City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins September ‘24

Guilty pricks.

This is exactly what happens when spoilt, rich children grow up into power, and never get told "No" in their entire lives.

Kick them out of the league and be done with them.
 
Please just go away, Pep.

I'm sure you'll be able to find another shady club where you can continue to win trophies illegally.

Leave our league alone.
 
Yes, and it's not like Pep could not get a get out of City free (or likely with a payout) card built within the contract.

Now, if he was to bolt, that could be an indication where the charges might go but that he is staying the course until it is played out is generally what I would have expected.
 
Would be interesting to know if any player, especially the newer ones have a relegation clause in their contract..
 
Changeisgood said:
Yes, and it's not like Pep could not get a get out of City free (or likely with a payout) card built within the contract.

Now, if he was to bolt, that could be an indication where the charges might go but that he is staying the course until it is played out is generally what I would have expected.
Click to expand...
It is only one random Twitter account.

Let's hope it's bullshit and the slimy little cheater leaves in 2025 as was reported earlier.
 
Slightly relevant, read somewhere that Chelsea is planning to sell their women's team in order to raise capital to offset their FFP restrictions, in a similar vein to how they sold those two hotels to another one of Boehly's companies or so.
 
Eplel said:
Slightly relevant, read somewhere that Chelsea is planning to sell their women's team in order to raise capital to offset their FFP restrictions, in a similar vein to how they sold those two hotels to another one of Boehly's companies or so.
Click to expand...

Any chance City, Chelsea and PSG could start their own cheating cnuts super league? and stop ruining for the rest.
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c903dvqvgpqo

£30M for La Liga Team of the Season, 20 year old Brazil international. Those City guys are just so damn good at negotiating with their own club for a player...

And before anyone starts thinking this looks dodgy. Just remember that he was only on loan at City Group's Girona, after signing for City Group's Troyes two years ago, so technically this isn't the same situation that we found ourselves in when buying players between clubs competing in the same competition. This is completely acceptable in modern football and not in any way open for exploitation. And if it was open for exploitation you could be sure that squeaky clean City wouldn't be taking advantage of it.
 
It would have been 60+ million for anyone else to buy Sávio. Anyone still arguing that they don’t have clear and unfair advantages is just being contrarian for the sake of it.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c903dvqvgpqo

£30M for La Liga Team of the Season, 20 year old Brazil international. Those City guys are just so damn good at negotiating with their own club for a player...

And before anyone starts thinking this looks dodgy. Just remember that he was only on loan at City Group's Girona, after signing for City Group's Troyes two years ago, so technically this isn't the same situation that we found ourselves in when buying players between clubs competing in the same competition. This is completely acceptable in modern football and not in any way open for exploitation. And if it was open for exploitation you could be sure that squeaky clean City wouldn't be taking advantage of it.
Click to expand...

It is of course very open to exploitation, but it's more of a FIFA thing than an UEFA thing to stop it.
Red Royal said:
So we can't buy Todibo but City can do this... fair.:eek:
Click to expand...

Yes, it is completely fair that City can't buy from Girona or United from Nice, while at the same time competing in the same European competition. It would be great it City couldn't buy from Girona full stop, or United from Nice, or City from Troyes, or United from Lausanne, or if these sorts of ownership messes didn't exist at all, but it's a pretty separate issue.
 
Last edited:
NotThatSoph said:
It is of course very open to exploitation, but it's more of a FIFA thing than an UEFA thing to stop it.


Yes, it is completely fair that City can't buy from Girona or United from Lyon, while at the same time competing in the same European competition. It would be great it City couldn't buy from Girona full stop, or United from Lyon, or City from Troyes, or United from Lausanne, or if these sorts of ownership messes didn't exist at all, but it's a pretty separate issue.
Click to expand...
Don’t you mean Nice?
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yes, it is completely fair that City can't buy from Girona or United from Nice, while at the same time competing in the same European competition. It would be great it City couldn't buy from Girona full stop, or United from Nice, or City from Troyes, or United from Lausanne, or if these sorts of ownership messes didn't exist at all, but it's a pretty separate issue.
Click to expand...
And yet Leipzig and Salzburg are transferring players without any issues. UEFA absolutely has their share of fecking up here too.
 
NotThatSoph said:
It is of course very open to exploitation, but it's more of a FIFA thing than an UEFA thing to stop it.


Yes, it is completely fair that City can't buy from Girona or United from Nice, while at the same time competing in the same European competition. It would be great it City couldn't buy from Girona full stop, or United from Nice, or City from Troyes, or United from Lausanne, or if these sorts of ownership messes didn't exist at all, but it's a pretty separate issue.
Click to expand...

Apart from it being the rules, I fail to see the distinction, really. Why should it matter if they are in the same European competition or not?

I get that it's a complicated issue, but certain clubs are really taking the piss with their multi club setups.

Savio is funnily enough the perfect example. Troyes a City Group team, while being in Ligue1, signs him and then without playing a competitive match they send him off to PSV Eindhoven on loan for the season. Again without playing a competitive match for Troyes, they loan him out to Giron which is also a City Group team, and after having a successful season in Spain, where he also got a call up for Brazil, they sell him to Manchester City for the odd €40mill.

Another funny one was when they were desperate to get rid of Mix Diskerud from New York City (City Group), and how he mysteriously changed clubs within the City Group and suddenly had his wages paid by Manchester City before being loaned out.
 
NotChatGPT said:
Apart from it being the rules, I fail to see the distinction, really. Why should it matter if they are in the same European competition or not?
Click to expand...

Because UEFA are in charge of regulating their tournaments, they are not in charge of regulating international transfers between clubs.
 
Lemoor said:
And yet Leipzig and Salzburg are transferring players without any issues. UEFA absolutely has their share of fecking up here too.
Click to expand...
Leipzig and Salzburg have somehow convinced UEFA that they are completely independent clubs and not owned by the same entity.

it's our own mistake. Our owner should have just put on a fake moustache and called himself Tim Fatcliffe when he took over United and we'd have been golden.
 
NotChatGPT said:
Which is pretty much the part i said about "it's the rules"
Click to expand...

Then what is the question? It is entirely fair that UEFA have rules for their competition, which leads to United not being able to buy players from Nice or City from Girona if they want to compete in the same UEFA tournaments.

That other rules, from other organizations, allow City to buy players from Troyes (or Girona), or United from Lausanne (or Nice), is a separate issue. That these rules are the way they are does not make UEFA's rules unfair. Nothing is stopping United from buying Todibo, just forfeit the Europa League spot.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Then what is the question? It is entirely fair that UEFA have rules for their competition, which leads to United not being able to buy players from Nice or City from Girona if they want to compete in the same UEFA tournaments.

That other rules, from other organizations, allow City to buy players from Troyes (or Girona), or United from Lausanne (or Nice), is a separate issue. That these rules are the way they are does not make UEFA's rules unfair. Nothing is stopping United from buying Todibo, just forfeit the Europa League spot.
Click to expand...

I mean, the question is there, isn't it?

"Apart from it being the rules, I fail to see the distinction, really. Why should it matter if they are in the same European competition or not?"
 
NotChatGPT said:
I mean, the question is there, isn't it?

"Apart from it being the rules, I fail to see the distinction, really. Why should it matter if they are in the same European competition or not?"
Click to expand...

It matters to UEFA, because that is what gives them authority to regulate.

I am responding to someone going "City can buy Savio from Troyes, but United can't buy Todibo from Nice. Unfair."

United can buy Todibo from Nice, just like City can buy Savio from Troyes. That is completely the same. United just can't do that and also play in the Europa League, because of completely separate UEFA rules that have nothing to do with the rules allowing City to buy Savio from Troyes or United to buy Todibo from Nice.

City are not being allowed to do something that is denied United. United are not being treated unfairly.
 
NotThatSoph said:
It matters to UEFA, because that is what gives them authority to regulate.

I am responding to someone going "City can buy Savio from Troyes, but United can't buy Todibo from Nice. Unfair."

United can buy Todibo from Nice, just like City can buy Savio from Troyes. That is completely the same. United just can't do that and also play in the Europa League, because of completely separate UEFA rules that have nothing to do with the rules allowing City to buy Savio from Troyes or United to buy Todibo from Nice.

City are not being allowed to do something that is denied United. United are not being treated unfairly.
Click to expand...

You're talking the long way round the porridge. It's the rules, we get it. You're essentially on repeat rather than discussing what i'm actually asking about, which is the interesting bit.
 
NotChatGPT said:
You're talking the long way round the porridge. It's the rules, we get it. You're essentially on repeat rather than discussing what i'm actually asking about, which is the interesting bit.
Click to expand...

No, your question is just nonsensical.
 
NotChatGPT said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Because if the question is why it matters to UEFA, the answer is obvious: they can only regulate their own competitions, so the only impact they can have on limiting clubs benefiting from shared ownership is if those clubs compete in UEFA's competitions. They (at least nominally) don't want clubs in their competitions to have an unfair advantage over other clubs based on shared ownership, so they have rules to limit that.

If the question is why it matters for the transfer itself, then the answer is also obvious: it doesn't, which is why these sorts of transfers are treated the same no matter what UEFA competition the clubs compete or don't compete in.
 
all these charges and they can still get away with this as well.....clearly that is a discounted price from within the City Group

Sources told ESPN that City have paid an initial transfer fee of €25 million ($27.3m), plus a potential €15m ($16.4m) in add-ons.

Sávio joins City from French side Troyes after loan spells at PSV Eindhoven and Girona.

Both Troyes and Girona are part of the City Football Group (CFG), which is headed by Manchester City.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Because if the question is why it matters to UEFA, the answer is obvious: they can only regulate their own competitions, so the only impact they can have on limiting clubs benefiting from shared ownership is if those clubs compete in UEFA's competitions. They (at least nominally) don't want clubs in their competitions to have an unfair advantage over other clubs based on shared ownership, so they have rules to limit that.

If the question is why it matters for the transfer itself, then the answer is also obvious: it doesn't, which is why these sorts of transfers are treated the same no matter what UEFA competition the clubs compete or don't compete in.
Click to expand...

I mean, the question is why it's relevant for transfers if both clubs happen to qualify for the CL or Europa League, but irrelevant if one is in the CL and the other is in the Europa League.

"It's the rules"

Most people will obviously understand why you can't have direct conflicts of interests in terms of effective control and decision making, given the implications it could have on competing in the same tournament and how results impact other teams in the same tournament

But why transfers, what's the logic behind the need to include transfers for evidence of independence.
 
I see some Bookies have them as low as 10/1 to be relegated, it’s strange to see such low odds
 
Another great example how City "play by the rules" with this transfer. Put the player under a club owned by themself but will never play in the same tournament. They just plan it better than us with this easy loophole. We are fecked with Todibo.

Team Ineos need to learn fast from City. They have been doing this for more than a decade fecking around with PL, UEFA and whatnot.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Another great example how City "play by the rules" with this transfer. Put the player under a club owned by themself but will never play in the same tournament. They just plan it better than us with this easy loophole. We are fecked with Todibo.

Team Ineos need to learn fast from City. They have been doing this for more than a decade fecking around with PL, UEFA and whatnot.
Click to expand...

A loophole is a way to get around the rules. City are not exploiting a loophole in this specific case, they're simply doing something that is allowed and is meant to be allowed.

Loopholes are also not relevant for the Todibo case. United wanted to do something against the rules, and considered trying to change the rules via lawsuits, just like City tried to do when they sued the Premier League.
 
NotThatSoph said:
A loophole is a way to get around the rules. City are not exploiting a loophole in this specific case, they're simply doing something that is allowed and is meant to be allowed.

Loopholes are also not relevant for the Todibo case. United wanted to do something against the rules, and considered trying to change the rules via lawsuits, just like City tried to do when they sued the Premier League.
Click to expand...
How is this meant to be allowed?
 
Lemoor said:
How is this meant to be allowed?
Click to expand...

How is it not? There are no rules against owning several clubs. There are no rules against two clubs with the same owners buying players from each other.

UEFA have some rules specific for their competitions, but those are not relevant for the Savio deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.