Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros

Rhyme Animal

Modmins said "freeze" and I got numb
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Messages
5,925
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
6,561
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
4,436
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
17,419
So this pretty much kills any delaying tactics if the virus continues to spread?
 

Red Keane

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
80
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.
 

BusbyMalone

First Man Falling
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
4,747
 

Dumbstar

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
15,388
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
80
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.