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

[Jaqen H'ghar]

Yes, it really is. As demonstrated by the increasingly bigger tv and sponsorships deals, which are motivated by the increasingly larger audience.

Football fans by and large like the way things are right now

So the TV and sponsorship deals are thanks to the few clubs breaking FFP? You're clutching straws.

How do you know what 'fans, by and large' want?

You're having a mare here.

 

[roonster09]

This is brilliant.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

The ironic thing is City are more like Coca Cola, rather than the small, hard working fizzy drinks business.

In what way?

City are not a giant player in football. Just got a very rich owner.

 

[Zen86]

In what way?

City are not a giant player in football. Just got a very rich owner.

A very very rich owner, with more resource than any other club. If you haven’t noticed, money rules the roost in football.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Not Bollox at all. Far from it.

not for a minute defending the boos, but uefa have sat on their hands a million times, whilst dodgy business has gone on and they have done nothing, especially lenient with Italian clubs, lubed up by FIAT, Berlesconi, the mob etc, to say nothing of their most blatant bribery of referees in European and no doubt domestic competitions as well

100% behind them getting on Ciddys case but they’re pretty selective.

2 wrongs don't make a right. But City have absolutely distorted the English and European football with inflated transfer fees and massive off the scale levels of financial doping. Only PSG are on par. That deserves to be punished.

If they have any specific charges that should be held against other clubs then they should go for it. But nothing is as big, as obvious and as exposed (due to Der Spiegel) as City.

 

[giorno]

Citeh bought around 16 first team players the season they got shieked.
15 the following season.
8 the season after that.

No other club in the world could do that. Not even the elite rich clubs.

Now all they have to do is outbid the elite clubs for any player in the world. Not so fair after all

What does fair mean. Football is not fair, it was never fair and it will likely never be fair for everyone.

Of course it is. They can spend it however they like, but if they want to play in UEFA competitions, they have to play by UEFA rules. Nobody is forcing them.

Yeah, never said otherwise

This is football mate. It’s a competitive sport, we’re not talking companies here.

That's all the more reason why owners should not be prevented from spending their own money on their football clubs

I’m all for a fairer system, however trading a relatively small number of elite clubs, whose power was built on reputation and prestige, with an even smaller number of elite clubs (currently 2), whose power are built on limitless wealth and legal power, is not levelling the playing field. That one club has more resource behind it than the rest of the league combined, and can scare off the sports ruling bodies with threats, that’s all healthy for the sport yeah?

It probably wouldn't be. There is no fair option here. It's dumb to curtail how much money rich people can pump into football. That's money that would go to the players.

Try asking the French football league how the current model is working, because that’s where a couple other leagues could easily be headed.

Italy and Germany are also already there. They're drawing bigger audiences and getting richer than ever all the same

So's the french league

So the TV and sponsorship deals are thanks to the few clubs breaking FFP? You're clutching straws.

How do you know what 'fans, by and large' want?

You're having a mare here.

That's not what i said.

And we know football fans by and large are fine with it because they keep following the sport rabidly and in ever increasing numbers, worldwide. Which is why tv deals and sponsorships keep getting bigger and bigger

 

[JPRouve]

This is football mate. It’s a competitive sport, we’re not talking companies here.

I’m all for a fairer system, however trading a relatively small number of elite clubs, whose power was built on reputation and prestige, with an even smaller number of elite clubs (currently 2), whose power are built on limitless wealth and legal power, is not levelling the playing field. That one club has more resource behind it than the rest of the league combined, and can scare off the sports ruling bodies with threats, that’s all healthy for the sport yeah?

Try asking the French football league how the current model is working, because that’s where a couple other leagues could easily be headed.

The French league is quite happy, the league has a bigger audience with this version of PSG than they did with for example Lyon in the 2000s who had the same type of dominance.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

A very very rich owner, with more resource than any other club. If you haven’t noticed, money rules the roost in football.

It's not an achievement.

 

[Zen86]

The French league is quite happy, the league has a bigger audience with this version of PSG than they did with for example Lyon in the 2000s who had the same type of dominance.

Are the French fans themselves happy? Would you be happy if City similarly crushed the PL year after year, to the point where it’s a foregone conclusion? Would that be a good outcome for the league?

 

[Zen86]

It's not an achievement.

Who said anything about achievement. It’s a fact.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

That's not what i said.

And we know football fans by and large are fine with it because they keep following the sport rabidly and in ever increasing numbers, worldwide. Which is why tv deals and sponsorships keep getting bigger and bigger

Apologies, I misunderstood your first point. I thought you were saying football is doing well due to teams breaking FFP, you are saying the game is doing well despite teams breaking the FFP.

There's an argument to be had about the short-term effect of these sugar daddy clubs on the game, and their right to spend how they please. It would be difficult to argue that long term this is beneficial to the game.

Fans have followed the sport through thick and thin. That they still do doesn't mean this is how they want it. I don't approve of the Glazers, yet I still follow united.

 

[giorno]

@Jaqen H'ghar more about how football is fine despite already being the hands of a small group of elite clubs

Personally i think the least bad solution would be to allow "free" initial investment from new ownerships and then give them like say, 5 years or so to get in line with FFP

 

[Nou_Camp99]

Who said anything about achievement. It’s a fact.

It's a fact they have a very rich owner and that money has feck all to do with City. Its everything that's wrong with the game.

Teams who have been building organically for decades blown out of water by a sheikh. Its not what football should be about.

 

[JPRouve]

Are the French fans themselves happy? Would you be happy if City similarly crushed the PL year after year, to the point where it’s a foregone conclusion? Would that be a good outcome for the league?

French fans are neither happy or unhappy, people just want to see good games with a good standard. Sugar daddying has never been an issue in France, that's how most sports works around here.

There is something very important that you need to keep in mind though, PSG is the only club that isn't pillaged by other leagues and in particular the PL. PSG aren't the ones that use their financial power to weaken french clubs. So there isn't a lot of people that have an issue with PSG. Without PSG, the league wouldn't be better, it would be worse because the best players would still leave and no one would come. If people have an issue, it's with the fact that, Ligue 1 produces good and very good players every year and a richer league takes these players sooner every year.

 

[alexanderplatz]

If clubs like city obeyed the rules and didn’t inflate the whole market then honest clubs wouldn’t be forced to sign up official noodle/dog food/pregnancy test kit partners *not talking about any one honest club in particular*

 

[Sad Chris]

Personally i think the least bad solution would be to allow "free" initial investment from new ownerships and then give them like say, 5 years or so to get in line with FFP

I think that would undermine the non-elite clubs even more. Why bother trying to build anything at all, knowing that your squad could be ripped apart at any time. If you don‘t have an investor with deep pockets, you might as well quit. Or don‘t waste your time trying to grow organically; you‘re better off spending that time looking for an investor.

I would suspect this would go on until every club in the PL was heavily investor funded. Then promotion would turn into a farce.

Also I could imagine a „change“ of ownership after 5 years, to keep the money flowing.

But I‘m happy to discuss details, maybe a new thread?

 

[Rooney in Paris]

The French league is quite happy, the league has a bigger audience with this version of PSG than they did with for example Lyon in the 2000s who had the same type of dominance.

Fans are very unhappy with the situation.

 

[Class of 63]

Are we gonna do the neighbourly thing and have a whip-round to help City pay the fine?

I've got some Monopoly money lying around somewhere .... it all helps!

 

[JPRouve]

Fans are very unhappy with the situation.

They are not though. People may be unhappy with the level of their own team or in general the money in football but they are not particularly bothered by the fact that one team dominates. If people have an issue with PSG, it's more about the cheating than with the dominating.

 

[LordNinio]

They are not though. People may be unhappy with the level of their own team or in general the money in football but they are not particularly bothered by the fact that one team dominates. If people have an issue with PSG, it's more about the cheating than with the dominating.

Surely people only care about the cheating because they are dominating.

If PSG finished mid table every year, no one would care about the cheating.

No fan can be particularly happy in the knowledge they have no chance of winning the league, and the fact no team has any chance of winning the league bar PSG

 

[JPRouve]

Surely people only care about the cheating because they are dominating.

If PSG finished mid table every year, no one would care about the cheating.

No fan can be particularly happy in the knowledge they have no chance of winning the league, and the fact no team has any chance of winning the league bar PSG

The domination part is a foreign obsession and in particular british, not really a french thing. The worst years of french football were when everyone could win it around 2010 and people stopped watching because the football was dreadful.
As for the cheating/domination part, again no, Monaco was the target of the same minority and they haven't dominated. From what I see and hear a large amount of people don't like FFP, because it affects pretty much all of the french clubs, Marseille will have to get rid of a lot of players this summer, Monaco and Lyon have been in trouble too.

What people have an issue with is the inconsistency of Marseille, Monaco and Lyon over the years, the absence of a "top 4" and the fact that talents leave the league at the first opportunity. And also the quality of football in many games.

Edit: I forgot to mention that PSG are not cheating when it comes to the french league(LFP or DNCG rules), it's only a consideration when it comes to continental competitions.

 

[LordNinio]

The domination part is a foreign obsession and in particular british, not really a french thing. The worst years of french football were when everyone could win it around 2010 and people stopped watching because the football was dreadful.
As for the cheating/domination part, again no, Monaco was the target of the same minority and they haven't dominated. From what I see and hear a large amount of people don't like FFP, because it affects pretty much all of the french clubs, Marseille will have to get rid of a lot of players this summer, Monaco and Lyon have been in trouble too.

What people have an issue with is the inconsistency of Marseille, Monaco and Lyon over the years, the absence of a "top 4" and the fact that talents leave the league at the first opportunity. And also the quality of football in many games.

Edit: I forgot to mention that PSG are not cheating when it comes to the french league(LFP or DNCG rules), it's only a consideration when it comes to continental competitions.

That's quite interesting, so generally speaking the French (and perhaps elsewhere) put the enjoyment of the football above all else, winning is secondary?

I guess that is how it should be, the sport should be entertaining win, lose or draw

 

[cyberman]

That's quite interesting, so generally speaking the French (and perhaps elsewhere) put the enjoyment of the football above all else, winning is secondary?

I guess that is how it should be, the sport should be entertaining win, lose or draw

With Lyon dominating and now PSG they have been browbeaten into believing their own sides cant have a realistic chance of league success so who cares if PSG wins, they never won anyway.

 

[JPRouve]

That's quite interesting, so generally speaking the French (and perhaps elsewhere) put the enjoyment of the football above all else, winning is secondary?

I guess that is how it should be, the sport should be entertaining win, lose or draw

Yes. That's also why football and sport has for many years not been considered like a business and people still have a hard time with that viewpoint. Fans of specific clubs do want to win but you aren't going to find a lot of people who follows the logic of winning at all costs, Deschamps won with Marseille and while he is loved as a player, he isn't particularly loved as a manager because they were dreadful to watch. Perrin and Puel weren't liked at Lyon because their teams were "boring".

With Lyon dominating and now PSG they have been browbeaten into believing their own sides cant have a realistic chance of league success so who cares if PSG wins, they never won anyway.
Theyre like a beaten housewife at this stage

That's a ridiculous statement. The point is simply about being good yourself, people don't take a lot of enjoyment watching a bad team win because the rest is worse. PSG aren't unbeatable, they are very beatable if you are good, the issue is that when you sell your best players every year, you have no chance to actually be consistently good.

 

[Djemba-Djemba]

I'd much rather win the league title, or have a chance of winning the league title even if the division is lower quality.

Rather than have one team head and shoulders above the rest of the league guaranteed to win the title every year. But hey at least they have some really great players. Feels very boring to me

 

[LordNinio]

I'd much rather win the league title, or have a chance of winning the league title even if the division is lower quality.

Rather than have one team head and shoulders above the rest of the league guaranteed to win the title every year. But hey at least they have some really great players. Feels very boring to me

I think that's his point though, the British value winning over pretty much all else, whereas the French value the entertainment of a good game of football over all else.

For me it lies somewhere in between. Entertainment is a must, it is the point of the sport (from a spectator point of view at least), but a sport where no one can win except one team is pretty redundant.

 

[JPRouve]

I think that's his point though, the British value winning over pretty much all else, whereas the French value the entertainment of a good game of football over all else.

For me it lies somewhere in between. Entertainment is a must, it is the point of the sport (from a spectator point of view at least), but a sport where no one can win except one team is pretty redundant.

It's kind of my point but it's a bit more nuanced people do care about winning but they would have a hard time with a team like Atletico. The crucial point though is why one team is above the rest and that's the part that seems to be missed by mainly british fans. Just look at a club like Lyon, in the last 5-6 years they have had to sell the likes of Martial, Lacazette, Umtiti, Tolisso, Ndombélé, Mendy and just with these players you challenge PSG but Lyon can't match the type of wages that these players get in the PL, La Liga or at Bayern. French clubs produce players that are good enough to challenge PSG and the reality of the league is that its problem isn't PSG, it'ts the way talents are drained away.

 

[LordNinio]

It's kind of my point but it's a bit more nuanced people do care about winning but they would have a hard time with a team like Atletico. The crucial point though is why one team is above the rest and that's the part that seems to be missed by mainly british fans. Just look at a club like Lyon, in the last 5-6 years they have had to sell the likes of Martial, Lacazette, Umtiti, Tolisso, Ndombélé, Mendy and just with these players you challenge PSG but Lyon can't match the type of wages that these players get in the PL, La Liga or at Bayern. French clubs produce players that are good enough to challenge PSG and the reality of the league is that its problem isn't PSG, it'ts the way talents are drained away.

Yes, I see your point. I don't think it makes sugar daddies a good thing though. Just because they aren't the biggest problem in the league.

But I can certainly see why the French are more concerned with the exodus of players to so called better leagues.

 

[JPRouve]

Yes, I see your point. I don't think it makes sugar daddies a good thing though. Just because they aren't the biggest problem in the league.

But I can certainly see why the French are more concerned with the exodus of players to so called better leagues.

I'm not sure about the sugar daddy part because football is historically built around it, they aren't a problem at all. Why would sugar daddies be a bad thing, do you think that the current marketisation of football and the emphasis commercialzing everything is actually viable everywhere and at all level? The reality is that the first to do it would get all the benefits while the others would be forever behind and in the case of football, the PL and the top 10 european clubs will forever be the ones getting the vast majority of revenues, while the rest tries to survive. Which is one of the issues with FFP, it's designed to benefit the ones that already have.

 

[redshaw]

The British mantra in sport is it's the taking part that counts, that's what I've always known and experienced. Dominating seems completely alien to that and perhaps more American, German? Last thing I'd think of was it being British.

Taking part, good for the game, sportsmanship. It's often held up as a reason we don't we win much.

 

[Offsideagain]

Well folks, let's face it. City have been caught with their trousers around their ankles, again. You don't need a first in economics from Cambridge to figure out that they have been economical with the truth for some years. It's the sheer arrogance that winds up most fair minded football fans. FFP like it or not, is here and should be obeyed. Since the Sheik took over I believe he had personally 'loaned' City £1bn. OK, he can afford it. Does it break FFP? Dunno. Their main sponsor, Etihad have hardly made much profit since 2003 when they were formed. They lost £1.52 BILLION in 2018 but made $103 million in 2015. Hardly figures for a multi-million pound sponsorship.
Then look at the culture at the club. The owner was involved in a deal with Barclays Bank after the crash which netted him £1.50 billion after he sold shares bought on the cheap to sweeten the bail out of Barclays that he was supposed to hold onto. The SFO looked into it but couldn't unscrabble the myriad number of companies involved most of whom were owned by Mnasour or his family. If you or I bought millions of shares for £1 and sold them for £3, we would have tax to pay.
They hired Mancini whilst Sparky was still in post, paid Mancini another salary (allegedly) for 'consultancy' work in Abu Dhabi. Hired Pelligrini whilst Mancini was still there but did tell him they really wanted Guardiola who had worked with their top execs at Barca.
City will get away with it, again, simply because they have more money than UEFA. All the trophies and titles City have would will be tarnished of course but they won't give a toss. Guardiola says he's staying and who wouldn't on £19m a year rumoured salary. UEFA will be neutered and PSG et al will have a field day.

In contrast, Saracens Rugby Union were found guilty of exceeding the salary cap and fined AND relegated. They accepted the punishment. City haven't denied the emails leaked to the press are not genuine so you would think that would be proof enough, but some fancy Lawyer will get them off. They won't lose many sponsors as most are from Abu Dhabi anyway.

 

[MikeKing]

I understand that money needs to be invested into clubs, that isn't the problem. When you have rules you have to follow them. City is simply closer to a criminal organisation than a football club with the way their leaders run things. Trying to use corruption and money to get away from simple rules will send the integrity of football back to the stone age. If this doesn't stick, the sport is dead and it is not an overreaction. If I was an exploitative betting man I would try to get in on it and get my piece cake out of this mess somehow. Corruption takes away the essence of sports.

 

[Dolf]

When will we hear more about this? From the FA or UEFA or City?

 

[Denis' cuff]

2 wrongs don't make a right. But City have absolutely distorted the English and European football with inflated transfer fees and massive off the scale levels of financial doping. Only PSG are on par. That deserves to be punished.

If they have any specific charges that should be held against other clubs then they should go for it. But nothing is as big, as obvious and as exposed (due to Der Spiegel) as City.

quite agree pal but I’m not suggesting two wrongs should make it right. Throw the book at the berties, by all means but it still wrinkles that they allowed Italian clubs, particularly, to similarly dope up their clubs and cream off the world’s best players - and if that wasn’t enough, bribe referees domestically and in Europe to enablewinning titles. I understand it wasn’t quite on the same scale but still, the punishments that were carried out wee the tip of the iceberg. A closer look at the carryings on at Madrid wouldn’t go amiss, either.


wrankles

 

[caid]

I'm not sure about the sugar daddy part because football is historically built around it, they aren't a problem at all. Why would sugar daddies be a bad thing, do you think that the current marketisation of football and the emphasis commercialzing everything is actually viable everywhere and at all level? The reality is that the first to do it would get all the benefits while the others would be forever behind and in the case of football, the PL and the top 10 european clubs will forever be the ones getting the vast majority of revenues, while the rest tries to survive. Which is one of the issues with FFP, it's designed to benefit the ones that already have.

I think each league is going to have a different view on it. German and Spanish teams fans have much more control and ownership over their clubs, so there probably isn't the same fear of being taken over by Saudi's or whoever. France has benefitted somewhat from it as you say. Italian teams seem to routinely be punished by FFP so theres some meaningful cap on how distorted their league becomes from money, and they needed and benefited from investment after the match fixing scandal probably.
City are a problem in their own right because they've completely disregarded and been unaffected by FFP and i dont think its done this league any good. I dont think i agree with FFP in its current incarnation and i don't think its the ideal venue for the Premier League to address its ownership and competitive problems. I still think City should be punished.
And i think at this point they need to be punished harshly due to their approach. They can't be let pick and choose which rules they're going to follow or to be above the games governing body.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

They are not though. People may be unhappy with the level of their own team or in general the money in football but they are not particularly bothered by the fact that one team dominates. If people have an issue with PSG, it's more about the cheating than with the dominating.

They are, though. Of course they are, pretty consistently across the board, too.

 

[SteveJ]

*rolls eyes*

Manchester City claim Uefa ban is 'less about justice and more about politics'

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ustice-and-more-about-politics-ferran-soriano

 

[Zen86]

French fans are neither happy or unhappy, people just want to see good games with a good standard. Sugar daddying has never been an issue in France, that's how most sports works around here.

There is something very important that you need to keep in mind though, PSG is the only club that isn't pillaged by other leagues and in particular the PL. PSG aren't the ones that use their financial power to weaken french clubs. So there isn't a lot of people that have an issue with PSG. Without PSG, the league wouldn't be better, it would be worse because the best players would still leave and no one would come. If people have an issue, it's with the fact that, Ligue 1 produces good and very good players every year and a richer league takes these players sooner every year.

Fair enough if that’s how they feel. Me personally, I couldn’t stand being a supporter of a league that is, somewhat artificially, completely and utterly dominated by one team. I know there are plenty of leagues where this is the norm, but I just feel that these oligarch clubs tip the scales and disparity even more than before.

I guess I just don’t like the growing gaps in football between the top and the rest, and I worry that the PL is headed towards a similar fate as the french league.

 

[MackRobinson]

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.

Willing to see what? I understand that other clubs want a chance to win and feel like they can't compete with the original top 4. However, allow shady financiers (whether a sheik or PLC) to put clubs in precarious positions isn't the answer. This is what FFP prevent regardless of its true motives.

Furthermore, this doesn't create equality or parity. There are a finite amount of individuals who can fund clubs to the extent of City or PSG. If you allow City to spend without restraint and engage in financial doping, who is to say they won't dominate the league for a decade. Then what exactly happens to the "nobody has a chance" argument?

 

[MackRobinson]

So the TV and sponsorship deals are thanks to the few clubs breaking FFP? You're clutching straws.

How do you know what 'fans, by and large' want?

You're having a mare here.

You are missing his point. If rich clubs are truly ruining the game then you should see a drop off in attendance, viewership and TV deals. You don't see that.