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

giorno said:
Very different situations. Juventus were found guilty of match fixing - the actual games were corrupted

City have used "fake" sponsorships to route the ownership's money into the club.

Which they did because of the frankly absurd FFP rules against owner investment, though that's beside the point
Click to expand...
What’s absurd about having to earn your money from football?
 
Mr Neville singing a Man City love song on Sky Sports tonight.
 
All these arguments about FFP being fair or not is completely irrelevant yet no one seems to understand it including Neville just there. Just because you don’t agree with the rules doesn’t mean you can ignore them. It’s like murdering someone then your reasoning is that you should be allowed because that person was upsetting you.
 
BluesJr said:
All these arguments about FFP being fair or not is completely irrelevant yet no one seems to understand it including Neville just there. Just because you don’t agree with the rules doesn’t mean you can ignore them. It’s like murdering someone then your reasoning is that you should be allowed because that person was upsetting you.
Click to expand...
Or crying about how your neighbour also killed a dog some years ago, and try to drag them down with you
 
BluesJr said:
All these arguments about FFP being fair or not is completely irrelevant yet no one seems to understand it including Neville just there. Just because you don’t agree with the rules doesn’t mean you can ignore them. It’s like murdering someone then your reasoning is that you should be allowed because that person was upsetting you.
Click to expand...

As Keane said the clubs all signed up to the rules and Man City broke them... End of
 
iHicksy said:
Hope it's a joke about them getting their titles rescinded. Purely because the players and manager did actually win those titles. Yes, the means which they assembled the squad was cheating and I think they should be banned from the CL and moved down a league as punishment to the entire club. But I don't like the idea of saying "actually liverpool or United won it that year now" because that moment has passed, we can't celebrate it. It would feel empty and meaningless, since we didn't actually win it. When Rio was banned for missing a so called drugs test they didn't strip him of his premier league medals from previous seasons (and the thought of 'pool getting a hollow title turns my stomach).
Click to expand...

Opposite for me. They're getting one end of the season anyway, so why not spoil the party for them a little? The additional title for us will just be a small bonus.
 
UEFA should focus on the Glazer ownership and the vast sums of money taken out of the club, rather than investors pumping money into football.

How can it be that someone that has invested over £1 billion in football is penalised, whilst the Glazers that have taken £1 billion out are not.

Btw, I absolutely hate City, i just hate the Glazers more. It's the likes of the Glazers that need kicking out of football. They are truly scum.
 
UnitedFan93 said:
UEFA should focus on the Glazer ownership and the vast sums of money taken out of the club, rather than investors pumping money into the football.

How can it be that someone that has invested over £1 billion in football is penalised, whilst the Glazers that have taken £1 billion out are not.

Btw, I absolutely hate City, i just hate the Glazers more. It's the likes of the Glazers that need kicking out of football. They are truly scum.
Click to expand...
Fair point mate, fair point.

I think the fear is that sugar daddies can up sticks and drop the club with massive debts meaning the club goes under.

Whereas vile leaches like our owners need the host to live in order to keep feeding. So they do what’s necessary to keep the club financially ‘sound.’

Also I think it’s a case of trying to level the playing field and stop player prices/wages from increasing further.
 
UnitedFan93 said:
UEFA should focus on the Glazer ownership and the vast sums of money taken out of the club, rather than investors pumping money into football.

How can it be that someone that has invested over £1 billion in football is penalised, whilst the Glazers that have taken £1 billion out are not.

Btw, I absolutely hate City, i just hate the Glazers more. It's the likes of the Glazers that need kicking out of football. They are truly scum.
Click to expand...
I think it's more to do with City (allegedly) artificially inflating sponsorship deals so they could demonstrate break even (or close enough). When in reality, artificial deals (allegedly) aside, they were nowhere near the rules that they had signed up to.

(Glazers. Taken out a billion? Really?)
 
Rozay said:
Mr Neville singing a Man City love song on Sky Sports tonight.
Click to expand...

Withnail said:
Gary Neville completely impartially giving out about FFP on Sky Sports
Click to expand...

Neville and his band of merrymen are pretty much the Manchester City of the lower leagues with how they’ve financially doped Salford. I wouldn’t expect anything less from him (when asked for his opinion on FFP).
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
I think it's more to do with City (allegedly) artificially inflating sponsorship deals so they could demonstrate break even (or close enough). When in reality, artificial deals (allegedly) aside, they were nowhere near the rules that they had signed up to.

(Glazers. Taken out a billion? Really?)
Click to expand...
The Glazer debt has cost the club a £1 billion, yes. To make matters worst we are still half a billion in debt that still needs paying off.

The Glazers are the worst type of 'investor' in football
 
Josep Dowling said:
He’s right in what he said though. Man City wouldn’t go bankrupt with their owners which is the purpose of FFP.
Click to expand...

What happens in the hypothetical situation of the Sheikh shutting up shop and scurrying back to Abu Dhabi with his petro-billions? How would City survive then? How would they pay their millionaire players in that instance? They’d be bankrupt inside twelve months with no sugar daddy investor cooking the books.
 
Buchan said:
What happens in the hypothetical situation of the Sheikh shutting up shop and scurrying back to Abu Dhabi with his petro-billions? How would City survive then? How would they pay their millionaire players in that instance? They’d be bankrupt inside twelve months with no sugar daddy investor cooking the books.
Click to expand...

The club has not debt. Sooner or later with success will would be become self sustainable.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
I think it's more to do with City (allegedly) artificially inflating sponsorship deals so they could demonstrate break even (or close enough).
Click to expand...
Nope. It's about the provenance of the money. City used the Etihad sponsorship(which while connected does not belong to City's owner, so it's considered a normal "external" sponsorship) to route Mansour's money into the club. Of the £80m sponsorship, only 10 actually came from etihad while the rest was from Mansour

Then they refused to cooperate with UEFA after the emails were leaked and tried to cover it up
 
Buchan said:
What happens in the hypothetical situation of the Sheikh shutting up shop and scurrying back to Abu Dhabi with his petro-billions? How would City survive then? How would they pay their millionaire players in that instance? They’d be bankrupt inside twelve months with no sugar daddy investor cooking the books.
Click to expand...
Institute a rule that says owner investment must be guaranteed by the owner

For example, something like for every cent put into the club the owner must also put a cent into a separate bank account that is frozen as a guarantee of solvency
 
Guardian said:
The word is that City are stockpiling a cache of inflammatory evidence against other clubs, in anticipation of an epic fight. Perhaps, armed with a battery of lawyers and accountants, they will get their ban overturned. Perhaps, as some of the more bellicose voices insist, they will even destroy the apparatus of football as we know it, which definitely feels like a proportionate response to not being allowed to sign Stevan Jovetic. Either way, you sense for City the ends will always justify the means. After all football, like geopolitics, is very much a results business.
Click to expand...
Manchester City backers are not the sort to take punishment lying down:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...re-not-the-sort-to-take-punishment-lying-down
 
padr81 said:
That was months ago when I was away for personal reasons, just not changed back. I'm still here. you wouldn't be able to tag me if I was gone.
Click to expand...
Glad still here. Place needs various fans/opinions.

Odd as someone mentioned Gentleman Jim and I knew I'd seen you but when I clicked on your name, said gone. Now know why.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
Glad still here. Place needs various fans/opinions.

Odd as someone mentioned Gentleman Jim and I knew I'd seen you but when I clicked on your name, said gone. Now know why.
Click to expand...

Honestly if I didn't have this place to chat football, I'd have to go to Rawk and don't think I'd be as welcome. Call it a hunch.
 
Premier League
remier League
emier League
mier League
ier League
er League
r League
League
League 2
Make it happen.
 
Judge Red said:
The only meaning is that it stopped us from winning it. That’s all anyone cared about. Same with Liverpool last year. It just meant that last year’s league was written off.

But now that City can’t get anywhere near Liverpool anyway despite all their cheating, the footballing world has no more use for them and it’s time to go.
Click to expand...
yes, city are just a prop.
 
The Irish Connection said:
yes, city are just a prop.
Click to expand...

Don't want to sound too rude but I was well up for City stopping Ferguson winning any more titles. I was happy to see City's illegal money coming in (since we were beyond shit and Chelsea had become meaningless). Now that we're in the ascendency I can't help feeling a little hypocritical regarding their plight. But ultimately City was a cheap (expensive?) whore that we both needed to get some instant relief. Don't want her hanging around though.
 
giorno said:
It's absurd to tell owners how they can spend their own money
Click to expand...
Sure, but it’s illegal to say your revenue is 100m when you are back channeling 88m to that same sponsor through a stated backed group. Now everyone thinks you earn 100m when in fact you earn only 12m. Multiply that for many sponsors and it creates an issue surely.
 
Withnail said:
As Keane said the clubs all signed up to the rules and Man City broke them... End of
Click to expand...

Yep. A simple point, seemingly beyond the comprehension of droves of morons in the media.

Nothing else needs to be said. The rights and/or wrongs of FFP are utterly irrelevant.
 
Dumbstar said:
Don't want to sound too rude but I was well up for City stopping Ferguson winning any more titles. I was happy to see City's illegal money coming in (since we were beyond shit and Chelsea had become meaningless). Now that we're in the ascendency I can't help feeling a little hypocritical regarding their plight. But ultimately City was a cheap (expensive?) whore that we both needed to get some instant relief. Don't want her hanging around though.
Click to expand...
Haha. I would be much happier if city kept beating ye to the league, but hey ho.
 
MackRobinson said:
We are talking more so about clubs spending beyond their means. Sugar daddies are just the best examples of such. Ask the Pompey fans how the feel NOW. It's ridiculous to think they preferred nearly losing their club to not being as good of team as they were. And Newcastle fans may hate Mike Ashley for not spending but I guarantee if you ask them whether or not they would want Ashley to spend money at the risk of becoming insolvent they woud be against the idea just like any sensible fan who gives a shit about the club surviving. Truth is most fans don't understand the risks until they are in that situation.


1) There are plenty more examples: Spurs, Sheffield United, Bournemouth, Dortmund, etc, etc.
2) Regardless of their FFP situation, look at the key players Leicester City bought (Kante, Mahrez, Vardy) and what they paid for them. They didn't have to engange in financial doping to do so, nor did they need to spend 1B in the transfer market.


For one, I never disputed the chance nature of the commercialization in football. Secondly, you seem to ignore that randomness and chance are rife in all sports. I don't even understand why you think this is controversial. Sure, a side effect of FFP is that it entrenches the position of big clubs but surely this is less important than making sure callous businessmen don't bring a club to the brink of financial collapse. Also, you are completely guessing about whether a European super league will be formed so that isn't relevant.

The problem is you purposely ignoring the very real side effects of artificially pumping money into football clubs: Once the funding stops, they can become insolvent, riddled by debt, nearly impossible to sell, and potentially wound up. Like I keep saying, any match going fan or fan from the area of that said club would have very different opinions if they knew the risks of pumping money into a club.


Sport isn't designed to undo chance and sustained success. Chance works both ways. Small clubs rise up from obscurity all the time. Outliers disrupt the system constantly. Look at the current PL table ffs. It's easy to ignore recent history and past examples and just blame the established clubs, but that would be disingenuous wouldn't it?

The bolded is completely false. There is a big difference between a shitty board and a club being depending on the wealth of an owner. You can easily replace decision-makers but you cannot easily replace funding, especially during recessions or global financial crises.
Click to expand...
you're not willing to see so let's just leave it at that before it keeps getting circular. I am not for sugar daddies ftr, id probably stop supporting united if the Saudi Sheikhs took us over but i'm trying to tell you - and others - where the support at least in england for these moneybag owners come from. I meet enough of even spurs fans who see the examples of chelsea and city and feel hopeful that at least in this lifetime they can taste success and this is not exactly a club that plays shit football or is a yoyo relegation team, every half a decade they have at least 1 player who is perhaps one of the leagues best players. Their feeling is that FFP takes chance out, puts in lock the current status quo and i found it hard to argue against despite other grandstanding arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.