If they knew the evidence was past it's sell by date of course they did.
Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
This!
As much as I hate having the yanks running the show, at least we know who they are. They didn't go out and murder innocents or abuse other people's rights (as far as we kn0w). So I'm slightly comfortable in that regard, even if its still shit ownership.
Personally, I'd be in favour of one transfer allowed per window per team, no fee restriction. U18's don't apply to the rule so you can sign youngsters and develop them. Focus would be solely on academies from that point on.
Football is just a place full of hate
Everyone hates all journalists, all referees, all pundits, rival teams, rival fans, players, FA, UEFA, etc.Per window would mean two transfers per season or you only have one window per season? And I strongly disagree with the U18 part because wealthy clubs would simply raid smaller clubs, if anything I would be tempted to forbid transfers of U18s.
Laughable.
But at least City and their fans won't be able to downplay next season's CL winner with what-ifs "If Pep City is there.." or "That 5th PL team is lucky" etc.
But at least City and their fans won't be able to downplay next season's CL winner with what-ifs "If Pep City is there.." or "That 5th PL team is lucky" etc.
Then, wouldn't the UEFA become a point of red tape? (which it already seems to be, but much less so than FIFA). It does my head in.
I only wish John Von Neumann was still alive to give his advice/consultations on devising a system that will make the game much more fair.
There are already press rumours surfacing now that City are ready to splurge 150million again (every year it seems) while the recent champions of Europe and England are skint.
To any fair-minded fan of the game, isn't this a bit unfair?
At this rate, nothing can be done only except when all non-State owned clubs says enough is enough and start conversations on a new Consensus - be it at the national (FA) or regional (UEFA) level.
(Like when online games are updated when the hackers and cheat codes become too rampant to disturb the fairness of the game.)
Pep will be off once Newcastle start splashing the cash. The saudis will make city look poor!
I do agree FFP has worked to a degree. I imagine without it City and PSG would have dominated the European stage by doing whatever they want, more so than they have done already.
It is clearly flawed though, with many loopholes that need addressing, and I wouldn’t have any confidence in UEFAs competency in carrying this out.
For example if you say “failure to corporate with UEFA investigation could result in a sanction“, you are leaving it for CAS to decide what is an appropriate sanction. If you say ”failure to cooperate with UEFA investigation will result in removal from the competition for 2 years” then you remove all objectivity.
Apparently it was an increased fine - just that most of it was paid directly to CAS.
City have just proved they are bigger than UEFA.
I wonder whether City fans will continue to boo the CL anthem?
I wonder whether City fans will continue to boo the CL anthem?
So the answer to football's closed-shop problem is to allow smaller clubs to break the rules?
There will always be big clubs in football, like in any sport. But by allowing entire countries to take over football clubs, we're just replacing one form of elitism with another. And the new one is even less fair than the old one.
I've always said I'd prefer a soft cap.
Maybe;
- Where the total cost of a squad [annual wages + (transfer fees divided by years on contract) - (transfer fees divided by years left on contract)] is more than 50% above the average in that league; that club pays an additional £1 for each £1 spent, back to that league.
Let Man City and Chelsea pay whatever they want, and inflate whatever transfer fees they want to, but let it benefit all the clubs in the league.
The problem is, you have to first govern how the wealth is spread in each league. It goes back to that old chestnut.
Maybe;
- Where the total cost of a squad [annual wages + (transfer fees divided by years on contract) - (transfer fees divided by years left on contract)] is more than 50% above the average in that league; that club pays an additional £1 for each £1 spent, back to that league.
Let Man City and Chelsea pay whatever they want, and inflate whatever transfer fees they want to, but let it benefit all the clubs in the league.
The problem is, you have to first govern how the wealth is spread in each league. It goes back to that old chestnut.
There would be an element of that but I feel that you wouldn't get many 16 year olds wanting to move country. It would of course be heavily regulated with salaries etc.
Why not? Are we not their fecking rivals?
They're going for league titles, I doubt they're bothered one bit if we finish 4th or 5th, doesn't impact them either way.
Now the king of fair weather managers can go back to his unlimited transfer spends.
Not really, they have no soul. They’re the “City Football Group”
The thing that always gets me is when non-United fans tell me that we're just bitter because City are our local rivals.
If anything, City's breaches of FFP and sponsorship affects us less than any other club. We're the only club that has the resources to compete with City for transfers without needing equity funding.
Surely if you were a fan of Everton, Villa or Leeds you'd be fuming about this. Those clubs are all bigger than City but now City have zoomed ahead of them and inflated the transfer market for them in the process.
If anything, City's breaches of FFP and sponsorship affects us less than any other club. We're the only club that has the resources to compete with City for transfers without needing equity funding.
Surely if you were a fan of Everton, Villa or Leeds you'd be fuming about this. Those clubs are all bigger than City but now City have zoomed ahead of them and inflated the transfer market for them in the process.
We too will be going for league titles next season so it will bother them that their competitor and rival will finish strong this season. Don’t know how that is a hard concept to grasp?
UEFA are a joke. How can you not follow your own rules ffs
thats what fans of a club like ours would think, but i've seen quite a few fans of teams of around that size and maybe even smaller relating to the city story and not minding being funded by a sugar daddy if it helped put them on the map. i knew a spurs fan on a forum who used to defend this fairly vehemently which was strange as Spurs are a pretty big club even if they don't win a lot and from a good catchment area who have probably lost quite a bit because of the rise of chelsea and city. Majority of those think this is just a tale of idealism fans of the big clubs have sold themselves to make them feel better when they have competition from clubs like chelsea and city because the way we think it should be done is so hard and rare that it's probably unsustainable, if not non-existent.
Good post! A nuanced view, and based on what I’ve read, it seems like the most accurate take as well.
Can't be arsed. We're rich enough to deal with them regardless.
Yeah this. Still properly annoying though.
I fully agree with this post. It's probably time to introduce transfer spending limits for all clubs and set it at a flat rate and also allow for owners to come in and spend money. Would likely allow for more parity while controlling the inflation in the transfer market. Not sure how legal it is to impose limits on all clubs but it's worth a look.
Agree with this although I wouldn't go as far as saying that players will flock to the middle east as prestige does still matter.
I don't want to live in a Society where if you have enough money you can literally get away with Murder said Adam to Eve.
Not really, they can effectively buy the league more or less every season if they wish. Anyone else will be a flash in the pan.
Fun fact: The 10million euro fine was actually the bribe.
Like Chelsea did? Since that fella came, until 2013 we had still won more titles than them. We simply lost our way.
If we're good enough, we'll be up there and at that point its our fault if we don't get it done.
Meh I couldnt care less to be honest.
It really shouldn't matter that it's City, even if this was some random Spanish or French team, it is really bad news for European football. Essentially if a club is rich enough (and this is without even getting into the moral cesspit that is the origins of City's wealth) and is clever in how they operate outside of the law using loopholes, they can do whatever they want.
I would be open to the idea of a transfer cap, it could make it interesting if it's still a relatively large sum per year (something around $150m over the two windows). Big clubs can still have the blockbuster transfers that gets the sport buzzing and generates more interest, but they would still be limited and wouldn't be able to completely shift their squad with ungodly sums of money. It's hard to predict exactly how it would affect the market, as others have suggested youth players would probably have a more important role, but with less movements for top players, it could also have an adverse effect on them, I don't know but I like the idea.
I definitely would never have any salary caps for players, that's just affecting the players to the benefit of the owners of the clubs, who usually always win out anyways. Agent fees absolutely have to be capped at a small percentage of the fee, which is what I thought it always was, but you hear some of Raiola's deals where he's making more than anybody else involved (but maybe it's media bs).
I definitely would never have any salary caps for players, that's just affecting the players to the benefit of the owners of the clubs, who usually always win out anyways. Agent fees absolutely have to be capped at a small percentage of the fee, which is what I thought it always was, but you hear some of Raiola's deals where he's making more than anybody else involved (but maybe it's media bs).
Everyone knows the actual truth so a verdict based on a legal technicality changes nothing in terms of how people view City and their operations. Infact it would have helped City image wise to accept the punishment and move on. Now there will always be that question mark over them and I feel its a worse position to be in to be honest.OJ Simpson. I rest my case.
Chelsea weren’t backed by a state with political motives at the end of the day.
With a quote like that i guess you will be working in the indian call centre right now.