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

Zaphod2319 said:
Ummm didn’t Man Utd own the league for quite a while because they were a wealthier team than the rest of the league and bought top talent?
Click to expand...
There's definitely truth to this, but it's also only really fans that started watching the prem post Chelsea that say it. United were one of the wealtheir clubs for sure, and there were several instances where an individual player signing was a record, but overall United spent less than Liverpool in the 90's.

And if you at wages, the top 5-6 teams used to be much closer than they are today.

When Chelsea got purchased by Abramovich, they changed the game. For 5 season they out-spent the whole league, and eventually won it. But even that isn't a scratch on the amount more that City have spent than everyone else in the past decade and a bit.

If you ignore the absolute failings of our club, City have spent twice as much as another team in the league over the past 10 years. Twice. (https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1)

Ie, they spent as much as Chelsea have, then they could have gone and also spent as much as Liverpool, oh and then also as much as Tottenham. Actually, they have just enough left over to roughly buy all those in at Burnley and Leeds too.

That's the magnitude here.

And that's before the money pumped into the best facilities, the best doctors, the best lawyers, several totally-unrelated-conincidentally-trading-players-around clubs and so forth.

And you know what? Sheikh Mansour will have made more than all that combined in a good week of the markets. It is nothing to him. He could genuinely not even notice if City went and spent another 500m in the summer, in the greater scheme of his holdings.

And if you're fine with that, cool, but I don't see a future where that isn't the only business model to get to the very top. And it's not a business model.
 
NicolaSacco said:
Oh it was absolutely written with the aim of keeping the big clubs big. I seem to remember Utd arguing for a change that stopped new debt being accrued to match you in the market, but didn’t account for your pre-existing debt. This was purely so your heavily indebted club could escape sanction but any new club couldn’t get in the exact same level of debt to compete with you. It’s naive to think that the big clubs didn’t think about the best set of rules to maintain their advantage. I would in your situation.

I’ll go back to what I think the crux of this point is. It’s not about fairness/legality although you do use those arguments and both may be valid. It’s about clubs being able to outspend you, which you are lucky enough as a Utd fan to have had precious little experience of. It sucks for you like it sucked for all those clubs you’ve outspent in the past.
Click to expand...
I think there's some revisionism there. Man City, PSG, were bought by sovereign wealth funds who were pumping money into these clubs to get them to compete. They then circumvented initial rulings by artificially increasing the brand value of these clubs using heavily inflated commercial deals between the 'club' and a separate entity also owned by the global beneficiary. However you want to look at it, competition loses integrity and elements of fairness here.

Could you link me a source to the bolded? To be honest, I'm also against leveraged buy-outs of clubs as well, and hate that the Glazers have loaded their debt onto us. I'd have no qualms with us losing our position based on a club that is organically grown, or even a club that is 'helped' to organically grow within reason. What we're seeing with the likes of Man City, PSG, Chelsea does overall devalue the competition. For everyone. Not just the big clubs.

Like I said in my earlier post, we can debate whether FFP is the right framework. I don't think it is quite there, but it's a start. There needs to be a framework in place that all clubs operate in to retain integrity, and fairness in the league. It's what has made football the global sport, and the most loved sport for the last 100 odd years. If things are left to continue unchecked, we'll see the erosion of the game we love.
 
When you see supporters of smaller clubs, missing the bigger picture due to their bitterness towards Manchester United.

Ipswich had success in the 80s.....I know the financial model has changed since then but football has always had periods of domination from clubs, and United would’ve been poor since SAF regardless.

To my mind the only way for any smaller club now to have a hope of any form of success (an fa cup or league cup, never mind a league or European trophy) is to pray to be taken over by the next Arab nation.

Personally regardless of the fact I support a big club, I’d rather football success be decided on merit, good management, recruitment etc. I’d rather hope for a great manager than a lottery win. I’d rather take 26 years without the title and hope for another class of 92 than hope for an Arab dictator.

It makes me laugh when small time fans think Manchester United fans are all glory hunters. Most of us are grateful for what we have seen and would happily return to the 80s early 90s when everyone had a chance...including Ipswich.

You can sit a wish for an Arab to take over you, keep praying for that....I know which model was more likely to allow others to compete.

All city have done is increase the amount of money clubs have to spend to compete into a completely different stratosphere. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Manchester United only topped the spending charts a handful of seasons in the 90’s and 00s and were not the highest spenders over that period.

We had squads with Giggs, Neville, Beckham, Butt, Scholes, O’Shea, Brown, Evans, Welbeck, Cleverly etc etc that enabled us to spend on one big player every other season.

It’s a shame that such bitterness stops them from seeing that all this is doing is ensuring they have no chance of seeing their own team win a proper trophy unless they get taken Over by a state.

That’s the dream eh.
 
Beachryan said:
There's definitely truth to this, but it's also only really fans that started watching the prem post Chelsea that say it. United were one of the wealtheir clubs for sure, and there were several instances where an individual player signing was a record, but overall United spent less than Liverpool in the 90's.

And if you at wages, the top 5-6 teams used to be much closer than they are today.

When Chelsea got purchased by Abramovich, they changed the game. For 5 season they out-spent the whole league, and eventually won it. But even that isn't a scratch on the amount more that City have spent than everyone else in the past decade and a bit.

If you ignore the absolute failings of our club, City have spent twice as much as another team in the league over the past 10 years. Twice. (https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1)

Ie, they spent as much as Chelsea have, then they could have gone and also spent as much as Liverpool, oh and then also as much as Tottenham. Actually, they have just enough left over to roughly buy all those in at Burnley and Leeds too.

That's the magnitude here.

And that's before the money pumped into the best facilities, the best doctors, the best lawyers, several totally-unrelated-conincidentally-trading-players-around clubs and so forth.

And you know what? Sheikh Mansour will have made more than all that combined in a good week of the markets. It is nothing to him. He could genuinely not even notice if City went and spent another 500m in the summer, in the greater scheme of his holdings.

And if you're fine with that, cool, but I don't see a future where that isn't the only business model to get to the very top. And it's not a business model.
Click to expand...
Great post

Chelsea, and then City have basically destroyed football. An institution built on a heritage of over 100 years decimated because of corrupt murderers using sports washing to project an image to the world. Shame on the fans, enabling and celebrating this
 
Maluco said:
You can sense the general mood on forums, amongst friends etc... it’s a non-event.

The Aguero moment is only remembered because it was so dramatic and denied United. That’s a long time ago now, and sort of proves my point.

It’s probably the last time anyone cared about anything they did bar their own fans.
Click to expand...
This is clearly not true since any discussion about them online (forums, etc) is always very polarizing and generates a lot of comments.

As for that moment, it's one of the most memorable moments of the PL if we're being honest.
 
Crustanoid said:
Great post

Chelsea, and then City have basically destroyed football. An institution built on a heritage of over 100 years decimated because of corrupt murderers using sports washing to project an image to the world. Shame on the fans, enabling and celebrating this
Click to expand...

Roman needs to do some more destroying and get Haaland!!
 
Crustanoid said:
Great post

Chelsea, and then City have basically destroyed football. An institution built on a heritage of over 100 years decimated because of corrupt murderers using sports washing to project an image to the world. Shame on the fans, enabling and celebrating this
Click to expand...


Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abramovic are murderers?
 
Beachryan said:
There's definitely truth to this, but it's also only really fans that started watching the prem post Chelsea that say it. United were one of the wealtheir clubs for sure, and there were several instances where an individual player signing was a record, but overall United spent less than Liverpool in the 90's.

And if you at wages, the top 5-6 teams used to be much closer than they are today.

When Chelsea got purchased by Abramovich, they changed the game. For 5 season they out-spent the whole league, and eventually won it. But even that isn't a scratch on the amount more that City have spent than everyone else in the past decade and a bit.

If you ignore the absolute failings of our club, City have spent twice as much as another team in the league over the past 10 years. Twice. (https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1)

Ie, they spent as much as Chelsea have, then they could have gone and also spent as much as Liverpool, oh and then also as much as Tottenham. Actually, they have just enough left over to roughly buy all those in at Burnley and Leeds too.

That's the magnitude here.

And that's before the money pumped into the best facilities, the best doctors, the best lawyers, several totally-unrelated-conincidentally-trading-players-around clubs and so forth.

And you know what? Sheikh Mansour will have made more than all that combined in a good week of the markets. It is nothing to him. He could genuinely not even notice if City went and spent another 500m in the summer, in the greater scheme of his holdings.

And if you're fine with that, cool, but I don't see a future where that isn't the only business model to get to the very top. And it's not a business model.
Click to expand...
Top post.

The bit I've bolded as well gets forgotten or lost in the conversation as well.
 
footballistic orgasm said:
This is clearly not true since any discussion about them online (forums, etc) is always very polarizing and generates a lot of comments.

As for that moment, it's one of the most memorable moments of the PL if we're being honest.
Click to expand...

Just because their presence ruins the league, not because of any sporting achievements. It’s empty and you can feel it. You just need to compare it to the passion from both sides for Liverpool’s win. No one cares.

If they do do the quadruple, it won’t be a patch on Fergie’s treble. That squad had a lot more character and personality. There was nothing artificial about that team.
 
Of it weren't for "outside investment" Fergie would have likely won every title from his first in 93 up until his retirement!
 
Dancfc said:
Of it weren't for "outside investment" Fergie would have likely won every title from his first in 93 up until his retirement!
Click to expand...
Wenger did it properly too. Ranieri too.
 
Maluco said:
Just because their presence ruins the league, not because of any sporting achievements. It’s empty and you can feel it. You just need to compare it to the passion from both sides for Liverpool’s win. No one cares.

If they do do the quadruple, it won’t be a patch on Fergie’s treble. That squad had a lot more character and personality. There was nothing artificial about that team.
Click to expand...
The treble team did it properly

Not through financial doping, PEDs, or sports washing murderous regimes
 
NicolaSacco said:
That other clubs helped write in an effort to ensure that no one could ever challenge their place at the top table. I’ve no idea when or if City broke the rules, but let’s be honest about what these rules were. They were not created with fairness in mind, but specifically the opposite, they were created to maintain a constant unfair financial advantage for the top teams. In my view that’s the greater wrong, and I’m glad the concept died a slow death, although I’m sure you’ll see it differently.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Yeah and despite those rules which City just ignored anyway. City now have a constant unfair financial advantage due to being directly funded by the government of an oil rich state.

How would you suggest that is rectified to allow all the other clubs to compete with them financially?
 
Crustanoid said:
The treble team did it properly

Not through financial doping, PEDs, or sports washing murderous regimes
Click to expand...
sports washing murderous regimes didn't kill or enslave black people unlike other european countries . hey., western guys stay away from our countries . we don't need your rediculous human rights .
 
Maluco said:
Just because their presence ruins the league, not because of any sporting achievements. It’s empty and you can feel it. You just need to compare it to the passion from both sides for Liverpool’s win. No one cares.

If they do do the quadruple, it won’t be a patch on Fergie’s treble. That squad had a lot more character and personality. There was nothing artificial about that team.
Click to expand...
These are just an opinion though and nothing more, repeating it constantly won't make it a fact.
 
vuadabanh000 said:
sports washing murderous regimes didn't kill or enslave black people unlike other european countries . hey., western guys stay away from our countries . we don't need your rediculous human rights .
Click to expand...

Hm. I'm torn on this.

On the one hand your post is shite.

But on the other hand I do feel we need more supporters of "fc moutain" on here.
 
stevoc said:
:lol:

Yeah and despite those rules which City just ignored anyway. City now have a constant unfair financial advantage due to being directly funded by the government of an oil rich state.

How would you suggest that is rectified to allow all the other clubs to compete with them financially?
Click to expand...

Liverpool are the current league Champions, Munich (I think) are the Champions League holders. They are no more dominant than Utd have been at selected points of the 90s and 00s. So there are teams that can compete with them on the pitch, and their ‘financial advantage’ off the pitch is no greater than Utd’s was over their rivals at other points too.
 
NicolaSacco said:
Liverpool are the current league Champions, Munich (I think) are the Champions League holders. They are no more dominant than Utd have been at selected points of the 90s and 00s. So there are teams that can compete with them on the pitch, and their ‘financial advantage’ off the pitch is no greater than Utd’s was over their rivals at other points too.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that? Maybe circa 2001-2003 but thats about it.

United were rarely ever the biggest spenders in the PL. United spent big on certain players but most seasons other teams spent more in transfer windows. United spent less than Liverpool in the 90's and obviously after 2003 Chelsea and then City spent more than United in the 2000's.

And thats just fees there was also only a small window following the removal of United's strict wage structure in 2001 and Pre-Roman at Chelsea 2003 and Abu-dhabi at City where United could offer more wages than all other clubs. Before Keane's new 50k contract in 2001 United didn't have a player on more than 25k per week. Yet most clubs had players on way more than that, even Ravanelli was on about 40-50k a week at Middlesbrough in the late 90's.

Here's City spending vs Liverpool, over 3 times the amount spent:

https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...pools-total-net-spend-over-the-last-10-years/

Compared to United's, roughly 50% higher over the last 12 years.

https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...citys-total-net-spend-over-the-last-12-years/

So clearly City have a vast financial advantage over all clubs including even the supposed richest English club United. Only Chelsea have ever came close to having the same level of spending power.

So any ideas how other teams are supposed to compete with them? Just wait to be bought out by some oil rich state i suppose?
 
stevoc said:
Do you really believe that? Maybe circa 2001-2003 but thats about it.

United were rarely ever the biggest spenders in the PL. United spent big on certain players but most seasons other teams spent more in transfer windows. United spent less than Liverpool in the 90's and obviously after 2003 Chelsea and then City spent more than United in the 2000's.

And thats just fees there was also only a small window following the removal of United's strict wage structure in 2001 and Pre-Roman at Chelsea 2003 and Abu-dhabi at City where United could offer more wages than all other clubs. Before Keane's new 50k contract in 2001 United didn't have a player on more than 25k per week. Yet most clubs had players on way more than that, even Ravanelli was on about 40-50k a week at Middlesbrough in the late 90's.

Here's City spending vs Liverpool, over 3 times the amount spent:

https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...pools-total-net-spend-over-the-last-10-years/

Compared to United's, roughly 50% higher over the last 12 years.

https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...citys-total-net-spend-over-the-last-12-years/

So clearly City have a vast financial advantage over all clubs including even the supposed richest English club United. Only Chelsea have ever came close to having the same level of spending power.

So any ideas how other teams are supposed to compete with them? Just wait to be bought out by some oil rich state i suppose?
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t bother. His bitterness totally clouds his judgment
 
Jeppers7 said:
Wouldn’t bother. His bitterness totally clouds his judgment
Click to expand...

Perhaps i don't know for sure, but if that's the case it's good to push back against the bullshit narrative that United only had success because they outspent everyone for others reading that may not be aware of the truth.
 
Last edited:
footballistic orgasm said:
These are just an opinion though and nothing more, repeating it constantly won't make it a fact.
Click to expand...

That’s fine though. I won’t preface every post on my forum by saying “In my opinion”. It was very clear that it is based on what I saw and the people I talk to. You can feel it.
 
stevoc said:
Perhaps i don't know for sure, but if if that's the case it's good to push back against the bullshit narrative that United only had success because they outspent everyone for others that are reading that may not be aware of the truth.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Zaphod2319 said:
Ummm didn’t Man Utd own the league for quite a while because they were a wealthier team than the rest of the league and bought top talent?
Click to expand...
If you look up club spending throughout the 80s, 90s and 00s you'll see an interesting trend.

Most seasons United were out spent by other clubs.
 
Crustanoid said:
The treble team did it properly

Not through financial doping, PEDs, or sports washing murderous regimes
Click to expand...
You sound like these silly journalists who just tweet stuff like this for clicks and attention. So going off your theory, does it mean that having American owners that us and Liverpool are to blame for bombing middle East countries or are Chelsea responsible for war crimes in Russia and other Eastern European Countries or should we point the finger at West Brom and Southampton for having a hand in the covid breakout as they have Chinese owners?
It's ridiculous that we stoop so low just to have a pop at Man City because of their owners, in fact it is borderline racism. We just have to accept they are better than us at this moment in time on and off the pitch and acting like spoilt brats throwing our toys out of the pram makes us look really bitter. We just need to suck it up and keep trying to get near them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sultan
b20times said:
You sound like these silly journalists who just tweet stuff like this for clicks and attention. So going off your theory, does it mean that having American owners that us and Liverpool are to blame for bombing middle East countries or are Chelsea responsible for war crimes in Russia and other Eastern European Countries or should we point the finger at West Brom and Southampton for having a hand in the covid breakout as they have Chinese owners?
It's ridiculous that we stoop so low just to have a pop at Man City because of their owners, in fact it is borderline racism. We just have to accept they are better than us at this moment in time on and off the pitch and acting like spoilt brats throwing our toys out of the pram makes us look really bitter. We just need to suck it up and keep trying to get near them.
Click to expand...
But isn't the difference that both Roman and the Sheikh are (or at least used to be) active members of government, governments that have been accused of human rights violations, whereas the yanks are just business guys?
 
b20times said:
You sound like these silly journalists who just tweet stuff like this for clicks and attention. So going off your theory, does it mean that having American owners that us and Liverpool are to blame for bombing middle East countries or are Chelsea responsible for war crimes in Russia and other Eastern European Countries or should we point the finger at West Brom and Southampton for having a hand in the covid breakout as they have Chinese owners?
It's ridiculous that we stoop so low just to have a pop at Man City because of their owners, in fact it is borderline racism. We just have to accept they are better than us at this moment in time on and off the pitch and acting like spoilt brats throwing our toys out of the pram makes us look really bitter. We just need to suck it up and keep trying to get near them.
Click to expand...
City are owned by a state. The Royal family of a state which has a terrible human rights record.

Sheikh Mansour is not only a member of the royal family of Abu Dhabi, he is deputy prime minister of the UAE, minister of presidential affairs and half brother of the president.

Very different to being owned by a private company based in another country.
 
africanspur said:
Serious question and I'm not trying to start an argument...but what is there to be really that proud of?

You've stuck around at the top table because of the sheer financial power of your owners. The same would have happened if they'd decided to stick a pin in Bristol, Sunderland, Sheffield or Norwich.
Click to expand...

Being "proud" of the achievements of your team, which you had no part in, isn't really what we watch football for anyway.
 
Peter van der Gea said:
But isn't the difference that both Roman and the Sheikh are (or at least used to be) active members of government, governments that have been accused of human rights violations, whereas the yanks are just business guys?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, rich folks in US have no ties with political parties there, its not a topic of a thread, so yea.
 
NicolaSacco said:
Oh it was absolutely written with the aim of keeping the big clubs big. I seem to remember Utd arguing for a change that stopped new debt being accrued to match you in the market, but didn’t account for your pre-existing debt. This was purely so your heavily indebted club could escape sanction but any new club couldn’t get in the exact same level of debt to compete with you. It’s naive to think that the big clubs didn’t think about the best set of rules to maintain their advantage. I would in your situation.

I’ll go back to what I think the crux of this point is. It’s not about fairness/legality although you do use those arguments and both may be valid. It’s about clubs being able to outspend you, which you are lucky enough as a Utd fan to have had precious little experience of. It sucks for you like it sucked for all those clubs you’ve outspent in the past.
Click to expand...
Not an argument but there is a difference? Pre Glazers (and for years and years back), we also generated lots of income (I think we had the top (or second) best attendance every season since the 60s). Generated, not made up a sponsorship deal figure.

We've also found a lot of players that didn't involve huge transfer fees (unlike how City have done it), the Babes ... Charlton/Best ... Whiteside/McGrath ... CO92. These allowed us to also spend big on Law, Robson, Keane.

And we were fortunate that the start of Fergies successful teams (90 onwards) was just before/as SKY came in. The timing of our rise was very timely.

Creating good teams = success = good attendances = good income and on a loop. It'd be unfair to say "yes, you've had great support for decades, you're generating lots of income compared to most clubs, you've found/brought through loada of players to balance the big buys... but you can't spend what you earn", which is what some people would say FFP was to ensure.

City played a game recently and their bench included Foden, Fernandinho, Gundogan, Mahrez, Walker, KdB. But I guess when you can sign Etihad upto a £400m deal (more than 4 times Emirates deal, even though Emirates was for longer), it's easy to "generate" your income?

As someone else has said on here, Liverpool hurt but City's success means diddly... we don't need to suck it up.
 
JakeC said:
Big difference
Click to expand...

Idd, ones are buying government, others cant be bought, so they are bunch of unchecked cnuts because they can be.

Edit: Out of topic, its kinda funny, those who can check on them were bought by ones and have interest in other.
 
R'hllor said:
Idd, ones are buying government, others cant be bought, so they are bunch of unchecked cnuts because they can be.

Edit: Out of topic, its kinda funny, those who can check on them were bought by ones and have interest in other.
Click to expand...
Ok, one owner is the government that is allegedly responsible for human rights violations, the other owner tries to buys favours from a government that is allegedly responsible for human rights violations, can you see the fundamental difference there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.