Manchester City risk of getting CL banned

[Mrs Smoker]

Is it? England should still have 4 spots and Arsenal in 5th would qualify through Europa.

Can’t imagine it happening in time though.

Can't know for sure, as anything similar to this ever happened, but I though by "default" some countries have 4 spots, which can be increased to five with winning CL or EL, and in this scenario England would still have 4 spots, plus the winners of CL and EL, so no reason to increase it to five.

I reckon plenty of other association would be pissed with that as well.

 

[BolehLand]

you'd have to laugh but it won't happen.they'll get out of it somehow. Dear EUFA, please look at Liverpool too

Liverpool net spending over 4 years is 150m, man city is 500m.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Can't know for sure, as anything similar to this ever happened, but I though by "default" some countries have 4 spots, which can be increased to five with winning CL or EL, and in this scenario England would still have 4 spots, plus the winners of CL and EL, so no reason to increase it to five.

I reckon plenty of other association would be pissed with that as well.

I’m not sure why they’d be pissed off, England would have 5 spots if they don’t get banned so why should they lose one? The associations know that 5 is the limit.

I think England’s dominance in Europe this year means that France already get another spot anyway.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

They would be pissed with sixth placed team somehow getting a CL spot.

Five is the limit in extraordinary situations, but in this case four would be enough as all of the CL and EL winners and the top four would get in.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

They would be pissed with sixth placed team somehow getting a CL spot.

Five is the limit in extraordinary situations, but in this case four would be enough as all of the CL and EL winners and the top four would get in.

City getting banned from the CL would be pretty extraordinary.

 

[jymufc20]

I think that's pretty wrong though.

Yeah, i imagine sky are just trying to wind us up as surely the fourth spot would go to Arsenal whether they won the Europa League or not.

 

[jymufc20]

Liverpool net spending over 4 years is 150m, man city is 500m.

Drug test them then.

 

[WRicko]

I don’t think you guys really grasp any of this I would like some sensible rivals comments on the follow

The reason this ban could be happening is because of some out of context illegally obtained emails

UEFA can only have half a story as far as the emails go

City have apparently shown plenty of counter evidence account legal documents etc

But in order to prove anything UEFA would need to see the Sheiks personal bank account and the banks accounts of Etihad and any other companies involved

Even the police would struggle with that

The emails reference HRH that’s not our owner but actual leader of Abu Dhabi

The allegation is our owner put money into City via inflated sponsorship but the larger figure relates to a non related party according to UEFA that’s like someone here put money into United via Chevrolet How can and why would someone unconnected legally and according to UEFA even if not actually on in the court of public opinion put money into a company they are unconnected to in order to put money into another entity

The rules we might have got round could break EU competition law and where designed to keep non elite clubs in their place and stop people investing in their company

UEFA have changed the rules twice since once to sneer city so the fell foul of the rules due to lack of wages exemption and then again to allow new owners in to old elite clubs

City originally took a pinch because fight was going to be expensive in terms of PR and loss of champions league that problem no longer applies

PSG got away with much bigger related party sponsorship and they are in a less attractive league from a sponsorship point of view

Also what your saying is city cheated but failed to cheat enough to get away with it and then failed to get away with cheating even though this sort of thing should easily be impossible to prove

 

[Jippy]

I don’t think you guys really grasp any of this I would like some sensible rivals comments on the follow

The reason this ban could be happening is because of some out of context illegally obtained emails

UEFA can only have half a story as far as the emails go

City have apparently shown plenty of counter evidence account legal documents etc

But in order to prove anything UEFA would need to see the Sheiks personal bank account and the banks accounts of Etihad and any other companies involved

Even the police would struggle with that

The emails reference HRH that’s not our owner but actual leader of Abu Dhabi

The allegation is our owner put money into City via inflated sponsorship but the larger figure relates to a non related party according to UEFA that’s like someone here put money into United via Chevrolet How can and why would someone unconnected legally and according to UEFA even if not actually on in the court of public opinion put money into a company they are unconnected to in order to put money into another entity

The rules we might have got round could break EU competition law and where designed to keep non elite clubs in their place and stop people investing in their company

UEFA have changed the rules twice since once to sneer city so the fell foul of the rules due to lack of wages exemption and then again to allow new owners in to old elite clubs

City originally took a pinch because fight was going to be expensive in terms of PR and loss of champions league that problem no longer applies

PSG got away with much bigger related party sponsorship and they are in a less attractive league from a sponsorship point of view

Also what your saying is city cheated but failed to cheat enough to get away with it and then failed to get away with cheating even though this sort of thing should easily be impossible to prove

You raise some interesting points, but use punctuation or your future oosts will be sent back to you.
I agree Uefa can be a kangaroo court btw.

 

[Dumbstar]

Liverpool net spending over 4 years is 150m, man city is 500m.

Don't talk net spend on this website. You'll give a lot of Utd and Spurs fans (Squishy) a headache.

 

[Josep Dowling]

It’s a tough one for me because ultimately any big club in the world at some point has outspent the rest to get to where they are. To deny otherwise is simply false.

I think the thing that is annoying is how they have gone about it with false accounting, other companies paying wages and overinflated sponsorship whilst at the same time trying to portray they are the victims of interrogation because of who their owners are. I’m sure some City fans will deny this but it’s fairly obvious what they have done. The clubs revenue is now close to United after just 10 years.

Rules were put in place, whether City agree with them or not they have broke them. UEFA set them, the competition is run by them so why shouldn’t they be able to punish City for breaking the rules? It’s not like you sell 10kg of cocaine and when you were arrested say ‘I don’t agree with the law so why should I go to prison’.

What is the point of having the rules in the first place if no one is punished. UEFA have been a walkover with this before. A £50m fine of which most was refunded isn’t going to change anything when clubs buy one player for £50m these days. Taking them out of the entire tournament will make clubs think twice about overspending. In the long term it might help City anyway to start implementing their clearly talented youth squad rather than fully relying on spending £250m every season.

 

[Blueman]

The only way City can prove their innocence is to blow apart FFP. UEFA have brought that closer with their ineptitude, I sincerely hope City rip that piece of big club protection legislation apart! It's just wrong. Only big clubs can spend more? Setup by the euro elite clubs, owners cant invest their own funds! Crazy monopoly tbh.

City tried to play along with it, UEFA have certain members who want City punished through FFP, and now it's war between the two parties. I am betting that FFP will have to be changed.

 

[St Red]

The only way City can prove their innocence is to blow apart FFP. UEFA have brought that closer with their ineptitude, I sincerely hope City rip that piece of big club protection legislation apart! It's just wrong. Only big clubs can spend more? Setup by the euro elite clubs, owners cant invest their own funds! Crazy monopoly tbh.

City tried to play along with it, UEFA have certain members who want City punished through FFP, and now it's war between the two parties. I am betting that FFP will have to be changed.

You make it sound like City aren't a big club.
Ridiculous I know, but that's how it comes across.

 

[Jack - City Fan]

You make it sound like City aren't a big club.
Ridiculous I know, but that's how it comes across.

Part of the problem now of course is that city are in favour of FFP because now they ARE a big club and it protects us more than it hurts us.

 

[Cpt Negative]

The only way City can prove their innocence is to blow apart FFP. UEFA have brought that closer with their ineptitude, I sincerely hope City rip that piece of big club protection legislation apart! It's just wrong. Only big clubs can spend more? Setup by the euro elite clubs, owners cant invest their own funds! Crazy monopoly tbh.

City tried to play along with it, UEFA have certain members who want City punished through FFP, and now it's war between the two parties. I am betting that FFP will have to be changed.

There’s nothing wrong with FFP. City have been caught cooking the books and should be punished accordingly.

 

[ExecutionerWasp001]

The only way City can prove their innocence is to blow apart FFP. UEFA have brought that closer with their ineptitude, I sincerely hope City rip that piece of big club protection legislation apart! It's just wrong. Only big clubs can spend more? Setup by the euro elite clubs, owners cant invest their own funds! Crazy monopoly tbh.

So it's ok for you to create your own monopoly though. If your owners are allowed to run amok football is dead. The only way other clubs can challenge is if they too are State Funded.

 

[Full bodied red]

The allegation is our owner put money into City via inflated sponsorship but the larger figure relates to a non related party according to UEFA that’s like someone here put money into United via Chevrolet How can and why would someone unconnected legally and according to UEFA even if not actually on in the court of public opinion put money into a company they are unconnected to in order to put money into another entity

But isn't the problem / argument that there is too much direct and indirect common ownership between City and Emirates airline and other related Dubai companies for many of the sponsorship deals to be considered sufficiently arm's length to be a realisitic commercial value given that City weren't then and even now are not a global brand.

 

[St Red]

But isn't the problem / argument that there is too much direct and indirect common ownership between City and Emirates airline and other related Dubai companies for many of the sponsorship deals to be considered sufficiently arm's length to be a realisitic commercial value given that City weren't then and even now are not a global brand.

Did they not send back FA Cup semi final tickets?
Not even a national brand

 

[Van Aanholt's Express]

Haven't they been paying players through third parties too?

 

[Full bodied red]

Haven't they been paying players through third parties too?

Not heard that, but quite possible - image rights and all that stuff.

But....There was something during Mancini's time there, and these were strong rumours that Emirates Airlines were paying some of the players something like ten times more than the going rate for them to appear in TV adverts shown in the UAE.

Maybe still happening, but I haven't heard any rumours recently....

 

[Tincanalley]

They are attempting to intimidate the football authorities with their endless wealth and legal muscle. They are a front for a hideous regime, dirty money in blue shirts. If they were not money doped they would be competing with United for a mid table place

 

[padr81]

Your buddies on Blue Moon seem to like posting about us.
21,000 posts, this season alone

I hope you didn't count them all. Sad for them but imho its a shit forum with a few really good posters, the City equivalent of RAWK... for your own sanity you should avoid places like that buddy.
Your own last week of posting is pretty City orientated tbh... good job your not a City fan or that thread would be 50k post about Liverpool with 29k coming from you.

 

[Stookie]

City getting banned from the CL would be pretty extraordinary.

It would and I kind of don’t want United to qualify for it that way. It shows how far United have fallen. But for the laugh it would be great.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

UEFA should just ban them from their competitions outright.

Why should an artificial club like them get to compete with real football clubs? They've cheated their way to this level.

Sugar daddy clubs should just be banned from European competition, that would be a great way to stop them getting top level players and kill their influence on the modern game. They are nothing but a disease.

Hopefully the FA would follow suit with harsher punishments in that scenario.

 

[gibers]

UEFA should just ban them from their competitions outright.

Why should an artificial club like them get to compete with real football clubs? They've cheated their way to this level.

Sugar daddy clubs should just be banned from European competition, that would be a great way to stop them getting top level players and kill their influence on the modern game. They are nothing but a disease.

Hopefully the FA would follow suit with harsher punishments in that scenario.

I agree. Inter, Milan, Chelsea and City should all be banned.

 

[St Red]

I hope you didn't count them all. Sad for them but imho its a shit forum with a few really good posters, the City equivalent of RAWK... for your own sanity you should avoid places like that buddy.
Your own last week of posting is pretty City orientated tbh... good job your not a City fan or that thread would be 50k post about Liverpool with 29k coming from you.

You're probably right, it seems to increase at the same rate as my dislike of them

 

[padr81]

You're probably right, it seems to increase at the same rate as my dislike of them

 

[St Red]

Your team are playing an FA Cup final and here you are posting on a Man Utd forum

 

[Dumbstar]

UEFA should just ban them from their competitions outright.

Why should an artificial club like them get to compete with real football clubs? They've cheated their way to this level.

Sugar daddy clubs should just be banned from European competition, that would be a great way to stop them getting top level players and kill their influence on the modern game. They are nothing but a disease.

Hopefully the FA would follow suit with harsher punishments in that scenario.

They allowed Barça and Real to get away with it. And then Chelsea when Roman came. City are doing no different.

 

[padr81]

Your team are playing an FA Cup final and here you are posting on a Man Utd forum

I'm watching the game on one screen laptop in the other. Joys of work.

 

[St Red]

I'm watching the game on one screen laptop in the other. Joys of work.

I dont even post on our own forum in match.
Way too much knee jerk one line nonsense gets posted

 

[padr81]

I dont even post on our own forum in match.
Way too much knee jerk one line nonsense gets posted

I'm not on any City forums tbh, I had a look around at forums because generally I get to know people and use one more than many. This one looked the best and it turned out to be a good decision albeit with its rougher moments.

 

[St Red]

I'm not on any City forums tbh, I had a look around at forums because generally I get to know people and use one more than many. This one looked the best and it turned out to be a good decision albeit with its rougher moments.

It was horrendous on here when they were a good team

 

[padr81]

It was horrendous on here when they were a good team

I missed that in fairness, I joined when it was LVG and Pellegrini and just kind of stuck around as I got to know people.

 

[arthurka]

They allowed Barça and Real to get away with it. And then Chelsea when Roman came. City are doing no different.

I fully agree, nothing will change..

 

[VeevaVee]

They allowed Barça and Real to get away with it. And then Chelsea when Roman came. City are doing no different.

City have gone the furthest though. They literally have two teams worth of players that could be first choice. It's absolutely no wonder they can compete on nearly all fronts with that (should be all). And they've only got it by cheating around the rules. They've had one of their best players out nearly all season and it doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

[Tincanalley]

First off, they are whitewashing a regime whose human rights record should disqualify them from owning an English football club. They have scant regard for any rules. I hope they are severely punished, fair play to UEFA if the have the cojones to do it.

 

[Full bodied red]

OK....Stupid me talking about Emirates and Dubai instead of Etihad and Abu Dhabi....

A bit too much full bodied red with lunch to blame....

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

I don’t think you guys really grasp any of this I would like some sensible rivals comments on the follow

The reason this ban could be happening is because of some out of context illegally obtained emails

UEFA can only have half a story as far as the emails go

City have apparently shown plenty of counter evidence account legal documents etc

But in order to prove anything UEFA would need to see the Sheiks personal bank account and the banks accounts of Etihad and any other companies involved

Even the police would struggle with that

The emails reference HRH that’s not our owner but actual leader of Abu Dhabi

The allegation is our owner put money into City via inflated sponsorship but the larger figure relates to a non related party according to UEFA that’s like someone here put money into United via Chevrolet How can and why would someone unconnected legally and according to UEFA even if not actually on in the court of public opinion put money into a company they are unconnected to in order to put money into another entity

The rules we might have got round could break EU competition law and where designed to keep non elite clubs in their place and stop people investing in their company

UEFA have changed the rules twice since once to sneer city so the fell foul of the rules due to lack of wages exemption and then again to allow new owners in to old elite clubs

City originally took a pinch because fight was going to be expensive in terms of PR and loss of champions league that problem no longer applies

PSG got away with much bigger related party sponsorship and they are in a less attractive league from a sponsorship point of view

Also what your saying is city cheated but failed to cheat enough to get away with it and then failed to get away with cheating even though this sort of thing should easily be impossible to prove

How much did you get paid to write this?

 

[WRicko]

But isn't the problem / argument that there is too much direct and indirect common ownership between City and Emirates airline and other related Dubai companies for many of the sponsorship deals to be considered sufficiently arm's length to be a realisitic commercial value given that City weren't then and even now are not a global brand.

First off compare the Etihad (not Emirates) deal with PSG even after they (UEFA) reduced it or other deals e.g Emirates its not inflated

Second according to the law and UEFA the deal your mentioning and the main one is not a related party deal therefore not direct or indirect ownership it cannot be inflated why would a non connected company over pay e.g Why would Chevrolet over pay you guys ? Legally and according to UEFA even the tax man and independent auditors there is as much common ownership between City and Etihad as there is between you and Chevrolet. This whole debate is really bordering on slander and is has perhaps wider consequences given that people outside of city have signed off on the deals e.g UEFA cities auditors the tax man.

These emails don't change the ownership of the these companies nor prove any change in ownership they simple show part of story gotten illegally out of context that So how can UEFA change there ruling near 5 years later ?