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

Blueman said:
Glad the whole FFP thing is dead. Protectionist racket used to hammer the new clubs in favour of the old clubs.

What they did to City with FFP was scandalous, but let's see what they come up with next to level the playing field for this clubs in massive debt
Click to expand...
It must be playing on your mind for you to be lurking in a thread that hasn’t been bumped since last summer :rolleyes:

Don’t worry we still all feel confident that your club is plastic and corrupt. Which is why we rather see you win the league compared to Liverpool.

If oppo fans felt like that about my club I would be gutted, knowing every success is tinged with a whiff of oil and a sense of hollowness.
 
adexkola said:
You see people bitch about the monarchy and Britain's issue with class, and then take that mentality all the way into football without even blinking. Perplexing
Click to expand...
It’s not even remotely the same thing though is it.
 
adexkola said:
It's not the same thing.

It's similarly ridiculous and stupid and silly though. Who gives a feck
Click to expand...
Are you saying you don’t give a feck about the city regime essentially sport washing their reputations via the premier league and artificially creating sponsorships to pump a tonne of money they didn’t generate in to the club or something else?
 
Ask yourself who the real criminal is, City who play wonderful football or Ole who fraudulently got the United job and gets lucky nearly every week?
 
It's good enough for me that everyone with any sense knows that City's success is a hollow mockery of the sport. A horrible, villainous state wanted to improve their image around the world in order to cover up their countless human rights violations and generally deplorable reputation around the globe, and Manchester City had no apparent qualms being the conduit for that. Propped up by blood money, their success is wholly artificial and means little to most football fans.
 
Dansk said:
It's good enough for me that everyone with any sense knows that City's success is a hollow mockery of the sport. A horrible, villainous state wanted to improve their image around the world in order to cover up their countless human rights violations and generally deplorable reputation around the globe, and Manchester City had no apparent qualms being the conduit for that. Propped up by blood money, their success is wholly artificial and means little to most football fans.
Click to expand...

Sums it up really. City is nothing more than a PR project.
 
I think the intention of FFP was financial FairPlay.

It wasn’t to stop competition but to encourage fair competition and sustainability not to suit the huge historic clubs

It’s failed unfortunately which is inevitably bad for the sport.
 
Liver_bird said:
Are you saying you don’t give a feck about the city regime essentially sport washing their reputations via the premier league and artificially creating sponsorships to pump a tonne of money they didn’t generate in to the club or something else?
Click to expand...
Have you got any evidence of these accusations you're lobbing around the internet? Because if you have, perhaps you can explain to us all why you didn't present it to UEFA or CAS last year.

While we're on the subject of lobbing accusations around, hopefully you can explain why Liverpool wrote off circa. £35 million for the new stadium in Stanley Park several years back which conveniently saw them pass UEFA's break-even requirement in respect of FFP. That's right - £35 million of non-existent costs (save for mowing the grass in Stanley Park) for a non-existent new stadium that never materialised and had been binned off years before when your previous owners exited the building. How very convenient. Just as convenient as the season before (Rodgers' first) where you were so shit that you didn't even qualify for Europe and therefore your accounts didn't come in for any scrutiny from UEFA which is a good job as they were in such a mess on that occasion that you'd have probably failed FFP then as well. But hey, it gave your club 12 months to come up with another way of circumventing the regs.

And seeing as though you're busy cry-arsing on this thread, I'm off to buy the world's smallest violin
 
I think we're just mad that our advantage was taken from us, Im not a purist and definitely wouldnt mind an arab group taking control over Man Utd if that meant we would be back to the top.

We can discuss if that's "blood money" or something but Im pretty sure if you look enough into any billionaire's history you'll also find some dirt.
 
SAFMUTD said:
I think we're just mad that our advantage was taken from us, Im not a purist and definitely wouldnt mind an arab group taking control over Man Utd if that meant we would be back to the top.

We can discuss if that's "blood money" or something but Im pretty sure if you look enough into any billionaire's history you'll also find some dirt.
Click to expand...
There's dirt and there's murder, some things are more reprehensible than others.
 
M18CTID said:
Have you got any evidence of these accusations you're lobbing around the internet? Because if you have, perhaps you can explain to us all why you didn't present it to UEFA or CAS last year.

While we're on the subject of lobbing accusations around, hopefully you can explain why Liverpool wrote off circa. £35 million for the new stadium in Stanley Park several years back which conveniently saw them pass UEFA's break-even requirement in respect of FFP. That's right - £35 million of non-existent costs (save for mowing the grass in Stanley Park) for a non-existent new stadium that never materialised and had been binned off years before when your previous owners exited the building. How very convenient. Just as convenient as the season before (Rodgers' first) where you were so shit that you didn't even qualify for Europe and therefore your accounts didn't come in for any scrutiny from UEFA which is a good job as they were in such a mess on that occasion that you'd have probably failed FFP then as well. But hey, it gave your club 12 months to come up with another way of circumventing the regs.

And seeing as though you're busy cry-arsing on this thread, I'm off to buy the world's smallest violin
Click to expand...

There was plenty, it’s pretty well known that the reason it got overturned was because of the time limits on it.

I personally don’t really care as I think the horse bolted a long time ago with this kind of stuff. However, to suggest City got away with it due to lack of evidence is pretty funny.
 
M18CTID said:
Have you got any evidence of these accusations you're lobbing around the internet? Because if you have, perhaps you can explain to us all why you didn't present it to UEFA or CAS last year.

While we're on the subject of lobbing accusations around, hopefully you can explain why Liverpool wrote off circa. £35 million for the new stadium in Stanley Park several years back which conveniently saw them pass UEFA's break-even requirement in respect of FFP. That's right - £35 million of non-existent costs (save for mowing the grass in Stanley Park) for a non-existent new stadium that never materialised and had been binned off years before when your previous owners exited the building. How very convenient. Just as convenient as the season before (Rodgers' first) where you were so shit that you didn't even qualify for Europe and therefore your accounts didn't come in for any scrutiny from UEFA which is a good job as they were in such a mess on that occasion that you'd have probably failed FFP then as well. But hey, it gave your club 12 months to come up with another way of circumventing the regs.

And seeing as though you're busy cry-arsing on this thread, I'm off to buy the world's smallest violin
Click to expand...


Regarding PSG (not city)I remember a few years ago that their sponsorship deal was more lucrative than any other team's in world football. Even now, when their reach is far bigger than it was then, they're surely nowhere near the most watched team in the world. So to have the most lucrative deal back then is laughable and blatantly not in line with market rates.

I don't think City have inflated their sponsorships quite so flagrantly, but I'd be surprised if they haven't inflated them at some point.
 
horsechoker said:
There's dirt and there's murder, some things are more reprehensible than others.
Click to expand...
Agree with you, but basically any "king/sultan" can be accused of the same. Would you say the same if lets say the British crown owned some club?
 
horsechoker said:
Ask yourself who the real criminal is, City who play wonderful football or Ole who fraudulently got the United job and gets lucky nearly every week?
Click to expand...
You can’t luck you’re way to first place in the middle of the season. He’s doing something right. And we are still second, who even saw that coming. With an extremely limited squad without proper backups if a first teamer gets injured.
 
AaronRedDevil said:
You can’t luck you’re way to first place in the middle of the season. He’s doing something right. And we are still second, who even saw that coming. With an extremely limited squad without proper backups if a first teamer gets injured.
Click to expand...
Are you defending a criminal?
 
M18CTID said:
Have you got any evidence of these accusations you're lobbing around the internet? Because if you have, perhaps you can explain to us all why you didn't present it to UEFA or CAS last year.

While we're on the subject of lobbing accusations around, hopefully you can explain why Liverpool wrote off circa. £35 million for the new stadium in Stanley Park several years back which conveniently saw them pass UEFA's break-even requirement in respect of FFP. That's right - £35 million of non-existent costs (save for mowing the grass in Stanley Park) for a non-existent new stadium that never materialised and had been binned off years before when your previous owners exited the building. How very convenient. Just as convenient as the season before (Rodgers' first) where you were so shit that you didn't even qualify for Europe and therefore your accounts didn't come in for any scrutiny from UEFA which is a good job as they were in such a mess on that occasion that you'd have probably failed FFP then as well. But hey, it gave your club 12 months to come up with another way of circumventing the regs.

And seeing as though you're busy cry-arsing on this thread, I'm off to buy the world's smallest violin
Click to expand...
Reckon Liverpool driving the local residents out of their homes so they could build that monstrosity is far worse than the dodgy money stuff. Proper scummy stuff.
 
FFP was never about fairness, just about entrenching the same teams at the top of football forever. Won't be holding my breath for anything better to replace it...

Given the losses from Covid, won't be a surprise to see FFP cancelled for this year very soon. Loads of clubs are going to lose big money or be struggling and would then fall foul of FFP breakeven rules and be punished.

The way to fix top level football and make it much more entertaining, rather than an economic contest, is radical reform along the line of US sports. Need a team salary cap / luxury tax and to have a mechanism to balance from stronger to weaker teams. Then you get much more competitive level of squads and therefore matches and leagues, not City, Juve, PSG, Bayern pretty much just walking the title almost every season. Of course, you also need to end the pyramid because in this system any club can be relegated and big clubs won't accept that.
 
Mb194dc said:
FFP was never about fairness, just about entrenching the same teams at the top of football forever. Won't be holding my breath for anything better to replace it...

Given the losses from Covid, won't be a surprise to see FFP cancelled for this year very soon. Loads of clubs are going to lose big money or be struggling and would then fall foul of FFP breakeven rules and be punished.

The way to fix top level football and make it much more entertaining, rather than an economic contest, is radical reform along the line of US sports. Need a team salary cap / luxury tax and to have a mechanism to balance from stronger to weaker teams. Then you get much more competitive level of squads and therefore matches and leagues, not City, Juve, PSG, Bayern pretty much just walking the title almost every season. Of course, you also need to end the pyramid because in this system any club can be relegated and big clubs won't accept that.
Click to expand...

I think some of those elements are interesting and should be looked at (which they won't), but I still prefer the promotion/relegation system over the American franchising one in which teams buy their top flight spot. Something something grass greener.
 
dal said:
I think the intention of FFP was financial FairPlay.

It wasn’t to stop competition but to encourage fair competition and sustainability not to suit the huge historic clubs

It’s failed unfortunately which is inevitably bad for the sport.
Click to expand...

You just have to look at some of the clubs who were in favour of FFP before it got introduced to see that is not true.

Chelsea wanted it to come in. You could say they wanted fair competition but let's be honest, they wanted to close the door on other clubs getting better through large investment.
 
Liver_bird said:
Are you saying you don’t give a feck about the city regime essentially sport washing their reputations via the premier league and artificially creating sponsorships to pump a tonne of money they didn’t generate in to the club or something else?
Click to expand...

No

I do care about football creating that allows for any well run team regardless of historical success to have a crack at success. That wasn't possible before City. Isn't possible now. Any whining about City/Chelsea/PSG from fans of established clubs... Not interested.
 
LovelyLittlePanda said:
I think some of those elements are interesting and should be looked at (which they won't), but I still prefer the promotion/relegation system over the American franchising one in which teams buy their top flight spot. Something something grass greener.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that scrapping relegation leads to poor games at the bottom of the division since there's no "survival" to fight for. Without anything to play for, whether success or survival, you have a great number of encounters where the team will give minimal effort if their position is deemed pointless.
 
horsechoker said:
Ask yourself who the real criminal is, City who play wonderful football or Ole who fraudulently got the United job and gets lucky nearly every week?
Click to expand...
I mean Ole’s not a great manager but, to my knowledge, he’s not orchestrating mass human rights violations. I’ll go with the first option.
 
I think the bigger thing Uefa and the Prem should stop is owners crippling clubs in their own debt.

Us, Liverpool under Hicks and Gillette and now Burnley.

Football clubs aren't just businesses. The Fa/Prem have the power to veto owners.

All leveraged buyouts should be banned.

A max amount of debt would also be good rule to implement.
 
If they remove FFP, they have to introduce a salary cap of some sort. Otherwise oil state clubs are just going to spend and spend and spend until they can finally win the CL.
 
adexkola said:
No

I do care about football creating that allows for any well run team regardless of historical success to have a crack at success. That wasn't possible before City. Isn't possible now. Any whining about City/Chelsea/PSG from fans of established clubs... Not interested.
Click to expand...

What absolute nonsense.
 
Successful teams have always been funded by money, it’s just on another level since Chelsea, then Manchester City etc took to it.

The Premier League would look different without it though.

Doesn’t it make it all that much better when you beat the oil rich clubs?
 
Dansk said:
It's good enough for me that everyone with any sense knows that City's success is a hollow mockery of the sport. A horrible, villainous state wanted to improve their image around the world in order to cover up their countless human rights violations and generally deplorable reputation around the globe, and Manchester City had no apparent qualms being the conduit for that. Propped up by blood money, their success is wholly artificial and means little to most football fans.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Jeppers7 said:
What absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...

Ok

Sleigh said:
Successful teams have always been funded by money, it’s just on another level since Chelsea, then Manchester City etc took to it.

The Premier League would look different without it though.

Doesn’t it make it all that much better when you beat the oil rich clubs?
Click to expand...

Yeah but it was earned.

Or whatever they say
 
horsechoker said:
Ask yourself who the real criminal is, City who play wonderful football or Ole who fraudulently got the United job and gets lucky nearly every week?
Click to expand...

Ole doesn't even coach the team. He just tells them what he wants and leaves them to it. He spends most his days in the Trafford Centre on Skype begging Haaland to transfer over.
 
SAFMUTD said:
I think we're just mad that our advantage was taken from us, Im not a purist and definitely wouldnt mind an arab group taking control over Man Utd if that meant we would be back to the top.

We can discuss if that's "blood money" or something but Im pretty sure if you look enough into any billionaire's history you'll also find some dirt.
Click to expand...
Our advantage was taken from us the moment Sir Alex retired. We've faced and seen off successfully oil funded clubs in Chelsea for years.

But it's more than that. You see, football just like the jungle or the business is an eco system. With small exceptions it always regulates itself. Sure, there are exceptions like Rangers and Celtic, Bayern. But every other country doesn't have a team that dominates forever. Everything is in cycles. Just look at us. We used to dominate the PL like it was the French league, but since SAF retired we might have won it once if there were no oil clubs. 1 league title in 8 years is completely unacceptable for a top club..

Other teams as well. Milan, Lyon, PSV, Feynoord, Arsenal are just recent examples of top teams who stopped being top teams. Now, would that be the case if they had a sugar daddy of Chelsea's or City's size? You already know the answer.

My main gripe with these sugar daddy clubs is they avoid the consequences of poor management

For every average club you're 2-3 poor financial decisions or 2-3 poor consecutive appointments away from falling of your throne. Look at Tottenham. They're stuck with Mourinho and can't get rid of him even if they wanted to. Why? Financial issues. Organic clubs face natural consequences. Can't say the same for Chelsea who have a manager merry go round.

The is why the whole "old money" establishment is laughable. The original establishment was the Top 4: United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea. The last time they finished in this order was the 2008-2009 season. To put it into perspective: Sir Alex was our manager and Ronaldo was playing the PL, that's how long ago it was.

Another thing that nobody brings up is in the absence of these doped clubs, "smaller" clubs would have made the step up. Everton, Leicester, Tottenham all would have more silverware, better league finishes and qualify for the CL more often. As a result they would have more money and would've been more competitive, you know like they did back in the 70's and 80's.

It's a cycle. Top teams fade away. Other teams take their place. It's how football used to be pre-sugar daddy clubs.

So what about Real or Barca? Both funded just like the oil clubs. The only difference being is they're funded by their government. If UEFA or FIFA has an ounce of integrity they'd look into it, but we know it's not going to happen. If anything, the rest of the football clubs should have lobbied for a detailed and thorough investigation, but there is a reason it's called UEFAlona.
 
adexkola said:
No

I do care about football creating that allows for any well run team regardless of historical success to have a crack at success. That wasn't possible before City. Isn't possible now. Any whining about City/Chelsea/PSG from fans of established clubs... Not interested.
Click to expand...

You carry on thinking that, but just remember Arsenal will never be one of the top teams in England ever again because of clubs like Chelsea or City.
 
Blueman said:
Glad the whole FFP thing is dead. Protectionist racket used to hammer the new clubs in favour of the old clubs.

What they did to City with FFP was scandalous, but let's see what they come up with next to level the playing field for this clubs in massive debt
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that you're not against a scheme that stops multi billionaire owners cruising in and taking a historically lower prem/top championship side to the top by spending infinite sums of non earnt money.
Engineering sponsorship deals to look like you've got the same pull as United who are an absolute world class sponsorship team, and quoting sell out crowds every week, when the empties are beyond meme level now.

I thought you'd be really against that :lol:
 
Caesar2290 said:
Our advantage was taken from us the moment Sir Alex retired. We've faced and seen off successfully oil funded clubs in Chelsea for years.

But it's more than that. You see, football just like the jungle or the business is an eco system. With small exceptions it always regulates itself. Sure, there are exceptions like Rangers and Celtic, Bayern. But every other country doesn't have a team that dominates forever. Everything is in cycles. Just look at us. We used to dominate the PL like it was the French league, but since SAF retired we might have won it once if there were no oil clubs. 1 league title in 8 years is completely unacceptable for a top club..

Other teams as well. Milan, Lyon, PSV, Feynoord, Arsenal are just recent examples of top teams who stopped being top teams. Now, would that be the case if they had a sugar daddy of Chelsea's or City's size? You already know the answer.

My main gripe with these sugar daddy clubs is they avoid the consequences of poor management

For every average club you're 2-3 poor financial decisions or 2-3 poor consecutive appointments away from falling of your throne. Look at Tottenham. They're stuck with Mourinho and can't get rid of him even if they wanted to. Why? Financial issues. Organic clubs face natural consequences. Can't say the same for Chelsea who have a manager merry go round.
Click to expand...

Stuck with him?
They'll sack him at some point over the next year and just pay him a year or so salary, as no doubt is cunningly written into his contract.
Hardly duty bound to keep him for years because they have no money! How much are they giving Bale for goodness sake.
 
adexkola said:
No

I do care about football creating that allows for any well run team regardless of historical success to have a crack at success. That wasn't possible before City. Isn't possible now. Any whining about City/Chelsea/PSG from fans of established clubs... Not interested.
Click to expand...

Course it was! Your own club had success not that long ago when you were well run.
Chelsea and then City emerging has massively contributed to your drop from the top 4, as much as anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.