If it's upheld, or even reduced to a year, but City win the Champions League, what would that mean for next year's European Supercup?
I know, asking the serious questions as always.
I know, asking the serious questions as always.
Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
Wolves could easily beat us to 5th but I'd rather we now what we need
Sorry, not sure I’ve understood your point, I think you’re saying UEFA’s case would be that they can reinvestigate the earlier settlement periods because new information has come to light/City withheld information. Correct me if I’m wrong. Yeah, that will almost certainly be part of their argument. And one you’d expect CAS to be sympathetic to. It will depend on the settlement, it will almost certainly have a clause about that. Then it will be about how CAS interpret the arguments on both sides.
Last edited:
Anyone want to guess at a timeline for how things will play out?
Do they get another season added if they lose the appeal 
Isn't it the case that City are guilty? I thought that was already established...
Just ban the feckers from everything.
my gut say Man City will win verdict
Great post.
If it gets upheld or even reduced.. I think we will stop trying as hard and settle for 5th
I don’t think so, there is money and prestige on the line too. Solskjær won’t want people saying he got in on a technicality. There was superb football on show against Brighton. The third goal was amazing.
I think United will want to win all their remaining games no matter what, and put out a statement of intent
Given we're 5th on goal difference, amongst other reasons, this seems unlikely.
Stop trying and hard and settle on 5th? We’re only in 5th on goal difference!
I like to think I don’t hate anyone, but...
The finalist take their place i guess unless technically speaking the SuperCup doesn't count as a full-on competition.
There's no doubt City have been cheating and tried to cover it up, the only question is if they are able to weasel out of it on a technicality. That would mean FFP is officially dead and all clubs can do whatever they want financially. I hope that doesn't happen.
Big problem for their players should they get the european ban for 2 years and some of them want to leave the club because there aren't many options out there (They surely don't want to strenghen other english clubs, Barca have no money, Real Madrid have 35+ players, they probably don't want to sell another player to Bayern Munich, they hate like PSG and the italian market will be difficult too).
Don't know, maybe the CL runners up play the Europa Winners. They should just automatically award it to us if we win the Europa though
I am 99% certain that City will be playing in the CL next season (as long as there is a competition). Either they win the appeal outright, or the sentence will be suspended.
By whom? Uefa have made a judgement, in Uefa's eyes we are guilt, in CAS eyes who knows.
So guilty if proven innocent then... makes sense.
That makes sense for your owners don't you think ? They don't seems to care about rights in their own country unless if it's in their favour.
As I said in the post, getting off on a technicality isn’t proof of innocence. It’s just proof of being able to play the system. We can all see clear as day that they’re guilty as sin. They’ll get off based on the “validity or jurisdiction” of the investigation. Not the facts of it.
Your pithy response doesn’t actually counter anything I wrote. Probably because there’s nothing you can say that does.
Doesn't City's entire defense hinge on how the evidence was obtained rather than the evidence not being correct? They basically admitted they've cheated with that tactic, but they hope to be let off on a technicality or more likely and ironically, by buying their way out of trouble. Out of interest, do you think they broke the rules? If United were in the exact same circumstance would you not think they should be banned in the same manner? It seems not to be a case of finding out if they're guilty, more if anyone has the balls to actually do something about it.
End of the day they've been winning for no other reason than they broke the rules to buy a lot of players, they've cheated other more honest teams out of trophies (Liverpool would only have had to wait for 29 years!) and prize money time and time again, their illegally obtained team could have made a difference to relegation battles costing honest clubs countless millions. For me a 2 season CL ban seems light, I'd be looking to take any trophies away that were won since the first instance of financial cheating backed up by evidence, I don't see why they would be allowed to enter any competition until they've balanced their books to meet FFP.
I'm also sure that Man City aren't the only team guilty of this, but unfortunately for them they're the ones who've managed to leak evidence and someone needs to be made an example of to try and deter it. I hope all other clubs get the same punishment or worse if they're found guilty, even if that were to be United.
A good precedent if you ask me, hence why (as a United fan) I actually want to see City win their appeal. I mean sure it would mean having to see City & PSG monopolise the Champions League (1) in the short term; but it at least it would force the likes of the Glazers to actually invest in the football clubs they own (including ourselves) to avoid falling further behind (and losing their best players to) City & PSG, that or end up being forced to sell up.
In other words; while it would mean having to swallow short-term pain, long term City killing off FFP would end up benefitting Manchester United to a great degree.
(1) Although it is really any different to watching Real Madrid & Barcelona monopolise the Champions League? Especially when Read Madrid is only in their current position thanks to Decades of Spanish Government Support.
Should any club really care what other fans (especially rival fans) think about them? I mean sure it's nice to have cross-club fan alliances and whatnot, but at the end of the day the only fan-related options a club should care about are their own fans...
Well considering that UEFA have a de facto monopoly on European Club Football, I don't think it would be too hard for Manchester City to claim that FFP is both an Anti-Competitive Measure & an abuse of said monoply. Unless I am mistaken of course.
Would people really have an issue with this if it was their own club that was doing such practises? Somehow if it was Manchester United that ended up being bought by the Al-Nahyan's and spent hundreds of millions on transfers (and violating FFP at the same time) every single window, it would be very likely that the virtually all of this forum (and the wider United fanbase) would be firmly supportive of such practises so long as it brought about success to the club.
In other words; what people are really angry about is not that City have indeed commited underhand practises, but rather that their clubs are not doing the same thing.
Likewise so until we enter an era (within UEFA's area of governance) where club ownership is restricted to fans alone, broadcasting of matches is required to be free-to-air, sponsorship is banned and ticket prices are capped. I don't see why its morally wrong in itself (the motives behind it are a different story) to have a club invest whatever it took to reach the very top.
The only real "postive" effect of FFP that I can see is that it has allowed Real Madrid & Barcelona to monopolise both LaLiga and the Champions League, while also allowing Juventus to monpolise Serie A and Bayern Munich to monopolise the Bundesliga. Otherwise nothing has really changed (1) when it comes to the financial state of most football clubs, as shown the current siutation we are in.
(1) Other than the fact high (and growing) Premier League & Champions League Broadcasting Revenues are helping to keep certain clubs afloat.
When one looks at the recent history of European Club Football, Manchester City are far from alone in "screwing" the European Club Game:
That's only one part of a post that largely explains my hatred of FFP.
That would mean UEFA would have to create an Invitation Only European Super League. Thus would UEFA really be that willing to trigger a Civil War within European Club Football just to stop Manchester City winning the Champions League?
Well that’s a big bag of nonsense. People are upset because City have subverted the rules to achieve their goals. They have lied about sponsorship deals and they have paid players hidden wages and bonuses from secret off shore accounts. This isn’t a rant about their transfer spending. And at no point in my post did I allude to this being something I wish we had done and gotten away with. That’s some bizarre interpretation you have added yourself. We, along with most other clubs, are obeying the rules. City have been cheating them. Everyone should play by the same restrictions.
More nonsense. Your assertion is mainly based on your emotive interpretation of it. The fact is that since the imposition of FFP European clubs have become significantly more sustainable. Most easily illustrated by the 1.7bn euro loss collectively suffered in 2011, turned into a collective 700mm combined profit by 2019. A huge reduction in clubs going into administration. This isn’t just about a few elite clubs. This is about the entire pyramid. And smaller clubs were almost always run beyond their means. FFP has forced changes to that. With great effect. Football was never run sustainably, and like many industries, requires regulation to enforce sustainability. No framework is perfect, and of course there are loopholes and unintended consequences, but this has had a tremendousLa positive impact on the financial health of European clubs. Big and small.
And to address your other spurious point, no one said City are the only club having a deleterious impact on the financial sustainability of football. But just because they are not alone, doesn’t excuse them from what they have done. This conversation is about them, and what they have done. The hope is that other clubs, who have most likely committed FFP violations, such as PSG, are also brought to task.
Last edited:
My sentiments exactly.
So much flawed logic in the post it's hard to know where to start.
Firstly, it would not force the "Glazers to invest". City have been cooking the books for 12 years now. The Glazer's will not invest and United will continue to spend as much as they can afford from generated profit. As is fair.
Your argument that other fans are only angry because their clubs are not also cheating or have sugar daddy owners is grossly inaccurate. It's the equivalent of cheating while playing Monopoly but your defence to other players is "you only wish you had thought of it".
The rest of your post is equally incorrect but I'm done. But maybe if you change your name to "Blue Keane" I'll respond. Because that is the level of cognitive bias in your post.
Does anyone honestly see any other outcome than City being allowed back in the Champions League but ordered to pay a huge fine for breaching the rules? City are no angels but UEFA might be even worse.
I see that, but the amount of publicity might push them to really stick to their original punishment. Supposedly they sent their absolute best lawyers, which is a first.
there's a lot in there to say no to (and some have). I'll stick with no to the bold bit.
Glad you have the Red Keane label. Else I'd have sworn you were a city fan
I wouldn’t be swayed by labels
FFP vs no FFP is akin to socialism vs capitalism debate.
FFP rules have been relaxed for at least 12-months because of the ongoing pandemic. If FFP were so great, why was it relaxed anyway? Doesn’t this widen the rich-poor divide now? Powerful clubs like Chelsea and Bayern and City and Madrid and United can outmuscle the smaller clubs and won’t even have to balance their books. If PSG buy five players for £200 million now, and win the Champions League without worrying about FFP, isn’t that a mockery of the FFP-nonsense they’ve been trying to so vehemently defend all these years?
The pandemic may come to City’s rescue. It is difficult to justify such a harsh ban (two years) for breaching a rule, that currently doesn’t even exist! If they get away with only a heavy fine, they’ll have Covid-19 to thank.
FFP rules have been relaxed for at least 12-months because of the ongoing pandemic. If FFP were so great, why was it relaxed anyway? Doesn’t this widen the rich-poor divide now? Powerful clubs like Chelsea and Bayern and City and Madrid and United can outmuscle the smaller clubs and won’t even have to balance their books. If PSG buy five players for £200 million now, and win the Champions League without worrying about FFP, isn’t that a mockery of the FFP-nonsense they’ve been trying to so vehemently defend all these years?
The pandemic may come to City’s rescue. It is difficult to justify such a harsh ban (two years) for breaching a rule, that currently doesn’t even exist! If they get away with only a heavy fine, they’ll have Covid-19 to thank.
I would very much agree that Manchester City used underhand means (which did indeed violate FFP) to achieve the success they achieved. My point however was not if Manchester City where using understand means or not, my point was that the underlying reason (whether they want to admit it or not) why people hate City for using such tatics was because it was "that" club that where using those tatics and not "their" club. Which by the way is also related to the feeling of being denied success via underhand means.
Likewise I don't mean to be harsh on yourself, but its telling that you didn't address the point where I said about how supportive the fanbase would be if Manchester United where using said understand tatics themselves (to achieve success).
No doubt that nearly all the elite clubs are following FFP (especially when it was designed to benefit their owners), the bigger question that should be asked however is if Manchester United should be following said rules. Looking at our recent history, its pretty clear that following FFP has not been to this clubs interest.
Now I am not saying that Manchester United should be violating FFP themselves (The Glazers would never do it anyway), rather what I am saying is that FFP goes against the best interests of Manchester United.
Except that in reality (as I have addressed in a previous post about my dislike of FFP), there are differing financial limitations depending on if you are a "Elite Club" or not. As shown by the fact the only clubs that have risen to the permanent status of "Elite Club" since the 1990s are Manchester City, Chelsea & PSG. All of wholm practised the "wrong way" (large scale investment) of rising up the ranks rather than the "right way" (youth development alone).
Thus to create a true level playing field, UEFA and the various European FA's would need to adopt the measures I have suggested. The trouble though, there is no hope in hell that any of them will agree.
I might use emotive language to express my points, but any claims that I make are at least based on fact. As shown by the stats & records themselves
Are we talking about at the highest level or at a wider level? Likewise I would like to point out that I am actually in favour of measures that reduce the number of clubs going to financial troubles, just not ones that discourage club owners to invest into their own clubs.
To be fair, increased revenues from Broadcasting & Sponsorship have played their part in enabling this.
If you are going to bring the smaller clubs into mix; I would like to point out that the vast majoirty of them (in the Football League at least) still do have issues establishing any financial sustainability (even if it is not as bad as it was during the days of ITV Digital), not helped by the fact there are a lack of regulations on who is allowed to own a football club as well as a lack of restrictions on the amount of debt a club can hold (its quite telling that FFP says nothing about overall debt levels at a football club, despite the fact it is the biggest problem). Something that needs to change on both regards and which has been painfully shown by the examples of Bury, Bolton & more recently Wigan.
In contrast, those in the Premier League & Championship (to a lesser extent) have less of a problem establishing financial sustainability thanks to the high levels of both Broadcasting & Sponsorship Revenue.
You openly implied Manchester City where solely responsible for underminding the financial sustainability of football by implying it began "since the Sheik rolled up". Now while you have mentioned other clubs that have also driven up the cost of transfer fees & wages (I apologise for assuming you where only blaiming City); what one needs to understand is that this has been going on long before City & PSG where bought up by Gulf Royal Families. In fact this has been going on a collective basis (which includes this club) in its current form since Berlusconi bought AC Milan, spent big & pushed for more lucrative competitions like Champions League.
So if we are going to have a serious debate on the financial sustainability of football, the scope needs to be much wider than PSG & City.
The thing is; if we are talking about a world where FFP is dead and thus PSG, Manchester City, Newcastle & maybe Chelsea all end up hoovering up all the star talent (rather than some) between them. The Glazers will have 2 choices:
- Increase the amount of money Manchester United spends on Transfers & Youth Development to properly compete with this new "Big 4"
- Do nothing and watch Sponsorship Revenue, Broadcast Revenue and eventually Matchday Revenue all start to decline as said revenue ends up going more towards that new "Big 4".
The thing is though, most people would actually cheat if they could either get away with or where allowed to. Even if it is indeed wrong.
I would be interested to hear why you hold that view in the first place.
A Manchester City Fan calling themselves "Blue Keane" is about as logical as a Rangers Fan naming themselves "Blue Stein".
The only reason why I am taking Manchester City's side over FFP is because said regulation goes against the best interests of Manchester United. Regardless I would rather wish the club I actually support took such action against FFP rather than one of our biggest rivals instead.
The reason why I have Keane as pat of my usename is simply; not only do I admire his leadership skills (something that is lacking in todays game), but also his near unlimited desire to achieve success for Manchester United. A desire that I very much share.
To be fair to UEFA, they had little choice but to do this (thanks to the pandemic) unless it wanted to ban virually every single professional club from the Champions League & Europa League. This crisis however does expose how FFP has not entirely suceeded in making sure that clubs are able to remain financially sustainble come rain or shine, which does beg the question over why it should continue.
We will likely see a widening gap between the Elite Clubs & everyone else, especially when transfer fees are likely to significantly fall over the next few seasons (which would benefit the former). Sadly for Manchester United however, I don't see the Glazers actually exploiting this because they will just use it as an excuse to spend nothing at all
When you look at it; Manchester City & PSG are really in a pefect position, with their finances unaffected by this crisis, FFP being suspended & transfer fees falling to rather lower levels than previously.
Don't think so. Two years for the original ban smacks of going hard as they expect it to be reduced to one year.
Getting off totally will send a ridiculous message out.
A reduced ban sounds unlikely since I’ve read into the case more. City didn’t cooperate. It’s like going all-in at poker. They must be banking on completely being able to deal with the legitimacy of the entire investigation at CAS. The only way it sounds like the ban could be reduced is if CAS interpret some breaches as out of bounds/incorrect but say others stand - but City’s lack of co-operation to me will be viewed incredibly dimly and so even then they may stand by the original decision.
Publicity will have nothing to do with it, it’s in the hands of CAS now. And you really think UEFA have been sending kids or something to represent them at all previous CAS cases? I read that claim in the media too, it’s rubbish.