Will it? Where is that written?
Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
Well it should be, imo. But as i said to the poster above, the ban will probably be postponed until the outcome of the hearing and then i was reading that City could try and delay it. It really should be sorted out by May as it affects other clubs aside from City, but i wouldn't hold my breath on it
City have't even bothered trying to claim that the correspondences are fake. That document has been going around for a while and is the key piece of evidence as far as I'm aware.
An article Laurie Whitwell wrote in The Athletic with the help of a sports lawyer who has experience in these sorts of things.
Doesn't mean to say this will happen, of course. This is just his opinion, but it's a possibility. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Last edited:
I’m aware of the concept. Just because City have appealed, in February, is no reason to say ‘right, that’s it, 5th doesn’t matter’. CAS will rule long before the CL commences.
Then why ask me...
See my post above. It's of the opinion of someone who knows more about this than you or I. That's not to say he's right and this will happen, but it also wouldn't be a surprise to see this still unresolved by the end of the season. I hope they do sort it by then, i was just going by what was said by him and the article. It could drag on a little longer than expected.
Well, yeah, that is the reason of the ban.
CAS will definitely delay the ban if they think City’s case has any credibility. If they don’t that would be a damning indictment of how they view the strength of City’s appeal. Not to say a delay means they lean towards siding with City at all, just means they accept there’s enough substance there to possibly challenge UEFA’s verdict.
Wondered how long it would take.....
Do City have a strong enough case to make the appeal worthwhile?
They deny breaching FFP regulations, obviously, but any evidence they have supporting their case would have to be irrefutable to change the original verdict. I can't see that being the case myself.
We’ll have to find out. But surely the need for ‘irrefutable’ evidence works both ways; you’re talking as if UEFA’s case automatically assumes that same quality. And the case involves more than simply the disputing the evidence at hand i.e. the Der Spiegel leaks. For instance, as a hypothetical example City may well be guilty of what UEFA say, but that does not mean the investigation was conducted fairly.
Genuine question, does it have to be?
UEFA and CAS aren't courts of law as such. CAS exists to ensure UEFA (and other sporting bodies) follow their own rules.
Do the same procedures as in a law case apply?
Or is it enough for UEFA to say, you broke our rules, it doesn't matter how we know, so this is your punishment. If that is the case then CAS is only checking that A) City did break the rules and B) the punishment is within the prescribed boundaries UEFA set out.
Not sure about that. I’d guess you’re right that generally matters do not require the same burden of proof as in a court of law (although this could well be where the case ends up) but UEFA would still have to be able to defend their evidence and how they reached their judgement. You can’t see the CAS upholding such a strong punishment if they are unsatisfied with UEFA’s case, which is why I contested the claim the onus is necessarily on City alone to provide irrefutable evidence.
Everything’s still quite vague right now so hopefully the appeal makes more details public.
Yes, they'll certainly need to have some level of proof
I thought that City were going after judgement on a procedural level. I was under the impression that they're not even going to deny that they broke the rules.
20 hours and 48 minutes
Nope I think it’s everything, from procedure to denying they broke the rules. The language has been unequivocal in denying they broke the rules. It’s worth remembering UEFA have been criticised a couple of times before by independent courts if I recall correctly about the wording/vagueness of their FFP rules before, so I’d guess City’s defence will try and exploit that aspect.
Just get 4th.
We'll get fecked over if we try to depend on external help as is tradition.
We'll get fecked over if we try to depend on external help as is tradition.
City haven't denied the veracity of the documents. Only that they were illegally gotten.
CAS have already told City the way that the Uefa's leaks of the case as it was going on was "worrisome" when they dismissed City approaching them the first time because Uefa hadn't reached a verdict. City are going to try and get this dismissed on a technicality I think. That's why they are saying UEFA were leaking info and had already called the result before the case began. CAS seems to think there is merit in that, so I think unless UEFA have to have clear proof outside of the hacked/stolen documents or City will be getting off on a technicality.
Basically it seems our defence is going to be "witch hunt with no legal proof to confirm the accusations". Down to CAS to decide whether that stands, if they back UEFA it will go to Switzerland but I'd imagine with us missing the CL and likely suing UEFA for compensation if Swiss courts side with City.
Irrespective of City’s absolutely guilty case....
I think a system that sees a staged percentage FFP ‘Failure’ year on year would help the sport. Just across a 3 year period.
If the fit and proper person test was a robust test rather than a cursory smile and wave, obviously.
If a Billionaire wants to buy Newcastle and invest £250m a year for three years... great.
The current rules are shite. So shite that it’s better to break them and pay the cost, rather than work within them.
I think a system that sees a staged percentage FFP ‘Failure’ year on year would help the sport. Just across a 3 year period.
If the fit and proper person test was a robust test rather than a cursory smile and wave, obviously.
If a Billionaire wants to buy Newcastle and invest £250m a year for three years... great.
The current rules are shite. So shite that it’s better to break them and pay the cost, rather than work within them.
Honestly the best and fairest solution to me is wage cap and transfer cap. Set it somewhat reasonable like 200k per week and 150m budget per season. That way owners like Cities, PSG's etc.. can come in and join the big clubs but not financially bully them. The big clubs can still attract the best players without the sugar daddy clubs dwarfing them and outside investment can see a Newcastle, Villa or Everton rise to compete.
You can’t honestly advocate capping a players salary? All that does is benefit the owners. Fcuk the insanely wealthy. Be that personal fortunes or Corporations.
I think a staged purchase policy would work. No FFP for Year one. Year 2 is loosely tied to revenue. Year 3 less so. All the way through for each year across a decade. A sliding scale.
I think I do. And in fairness I've set it pretty high, the problem with a salary cap though is obviously different tax bands and rates in different countries. Staged FFP is quite interesting too though but would likely be hard to implement.
Staged FFP would take about 30 minutes to draw up. There’s no difficulty.
Fair go if you support a Salary Cap. It sure as shit would need to be closer to £500k a week than £150k though.
Messi is quite comfortably worth 5 times the average player. Every team on the planet would take him for double the salary of their best player. Immediately. You can’t limit his earnings, or punish a whole squad, because of his brilliance.
If CAS upholds the punishment, will City fans claim that CAS is as bent as UEFA?
Thats a good point too. Its hard to justify Messi being on the same money as say Sterling or Pogba etc.. Now I think about it, I probably lean more towards staged ffp too.
Not correct.
An appeal to CAS doesn’t automatically delay the ban for that to happen a separate application has to be made and agreed byCAS. In reality any such application is almost certain to be agreed.
If they win it and the ban is upheld surely its proof they shouldn't even be in it this year? I'd be livid to be a team knocked out by a side getting where they are by cheating.
The punishment is related to 2013-16 I think, so its for those seasons. I have no clue why its those seasons in particular just that it is. Basically its that we lied to Uefa back then which obviously played a big part in us assembling the team we have now. But we're not being investigated post 2016 or at least haven't been found in breach of anything since (yet?).
Not according to a Lawyer who has experience in this. He expects CAS to postpone the ban until the outcome of the hearing.
Can City file a lawsuit against UEFA in Swiss court?
Isn't it common knowledge that you guys paid Mancini twice? I'm sure your club will try and break the rules regardless of what rules are in place.
Yup I believe if City lose with CAS they can go to the swiss federal court and finally European Court of Humans Rights (ironic given the man who owns our club).
Mancini was paid two different wages for two different jobs.
He was the best advisor Al Jazira ever had and well worth that £1.75m per year.
If they were to win the CL this season & then had the UEFA sanctions upheld by CAS surely they would have the CL Title stripped. They are being investigated over an earlier time frame. It is these earlier infringements though that have enabled them to get to the point they are now at.
But they cheated and are getting banned. The only reason they're in it this year is the cheating wasn't detected sooner. Its absurd that a team being banned for cheating can potentially win the competition they're being banned from cheating to compete in.
It would have to be. I'd be livid to lose a final to them then see them banned for cheating.
It's stupid but its Uefa doing Uefa things...