Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | Daily Mail: appeal verdict on 13th July

Rhyme Animal

Modmins said "freeze" and I got numb
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Messages
5,962
Location
Nonchalantly scoring the winner...
The problem is that while Man City is indeed a rival, Liverpool is a far bigger one. So from the United perspective the CL Ban is a bad thing since it helps the bigger rival over the lesser one. Plus considering how United need to spend big to become a great club again*, FFP needs to go to make it happen for ourselves.

*When the Glazers finally leave.



And what incentive will UEFA have to change FFP if City refuse (or are unable) to challenge it?



The problem is though; no football club can reach the elite level (and stay there) without having to spend hundreds of millions if not billions to reach said level. As shown by the fact the only clubs to end up to have truely suceeded in joining that "club" have been Chelsea, Man City & PSG*, clubs that have had to spend billions each to reach such status. This has been a problem that has dated long before Abramovich bought Chelsea.

So rather than being a case of "rich outside interests" buying up the National Leagues & the Champions League, its a case of "rich outside interests" buying into non-elite clubs to help them break into the exclusive club that dominate European Football.

*You could argue that Atletico Madrid have kind of suceeded under Simmone. But there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that they are likely to fall out of that level over the next few years, especially if Simmone does leave. This would not be the case if they also had an owner who was willing to invest in the team as much as Abramovich was with Chelsea for example.



FFP in its current form would have not worked even in the early 90s (When the likes of Berlusconi were pushing for policies that ended up resulting in more money going into football). Since implementing it back then would have meant that whatever clubs domained the National Leagues & European Cup (at that particular time) would have remained dominant over the next few decades.

Thus the only way you can make football more competitive (without encouraging new wealthy owners into the game) is by taking all the money out of football, hence why I proposed those 5 measures.



Then the solution is to take the money out of football and reduce the financial advantages certain clubs have over others. However since there is no chance UEFA or the big clubs will ever agree to this, the next best thing to do is reduce the limitations imposed on club owners when it comes to investing their own clubs (and thus allow them to better compete with the elite clubs).

Because at the very least, it gives them an chance to actually join that exclusive club rather than permanently lock them out of it.



Then they should not go about claiming that FFP is there to "level the playing field", especially when the actual reason for its establishment was to protect the "established" clubs from any challengers like City or PSG.



No Governing Body of any Sport should be deciding who the Winners & Losers are. Which is what UEFA are effectively doing by defining what is "fair" and what is "unfair" when it comes to owners investing in their own clubs. Especially when unlike PEDs; investing in a football club is (on its own) is no guarantee of success, even if it does help when such investment is spent correctly.



The thing is though, there are plenty of examples out there that show how much UEFA is beholden to the established clubs. For example the numerous times the Champions League format has been changed to their favour, despite the endless objections from football clubs outside the elite.

So under those circumstances, it wasn't too hard for the established clubs to get the wider UEFA community to accept FFP.



It certainly possible for even "established" clubs to fall from grace, as shown by the examples of the Milan clubs, Arsenal and even ourselves. Hence why the Milan clubs have been the strongest advocates for either guaranteed CL Qualification or a European Super League, with the purpose of keeping both clubs in the elite bracket without having to properly invest in their teams.

Likewise it all well & good talking about clubs taking their time & growing their way to the top though their own two feet. But the facts on the ground (& history) show that such a policy is doomed to fail.



Even if a club invests in their youth infrastructure to such an extent that they hit the jackpot with a "Golden Generation" of Youth Talent; that on its own is not going to be enough to place said club in the elite bracket, because said club also needs to invest in addtional talent (to cover gaps in the squad that the academy cannot cover) and spend money in retaining said young talents (though higher wages and an ambitious transfer policy that would convice them that their careers will progress if they stick around rather than join one of the elite clubs).

Otherwise such a club will end up like Monaco, a team that spends years investing in their youth and nurturing a "Golden Generation" of Youth Talent...only to lose them to the likes of Chelsea, Man City, Atletico Madrid, Liverpool, Wolves, Leicester & PSG within 2 seasons.

Likewise its all well & good talking about growing a clubs commerical operations; but as Ed Woodwood & the Glazers seem to forget, the performance & growth of a clubs commerical operations is entirely dependent on said teams performance on the field. Thus the only way to grow a clubs commerical operations* is to invest in the team, which in turn means having to break FFP in the first place.

*Without having to use your own companies to sponsor the team themselves (and thus get around FFP via the back door)



The problem is though, the "sudden arrival of vast sums of money" that has enabled the elite clubs to domainate European (and thus World) Club Football predates even Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea, let alone Abu Dhabi's purchase of Man City & Qatar's purchase of PSG.

In fact the problem started when the likes of Berlusconi started investing into football & pushed for more lucrative competitions like Champions League & Premier League. That eventually set the effective requirement that any club that wanted to join the elites (and stay there) needed to spend hundreds of millions (if not billions) just to achieve such a status.

Now one could argue that the likes of Chelsea, City & PSG have made this problem even worse, but it would be inaccurate to say that those clubs caused the problem. Rather it was the case that such clubs had to resort to such measures (in response to the problem) just to achieve said status, and the fact virtually no club other than those 3 has managed to achieve such status proves this fact.



Cripping the only team that is in the best position to challenge Liverpool Next Season does not make the Premier League more competitive. Especially when a preservation (and enhancing) of FFP does abosolutely nothing to encouage the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham & ourselves to spend more on improving their teams.



While it is true that Klopps abilities to get the best out of his players, a willingness to invest in the right players on occasion (if only they where willing to do it a few more times, then they would actually have a team that can dominate for years) and a strong team ethic has played a part in their performances both this season & last, I would argue that a equally big part (especially this season) of their good run recently has been the fact their Defence has been better & less error prone than the rest of the Top 7*.

I mean while Liverpool can boat Allison, VVD & Gomez**; Arsenal have Luiz & Mustafi embarrassing themselves week in week out; Chelsea have a arrogant Mingolet impersonator in goal (Kepa) and 1 decent CB at best (Rudiger); Man City have 1 Decent CB (Laporte), a guy that would struggle in the Championship (Otamendi) and a guy that is doing his best to kill his own career (Stones); we have an erratic DDG, a scared little boy (Lindelof), an error prone clown (Jones), a guy playing out of position (Rojo) and decent CB that is cursed with injury (Bailly); While Tottenham have a drunken fool in goal (Lloris), a 2nd choice keeper that has no ambitions to be either Spurs & Argentina No.1 (despite both sides crying out for a decent choice for either role) (Gazzaniga), a 3rd choice keeper that cannot disloge either (Vorm), their 3 main CBs playing as if they are all Semi-Retired (Vertonghen, Alderweireld & Sanchez) while their 4th choice CB is another scared little boy whose career truely died when he thrown into a NLD against Lacazette & Aubamayeng (Foyth); And even Leceister have had defensive issues in certain games that could have been addressed if they had either kept Maguire or properly replaced him (despite the form of Söyüncü).

So when all the other top teams have endless defensive issues, is it any wonder that Liverpool are Top of the League with 20+ points? Which is why is not really surprising that a team whose goalkeeper can actually make saves and whose backline actually know the fine arts of clearing the ball, tackling and putting their bodies on the line (Atletico Madrid) managed to stop them in the CL, although to be fair it was helped by the fact that both VVD & Gomez put in usually shocking performances in both Legs.

*Yes I am counting Leicester as part of it alongside the usual Top 6

**With Matip being an ok squad option and Lovern being terrible.



The thing is though, if City are going to effectively going to be banned from challenging Liverpool who else will? Because lets be real, can you really see the Glazers/Woodwood giving OGS the funds to buy Koulibaly, Škriniar, Ndidi, Tielemans, Maddison, Sancho & Kane? Can you see Maria (Roman's Right Hand Woman) be willing to give Frank Lampard the £560 Million worth of transfer money that they have built up since the Transfer Ban & Hazard Sale? Especially when they need Oblak, Chilwell, Koulibaly, Sancho, Zaha & Werner (or Jovic).

And can you see Levy giving Mourinho the money needed to get Oblak, Chilwell, Pereira, Aarons, Koulibaly, Maddison & Haarland?

Because without all those sides getting all those players, they might as well forget competing with Liverpool, let alone with a Real Madrid & Barcelona that is willing to do anything to get back to winning CLs on a regular basis.

So while it is very much possible for Manchester United to challenge Liverpool, the Glazers & Woodwood refuse to see this for their own selfish reasons.
Promote this man / woman immediately.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
6,750
Supports
Man City
The problem is that while Man City is indeed a rival, Liverpool is a far bigger one. So from the United perspective the CL Ban is a bad thing since it helps the bigger rival over the lesser one. Plus considering how United need to spend big to become a great club again*, FFP needs to go to make it happen for ourselves....
Post of the year so far.
Being a City fan I've been saying for ages City aren't the cause of this mess (like many would have you believe), they are the ultimate symptom of a game thats been heading this way for generations.)
 

Gasolin

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
4,605
Location
NYC
The problem is that while Man City is indeed a rival, Liverpool is a far bigger one. So from the United perspective the CL Ban is a bad thing since it helps the bigger rival over the lesser one. Plus considering how United need to spend big to become a great club again*, FFP needs to go to make it happen for ourselves.

*When the Glazers finally leave.



And what incentive will UEFA have to change FFP if City refuse (or are unable) to challenge it?



The problem is though; no football club can reach the elite level (and stay there) without having to spend hundreds of millions if not billions to reach said level. As shown by the fact the only clubs to end up to have truely suceeded in joining that "club" have been Chelsea, Man City & PSG*, clubs that have had to spend billions each to reach such status. This has been a problem that has dated long before Abramovich bought Chelsea.

So rather than being a case of "rich outside interests" buying up the National Leagues & the Champions League, its a case of "rich outside interests" buying into non-elite clubs to help them break into the exclusive club that dominate European Football.

*You could argue that Atletico Madrid have kind of suceeded under Simmone. But there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that they are likely to fall out of that level over the next few years, especially if Simmone does leave. This would not be the case if they also had an owner who was willing to invest in the team as much as Abramovich was with Chelsea for example.



FFP in its current form would have not worked even in the early 90s (When the likes of Berlusconi were pushing for policies that ended up resulting in more money going into football). Since implementing it back then would have meant that whatever clubs domained the National Leagues & European Cup (at that particular time) would have remained dominant over the next few decades.

Thus the only way you can make football more competitive (without encouraging new wealthy owners into the game) is by taking all the money out of football, hence why I proposed those 5 measures.



Then the solution is to take the money out of football and reduce the financial advantages certain clubs have over others. However since there is no chance UEFA or the big clubs will ever agree to this, the next best thing to do is reduce the limitations imposed on club owners when it comes to investing their own clubs (and thus allow them to better compete with the elite clubs).

Because at the very least, it gives them an chance to actually join that exclusive club rather than permanently lock them out of it.



Then they should not go about claiming that FFP is there to "level the playing field", especially when the actual reason for its establishment was to protect the "established" clubs from any challengers like City or PSG.



No Governing Body of any Sport should be deciding who the Winners & Losers are. Which is what UEFA are effectively doing by defining what is "fair" and what is "unfair" when it comes to owners investing in their own clubs. Especially when unlike PEDs; investing in a football club is (on its own) is no guarantee of success, even if it does help when such investment is spent correctly.



The thing is though, there are plenty of examples out there that show how much UEFA is beholden to the established clubs. For example the numerous times the Champions League format has been changed to their favour, despite the endless objections from football clubs outside the elite.

So under those circumstances, it wasn't too hard for the established clubs to get the wider UEFA community to accept FFP.



It certainly possible for even "established" clubs to fall from grace, as shown by the examples of the Milan clubs, Arsenal and even ourselves. Hence why the Milan clubs have been the strongest advocates for either guaranteed CL Qualification or a European Super League, with the purpose of keeping both clubs in the elite bracket without having to properly invest in their teams.

Likewise it all well & good talking about clubs taking their time & growing their way to the top though their own two feet. But the facts on the ground (& history) show that such a policy is doomed to fail.



Even if a club invests in their youth infrastructure to such an extent that they hit the jackpot with a "Golden Generation" of Youth Talent; that on its own is not going to be enough to place said club in the elite bracket, because said club also needs to invest in addtional talent (to cover gaps in the squad that the academy cannot cover) and spend money in retaining said young talents (though higher wages and an ambitious transfer policy that would convice them that their careers will progress if they stick around rather than join one of the elite clubs).

Otherwise such a club will end up like Monaco, a team that spends years investing in their youth and nurturing a "Golden Generation" of Youth Talent...only to lose them to the likes of Chelsea, Man City, Atletico Madrid, Liverpool, Wolves, Leicester & PSG within 2 seasons.

Likewise its all well & good talking about growing a clubs commerical operations; but as Ed Woodwood & the Glazers seem to forget, the performance & growth of a clubs commerical operations is entirely dependent on said teams performance on the field. Thus the only way to grow a clubs commerical operations* is to invest in the team, which in turn means having to break FFP in the first place.

*Without having to use your own companies to sponsor the team themselves (and thus get around FFP via the back door)



The problem is though, the "sudden arrival of vast sums of money" that has enabled the elite clubs to domainate European (and thus World) Club Football predates even Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea, let alone Abu Dhabi's purchase of Man City & Qatar's purchase of PSG.

In fact the problem started when the likes of Berlusconi started investing into football & pushed for more lucrative competitions like Champions League & Premier League. That eventually set the effective requirement that any club that wanted to join the elites (and stay there) needed to spend hundreds of millions (if not billions) just to achieve such a status.

Now one could argue that the likes of Chelsea, City & PSG have made this problem even worse, but it would be inaccurate to say that those clubs caused the problem. Rather it was the case that such clubs had to resort to such measures (in response to the problem) just to achieve said status, and the fact virtually no club other than those 3 has managed to achieve such status proves this fact.



Cripping the only team that is in the best position to challenge Liverpool Next Season does not make the Premier League more competitive. Especially when a preservation (and enhancing) of FFP does abosolutely nothing to encouage the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham & ourselves to spend more on improving their teams.



While it is true that Klopps abilities to get the best out of his players, a willingness to invest in the right players on occasion (if only they where willing to do it a few more times, then they would actually have a team that can dominate for years) and a strong team ethic has played a part in their performances both this season & last, I would argue that a equally big part (especially this season) of their good run recently has been the fact their Defence has been better & less error prone than the rest of the Top 7*.

I mean while Liverpool can boat Allison, VVD & Gomez**; Arsenal have Luiz & Mustafi embarrassing themselves week in week out; Chelsea have a arrogant Mingolet impersonator in goal (Kepa) and 1 decent CB at best (Rudiger); Man City have 1 Decent CB (Laporte), a guy that would struggle in the Championship (Otamendi) and a guy that is doing his best to kill his own career (Stones); we have an erratic DDG, a scared little boy (Lindelof), an error prone clown (Jones), a guy playing out of position (Rojo) and decent CB that is cursed with injury (Bailly); While Tottenham have a drunken fool in goal (Lloris), a 2nd choice keeper that has no ambitions to be either Spurs & Argentina No.1 (despite both sides crying out for a decent choice for either role) (Gazzaniga), a 3rd choice keeper that cannot disloge either (Vorm), their 3 main CBs playing as if they are all Semi-Retired (Vertonghen, Alderweireld & Sanchez) while their 4th choice CB is another scared little boy whose career truely died when he thrown into a NLD against Lacazette & Aubamayeng (Foyth); And even Leceister have had defensive issues in certain games that could have been addressed if they had either kept Maguire or properly replaced him (despite the form of Söyüncü).

So when all the other top teams have endless defensive issues, is it any wonder that Liverpool are Top of the League with 20+ points? Which is why is not really surprising that a team whose goalkeeper can actually make saves and whose backline actually know the fine arts of clearing the ball, tackling and putting their bodies on the line (Atletico Madrid) managed to stop them in the CL, although to be fair it was helped by the fact that both VVD & Gomez put in usually shocking performances in both Legs.

*Yes I am counting Leicester as part of it alongside the usual Top 6

**With Matip being an ok squad option and Lovern being terrible.



The thing is though, if City are going to effectively going to be banned from challenging Liverpool who else will? Because lets be real, can you really see the Glazers/Woodwood giving OGS the funds to buy Koulibaly, Škriniar, Ndidi, Tielemans, Maddison, Sancho & Kane? Can you see Maria (Roman's Right Hand Woman) be willing to give Frank Lampard the £560 Million worth of transfer money that they have built up since the Transfer Ban & Hazard Sale? Especially when they need Oblak, Chilwell, Koulibaly, Sancho, Zaha & Werner (or Jovic).

And can you see Levy giving Mourinho the money needed to get Oblak, Chilwell, Pereira, Aarons, Koulibaly, Maddison & Haarland?

Because without all those sides getting all those players, they might as well forget competing with Liverpool, let alone with a Real Madrid & Barcelona that is willing to do anything to get back to winning CLs on a regular basis.

So while it is very much possible for Manchester United to challenge Liverpool, the Glazers & Woodwood refuse to see this for their own selfish reasons.
I am sorry but what UEFA is doing is what France has been doing with the DNCG. They do an audit of the book and make sure that the club is self-sustainable. It's like an accounting body. All clubs, professional and amateur, have to pass the audit. It's independent and under the LFP and the FFF.

They make sure that each sports investment of each club doesn't exceed its financial capacity.
So the accounts have to balance, before the beginning of each season. More importantly, the DNCG has the ability to decide if a club is allowed to compete in a league or not.
If a team doesn't have the financial capacity to play in a division, it will demote the club, forbid the promotion or exclude the club.
It's very powerful. More powerful because it also considers the debt of the clubs.

With that system, lying on the origin of the money or inflating the revenue as City did would be a direct demotion for lack of transparency. If they were transparent, DNCG would potentially refuse some transfers or so because they cannot invest more than what they generate in revenue, etc...

This system needs to be implemented in the league. Only transparency ensure sports equity, nothing else. Competition can favor big clubs, but it shouldn't favor "cheating" clubs.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
18,278
So this pretty much kills any delaying tactics if the virus continues to spread?
 

Red Keane

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
168
Being a City fan I've been saying for ages City aren't the cause of this mess (like many would have you believe), they are the ultimate symptom of a game thats been heading this way for generations.)
And the thing is, before the Sheikh's took over Man City. City where doing exactly what many would call the "fair way to grow a club" by focusing on their youth academy* and moving to a bigger more modern ground**. It's fair to see that the club did not really progress to far with that strategy, especially when all those talents from their academy more or less all left the club in the years before the takeover.***

*Lets not forget that Shaun Wright-Phillips, Micah Richards & Daniel Sturridge all came from their Academy.

**Yes they didn't buy the stadium, but they spent (and still do to this day) a fair amount of their own cash of both rent and ground improvments since the Commonwealth Games.

***Had the takeover not occured, I wouldn't be surprised if Richards ended up leaving as well.
 

Catt

Ole's at the wheel!
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
20,696
Location
Norway
John Henry looking miffed is normal.
 

Dumbstar

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
15,637
Location
Viva Karius!
Supports
Liverpool
Not going to click on a fiction based newspaper link. Sounds like the usual sensationalist bull crap it usually comes out with.

Obviously other clubs will support the ban vociferously but to write to CAS without being asked first?
 

Red Keane

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
168
I am sorry but what UEFA is doing is what France has been doing with the DNCG. They do an audit of the book and make sure that the club is self-sustainable. It's like an accounting body. All clubs, professional and amateur, have to pass the audit. It's independent and under the LFP and the FFF.

They make sure that each sports investment of each club doesn't exceed its financial capacity.
So the accounts have to balance, before the beginning of each season. More importantly, the DNCG has the ability to decide if a club is allowed to compete in a league or not.
If a team doesn't have the financial capacity to play in a division, it will demote the club, forbid the promotion or exclude the club.
It's very powerful. More powerful because it also considers the debt of the clubs.
To be fair, what the DNCG (and the Bundesliga in relation to its financial regulations) exactly do is quite different to what UEFA do over FFP. After all what the DNCG/Bundesliga do is make sure that a football club does not go into too much debt or spend above & beyond the overall revenue they receive (though various means), in other words they stop football clubs from "Doing a Leeds". Now this is something I am very much in favour of and if FFP was actually designed to do exactly this & nothing more. I would be in favour of it.

Except that FFP in its current form is designed not to do that*, rather it is designed to deny football clubs the right to not only compete with the "Established" Teams, but to also join their "club" as well.

*Notice how FFP does not include anything about setting a cap on how much debt a football club can accumulate (A rule that would either force the Glazers to sell Manchester United, or write off the debt themselves) for example.

With that system, lying on the origin of the money or inflating the revenue as City did would be a direct demotion for lack of transparency. If they were transparent, DNCG would potentially refuse some transfers or so because they cannot invest more than what they generate in revenue, etc...
If clubs where allowed to make losses greater than what FFP currently permits (provided that said club does not end up with unsustainable amounts of debt as a result) or at least allow their owners to use fake sponsorship deals to invest into their clubs (without making excessive "paper" losses) without restriction (so long as such deals are open & on the record), they would not be a need for clubs such as Man City & PSG to such covert tatics in the first place.
 

thegregster

Harbinger of new information
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
10,810
Location
24 hours behind the transfer muppets
No CL next season anyway.

So 70-100mil less in revenue for Spurs,City, Chelsea and Liverpool. Same for the big European clubs

Add in no fans till January at the earliest and they are all going to struggle to pay wages never mind sign players.

De Bruyne is 29 in the summer and has 4 years left on his deal. He is stuck at City IMO.
 
Last edited:

horsechoker

Sailor vee, this is a right off.
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
15,074
Location
The stable
No CL next season anyway.

So 70-100mil less in revenue for Spurs,City, Chelsea and Liverpool. Same for the big European clubs

Add in no fans and they are all going to struggle to pay wages never mid sign them.

De Bruyne is 29 in the summer and has 4 years left on his deal. He is stuck at City IMO.
fixed that for you.
 

Supermonkey_Wolf

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 19, 2019
Messages
27
Location
London
Supports
Chelsea
No CL next season anyway.

So 70-100mil less in revenue for Spurs,City, Chelsea and Liverpool. Same for the big European clubs

Add in no fans till January at the earliest and they are all going to struggle to pay wages never mind sign players.

De Bruyne is 29 in the summer and has 4 years left on his deal. He is stuck at City IMO.
Chelsea and Liverpool may struggle less.

Chelsea have the Hazard and Morata money as well as the few more they sold. The group of 5 or so young players added to the squad have brought the total wage down (Luiz, Hazard, Morata leaving helped.

I'm pretty sure Liverpool will be awarded the title but will they be awarded the money?
 

Judas

Open to offers
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
14,453
Location
Where the grass is greener.
There's just not the level of interest or traction in stories about City's players, they don't have the fans that make running wild with a story worthwhile. If it was Rashford for example, it would be very different.
 

Dumbstar

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
15,637
Location
Viva Karius!
Supports
Liverpool
Any reason why De Bruynes statement is flying under the radar a bit and is nearly already forgotten ?
It's crazy, but as posters have already mentioned when mercenary players are attracted by plastic glitter it is no surprise they pack their bags as soon as the glitter disappears. Probably not really news worthy.
 

Mb194dc

Full Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
1,866
Supports
Chelsea
No CL next season anyway.

So 70-100mil less in revenue for Spurs,City, Chelsea and Liverpool. Same for the big European clubs

Add in no fans till January at the earliest and they are all going to struggle to pay wages never mind sign players.

De Bruyne is 29 in the summer and has 4 years left on his deal. He is stuck at City IMO.
Seems a highly probable outcome. Even having fans in January is very optimistic for fans, almost certain we get a winter peak of Covid 19 alongside flu season.
 

horsechoker

Sailor vee, this is a right off.
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
15,074
Location
The stable
Seems a highly probable outcome. Even having fans in January is very optimistic for fans, almost certain we get a winter peak of Covid 19 alongside flu season.
I actually think a winter peak will be smaller. If you lockdown in time, people don't have as much urge to go outside like they do in spring. The challenges will be delivery of goods for Christmas because everyone will shop online and the increased cost of people using more electric and gas at home.
 

footballistic orgasm

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
88
Supports
No team in particular
It's crazy, but as posters have already mentioned when mercenary players are attracted by plastic glitter it is no surprise they pack their bags as soon as the glitter disappears. Probably not really news worthy.
What makes Debruyne (or any other City player for that matter) any more mercenary than other players playing for top clubs though?

As for what he said, i don't see what the problem is. He'll be 29 soon and at the peak of his career, why will he want to miss out on CL football for 2 seasons if he can play elsewhere?
The thing though is that he extended his contract with City not too long ago, and i doubt they'll let him go just like that.
 

Paolo Di Canio

"we have to realise it's a doggy dog market"
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
6,659
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Because the media adores him
Because no one cares about City
It's crazy, but as posters have already mentioned when mercenary players are attracted by plastic glitter it is no surprise they pack their bags as soon as the glitter disappears. Probably not really news worthy.
Really Really poor from Sky

One of the worlds top players wants to leave the worlds best coach etc etc when they need him most

Would of expected at least a video call with Guillem Ballague on Real / Barcas interest.

Followed by the big debate where Danny Murphy and Paul Merson weigh in with their expert opinion

Followed by finally Jamie Redknapp and Graeme Souness on video call calling him a disgrace to his country.

Is there a different standard for City players? The only time I ever remember a player of theres being reported on poorly is Sterling who they now adore
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
29,627
Chances of there being no european competition next season. Plus city getting their ban reduced to one year.
Plus then using it up next year despite there being no europe?
 
Last edited:

IrishGlen

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2018
Messages
194
Chances of there being no european competition next season. Plus city getting their ban reduced to one year.
Plus then using it up next year despite there being no europe?
Likely no CL next season. In a Court environment, on the balance of probabilities, it’s hard to say. CAS could extend it too. No chance on this one. The ban will only cover an official valid edition of the competition so if a two year ban was upheld by CAS today it would be for 20/21 and 21/22 Champions League. If 20/21 didn’t go ahead, the ban would automatically extend to 21/22 and 22/23. Same results if City finished 5th 20/21 then the ban would extend to 21/22 and 22/23.

A problem might be if this seasons CL is cancelled then City could argue they’ve served one year of the suspension.CAS will likely accept this. Similar to a criminal on remand denied bail. Serves a year before trial and either the imposed sentence is reduced by that time or he walks a free man.
 

Luke1995

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
2,280
There is a pattern throught Guardiola's career and it is: When a team of his gets worse, he doesn't find a way to come back.

I doubt City would have challenged for the next two champions leagues they didn't win it since he arrived and now, their league form took a turn for the worse after 18-19 season.

He left Barcelona when they failed to win the league, he left Bayern after he couldn't make them CL winners and i'm not sure he can get City back to the level they were two years ago.

He is a great sucess builder, but re-creating it after it started slipping away, was never Pep's game.
 

edcunited1878

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
4,327
Location
San Diego, CA
There is a pattern throught Guardiola's career and it is: When a team of his gets worse, he doesn't find a way to come back.

I doubt City would have challenged for the next two champions leagues they didn't win it since he arrived and now, their league form took a turn for the worse after 18-19 season.

He left Barcelona when they failed to win the league, he left Bayern after he couldn't make them CL winners and i'm not sure he can get City back to the level they were two years ago.

He is a great sucess builder, but re-creating it after it started slipping away, was never Pep's game.
Pep is a checkbook manager, as genius as he is. Laporte has been a massive miss through injury - really good player, while Stones isn't a good defender so that kind of blew up in their face. They have crap LBs even if they spent loads on Mendy, Cancelo (maybe he'll be good enough), and Zinchenko is not good (feel like he gets a free pass too often). City are 2 upgrades from challenging again, but they don't have any depth outside of a couple attacking players. If Kane and a good CB go to City, they'd be true threat once again. Lots to build with, but glaring weakness when teams can counter with precision. Their LBs are poor, CBs are slow and not good enough outside of Laporte, Walker covers well because of his pace but only for so long he can rely on pace.

Aguero, David Silva, Fernandinho, Otamendi, LB all need replacing very soon. Rodri is good to fill Fernandinho's position, especially if he is cover at CDM and fills in at CB. Silva is replaced by Foden/Bernardo Silva as is currently the case (it's good). Otamendi, Aguero, and LB are the 3 major upgrades for Pep. There's no in-house replacement currently at City to fill those 3 positions.
 

Luke1995

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
2,280
Pep is a checkbook manager, as genius as he is. Laporte has been a massive miss through injury - really good player, while Stones isn't a good defender so that kind of blew up in their face. They have crap LBs even if they spent loads on Mendy, Cancelo (maybe he'll be good enough), and Zinchenko is not good (feel like he gets a free pass too often). City are 2 upgrades from challenging again, but they don't have any depth outside of a couple attacking players. If Kane and a good CB go to City, they'd be true threat once again. Lots to build with, but glaring weakness when teams can counter with precision. Their LBs are poor, CBs are slow and not good enough outside of Laporte, Walker covers well because of his pace but only for so long he can rely on pace.

Aguero, David Silva, Fernandinho, Otamendi, LB all need replacing very soon. Rodri is good to fill Fernandinho's position, especially if he is cover at CDM and fills in at CB. Silva is replaced by Foden/Bernardo Silva as is currently the case (it's good). Otamendi, Aguero, and LB are the 3 major upgrades for Pep. There's no in-house replacement currently at City to fill those 3 positions.
Do you think Brandon Williams and Luke Shaw are better than Zinchenko ?

And maybe Gabriel Jesus can replace Aguero. Agree with most of what you said. Just not sure about what is Phil Foden potential exactly. Think Bernardo Silva can be as good as David.
 

edcunited1878

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
4,327
Location
San Diego, CA
Do you think Brandon Williams and Luke Shaw are better than Zinchenko ?

And maybe Gabriel Jesus can replace Aguero. Agree with most of what you said. Just not sure about what is Phil Foden potential exactly. Think Bernardo Silva can be as good as David.
Shaw is better than Zinchenko yes. Zinchenko is better than Alex Buttner, how about that. Nothing special, nothing terrible, just meh. LB isn't his natural position, but he works out as an option for City due to his versatility.
 

Luke1995

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
2,280
Shaw is better than Zinchenko yes. Zinchenko is better than Alex Buttner, how about that. Nothing special, nothing terrible, just meh. LB isn't his natural position, but he works out as an option for City due to his versatility.
So where should Zinchenko play ? The rest of their team is loaded with talent
 

edcunited1878

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
4,327
Location
San Diego, CA
So where should Zinchenko play ? The rest of their team is loaded with talent
That's where he plays because he's best suited considering Mendy and Cancelo's issues. Fabian Delph played LB last year, so just shows how open that position is. But if Pep allows him to play a role for City and he does it, fine.
 

edcunited1878

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
4,327
Location
San Diego, CA
I thought Cancelo was a RB?
He primarily is, however he is a fullback option and has played at LB at least once or twice during his limited appearances. If their LB situation is purely Mendy and Zinchenko, that collectively is midtable considering Mendy's injury issues and inconsistent play. But as said, they have loads of quality in their squad and only have a few positions where they need to strengthen to challenge immediately.