as these countries are not China and your (English) politicians are too deep into the wedlock for the $$$ £££.

The only way this ends is if there is sustained and concerted pressure from the other non State sponsored clubs of the EPL to stop the use of Cheat Codes in the game.
FFP is already dead and UEFA and FIFA wouldn't wade into it due to the $$$ £££.

I'm not against small clubs being bought by rich Sauds, Sayids or Zayeds.. But the game isn't fair when State sponsored clubs enter the fray and spend 200 million £ every season without the need to sell.
All EPL, Championship clubs will need to reset the rules in the future - maybe in 10 yrs time?
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
People don't care about a verdict (and the outcome) unless it's a correct one. You want to defend your club but this ain't your clubs website. Heck, it's liberal but it ain't that liberal....you want people to say City are not guilty? That won't happen. It's not just City but that's not our problem. These types of clubs damage the sport. They are the ones who destroyed the market and so what do you want? City escaped Justice but no one will say - fair play City. You guys are well legit mate. You ain't.
According to you. According to CAS we are, and the United fan/lawyer on here earlier.

The sport has been damaged long before City or even Chelsea. Its never been fair but thats a different discussion for a different thread.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
Clubs like PSG, Man City and Chelsea are essentially loot and laundered money in the guise of diversified investments by the State or Oligarchs.
Only a Geopolitical shift (decoupling) between UK and UAE/Russia will stop the oil and blood of the money entering the Premier league.
Which is highly unlikely as these countries are not China and your (English) politicians are too deep into the wedlock for the $$$ £££.

The only way this ends is if there is sustained and concerted pressure from the other non State sponsored clubs of the EPL to stop the use of Cheat Codes in the game.
FFP is already dead and UEFA and FIFA wouldn't wade into it due to the $$$ £££.

I'm not against small clubs being bought by rich Sauds, Sayids or Zayeds.. But the game isn't fair when State sponsored clubs enter the fray and spend 200 million £ every season without the need to sell.
All EPL, Championship clubs will need to reset the rules in the future - maybe in 10 yrs time?
This I agree with but where do we define fair, do we define it where its ok to spend £200m if its made from withing a clubs means like United? Thats kind of unfair on clubs without 1bn fans.

UEFA/FIFA need to come out and say feck FFP in stopping excessive spending where money comes from and make a system based on how likely a club is to go bust. Lets salary cap, transer fee cap etc... I don't think any fan of clubs like City or PSG would have issue with an actual level playing field to be honest. I know I for one wouldn't.
No more than £100m net spend per summer, £50m transfer cap. I don't think any clubs fans would be against that.
 
Last edited:

CodeRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2015
Messages
520
Location
Greater Manchester
There is a plus side to City not being banned for next year. If they was banned then obviously their main aim and resources would be to go all out and win the Premiership title next season. Now that they are in the champions league they would be focusing on another competition which results in more games, more injuries, more travelling etc etc.

Well that's how i'm thinking of it. I mean come one, we all knew they was never going to be banned for a year anyway.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
No they wouldn't... They can get paid beaucoup bucks in Saudi Arabia today but they don't because they're closer to home, the historical prestige of the leagues and the CL...

100k per week after tax may be too little but a sensible wage cap that compensates the players appropriately for what they bring to the game is possible
Good point, I'm not sure where the exact salary cap should fall so 100k was just an example. For sure it would be a great thing for football.
 

Ravelation

Krump at me Bro
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,433
Location
South London
There is a plus side to City not being banned for next year. If they was banned then obviously their main aim and resources would be to go all out and win the Premiership title next season. Now that they are in the champions league they would be focusing on another competition which results in more games, more injuries, more travelling etc etc.

Well that's how i'm thinking of it. I mean come one, we all knew they was never going to be banned for a year anyway.
Get him outta here boys!
 

Maluco

Last Man Standing 3 champion 2019/20
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
5,925
There is a plus side to City not being banned for next year. If they was banned then obviously their main aim and resources would be to go all out and win the Premiership title next season. Now that they are in the champions league they would be focusing on another competition which results in more games, more injuries, more travelling etc etc.

Well that's how i'm thinking of it. I mean come one, we all knew they was never going to be banned for a year anyway.
With the bench they will have by the start of next season, it won’t matter how many competitions they are in. League Cup Infinity Champions.
 

Skeezix

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
431
This I agree with but where do we define fair, do we define it where its ok to spend £200m if its made from withing a clubs means like United? Thats kind of unfair on clubs without 1bn fans.

UEFA/FIFA need to come out and say feck FFP, lets salary cap, transer fee cap etc... I don't think any fan of clubs like City or PSG would have issue with an actual level playing field to be honest. I know I for one wouldn't.
No more than £100m net spend per summer, £50m transfer cap. I don't think any clubs fans would be against that.
United wouldn't be able to spend 200m every summer either. We had to sell Lukaku to buy Maguire and AWB in one transfer window and postpone Bruno for the January.


All clubs especially the small ones (as Man City were) should have the chance to be invested (maybe a one time 1 billion £ investment over 10-14 years, just saying) by rich owners - and this makes the competition interesting.
Where it gets troublesome is when a State Entity with unlimited money is allowed to spend unlimited money every summer when they want to in transfer fees. (this inflates the transfer fees and salaries for everybody)
I don't exactly know what the answer should be. And I don't think caps of any kind will work in the longer term either as they will have unintended economic consequences too.

That's why maybe the FA should take it upon themselves to start the conversation regarding new rules with the stakeholders (wide enough to include the future PL promotees) on what would be fair.
But will that only make the EPL less competitive against other European Clubs? That would be a disaster again. This is a hard one.
 

Verminator

Full Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
8,134
Location
N3404 The Island of Manchester United
I’ve posted on here sometime ago, maybe years ago that City’s main sponsor had not made any money for over a decade and yet stumped up £500m stadium sponsorship deal. The Mancini duel salary had been known for years from his own mouth plus Yaya’s annual ‘I’m looking for a new challenge’ statement probably resulted in a barrow load of cash spirited away somewhere. Some bird on five live spike about UEFA having no integrity, not laughed so much for years. The emails clearly show that the Sheik was sponsoring the club not Etihad which he and his family own anyway. They state that ‘ADUG be paying £57m as a contribution to 13/14 sponsorship and Etihad £8m’ ADUG is the Sheiks personal investment company. How they could deny it is beyond me. I think that is the bit that has ‘time lapsed’ after all then bickering. Cas stated ‘Insufficient conclusive evidence’ to uphold the ban, not no evidence.

So they have been clever and got a result on a technicality. Full judgment to appear in two days and no doubt Bayern Munich will be scrutinising that and the judges at Cas. So like saying yes I did shoot Liam Gallagher but you only found out because you stole my emails and besides, it was years ago. OK , go free.
And take this Knighthood as compensation.
 

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
31,710
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
You want to know something funny? I think City knew they were always going to beat the case. They probably wanted us to be comfortable getting fifth before Revealing the sucker punch. Luckily we didn’t fall for it and will comfortably finish 3rd. Dirty Scamming cnuts!
I don't think anyone at City give a flying feck where we finish in the league
 

flappyjay

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
5,935
Good point, I'm not sure where the exact salary cap should fall so 100k was just an example. For sure it would be a great thing for football.
Getting late on this, maybe already discussed but wouldn't it be better to put a cap on how much clubs can spend on wages. Teams would have to be creative to fit a bunch of superstars who want high wages in the same team. This will stop the top teams from hoarding all the talent. A 100k a week for club like United Is nothing, we could have a 22 man squad of everyone on a 100k.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
United wouldn't be able to spend 200m every summer either. We had to sell Lukaku to buy Maguire and AWB in one transfer window and postpone Bruno for the January.


All clubs especially the small ones (as Man City were) should have the chance to be invested (maybe a one time 1 billion £ investment over 10-14 years, just saying) by rich owners - and this makes the competition interesting.
Where it gets troublesome is when a State Entity with unlimited money is allowed to spend unlimited money every summer when they want to in transfer fees. (this inflates the transfer fees and salaries for everybody)
I don't exactly know what the answer should be. And I don't think caps of any kind will work in the longer term either as they will have unintended economic consequences too.

That's why maybe the FA should take it upon themselves to start the conversation regarding new rules with the stakeholders (wide enough to include the future PL promotees) on what would be fair.
But will that only make the EPL less competitive against other European Clubs? That would be a disaster again. This is a hard one.
I mean no disrespect in this but it was troublesome to small clubs when United could dwarf them. Its just worse now with Chelsea and then City pushing it more extreme. Transfer fees have been inflating since 1910 and at a crazy rate since the 90s. City, PSG and Chelsea are to an extent the ultimate symptom of how broken the system always was. Fees would still be stupidly high today without City and co.. it was the nature of the best. I'm not saying clubs like us had no effect I'm saying this was coming regardless.

I think for any organisation its a hard balance to strike, where to draw the line, it would likely have to be a UEFA thing though as opposed to any particular national organisation. No national league as you say would put themselves at such a disadvantage and historically big clubs like the Italian giants (not including Juve) would be pretty much lost.
 

Verminator

Full Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
8,134
Location
N3404 The Island of Manchester United
United wouldn't be able to spend 200m every summer either. We had to sell Lukaku to buy Maguire and AWB in one transfer window and postpone Bruno for the January.


All clubs especially the small ones (as Man City were) should have the chance to be invested (maybe a one time 1 billion £ investment over 10-14 years, just saying) by rich owners - and this makes the competition interesting.
Where it gets troublesome is when a State Entity with unlimited money is allowed to spend unlimited money every summer when they want to in transfer fees. (this inflates the transfer fees and salaries for everybody)
I don't exactly know what the answer should be. And I don't think caps of any kind will work in the longer term either as they will have unintended economic consequences too.

That's why maybe the FA should take it upon themselves to start the conversation regarding new rules with the stakeholders (wide enough to include the future PL promotees) on what would be fair.
But will that only make the EPL less competitive against other European Clubs? That would be a disaster again. This is a hard one.
Maybe if all sponsorships had to go through a UEFA clearing process?
There wouldn't be the ability to hide anything, as they wouldn't be relying on the clubs for honest accounting, and spending would have to balance with the audited amount, plus TV money, plus stadium earnings.
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
7,659
We all knew it was going to happen. My issue is why bother giving out these ‘harsh’ punishments if on appeal the punishment doesn’t stand. Completely pointless and only lines the pockets of lawyers.

UEFA and FIFA are still hugely corrupt but nothing ever changes, and never will. Too many powerful people with vested interested.

It will be interesting to see what City do in the summer with their transfer spend.
 

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
31,710
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
Good point, I'm not sure where the exact salary cap should fall so 100k was just an example. For sure it would be a great thing for football.
Well you don't have to restrict what clubs pay players, you just restrict what clubs pay weekly. Cap the salary between £3m - £3.5m a week, they can pay one player £500k if they want but the rest will be on £50k.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,960
Supports
Man City
Getting late on this, maybe already discussed but wouldn't it be better to put a cap on how much clubs can spend on wages. Teams would have to be creative to fit a bunch of superstars who want high wages in the same team. This will stop the top teams from hoarding all the talent. A 100k a week for club like United Is nothing, we could have a 22 man squad of everyone on a 100k.
Its an interesting idea but I don't think big clubs would allow anything less personally. Anything that lowers the ceiling makes the game fairer for sure though and players less likely to be snatched away. My thinking behind an individual cap is, would say De Jong, De Ligt have been away from Ajax so quickly could Ajax say to them "We can match what you'll earn at Barca, Juve and we've just been in the CL semi finals.". Would Bayern be constantly able to hoover up the best in the BL if Dortmund could match their max wage offer.

Poor Bacelona would be Messi and a bunch of part timers.
 

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
31,710
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
We all knew it was going to happen. My issue is why bother giving out these ‘harsh’ punishments if on appeal the punishment doesn’t stand. Completely pointless and only lines the pockets of lawyers.

UEFA and FIFA are still hugely corrupt but nothing ever changes, and never will. Too many powerful people with vested interested.

It will be interesting to see what City do in the summer with their transfer spend.
Answered your own question there.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,474
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
You could do that by limiting the amount of transfers allowed during a certain period of time and you also put a hard cap on transfer fees while leaving wages alone. For example outside of injuries you limit clubs to 2 signings per season and 500m over 5 years. That way clubs will have to produce players and use them. It should allow smaller clubs with good academies to keep their players longer and be competitive for a longer period of times since it will be harder for clubs poach their players quickly.

There are probably issues that I'm not thinking about at the minute but to me it's a simpler option that actually addresses the issue and can be used at all levels of football.
I like this...

What would you cap it at then?

How about when a player like Messi and Ronaldo turn up and are scoring x10 what other players are? If you are the best in your field, you want to be paid the best too.

If you cap the salary at 200k, Ronaldo and Messi getting paid the same as Martial and Rashford does not sit well.
Personally I wouldn't have an individual hard cap at all.