Football Leaks: UEFA Investigation into Manchester City

Benzino

Mitch Connor wrote: »

A PL investigation for the same basic reasons is apparently also either ongoing or will go into effect following the Uefa investigation and ruling.

The Uefa ruling will have no direct PL impact though.

Interesting, what rules would they have broken? FFP doesn't apply to the PL, right? It's only for CL and EL.

eagle eye

ozzy jr wrote:

Yeah, I don't support a PL, English or British club. What difference does it make? Does it mean my view is more or less important than someone who does support a PL club?

So long as you are not a Real Madrid fan I'd say it makes your opinion more valid.

Benzino

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't have one, I'm just reacting to the ott posts here and realising that most, if not all, are coming from fans of City's rival clubs.

Posts looking for a club to be punished for breaking the rules they agreed to follow is OTT now?

eagle eye

Benzino wrote:

Posts looking for a club to be punished for breaking the rules they agreed to follow is OTT now?

No, it's all the other stuff going on in here from fans of rival clubs that is ott.

And they were punished as far as I'm aware?

Benzino

eagle eye wrote: »

No, it's all the other stuff going on in here from fans of rival clubs that is ott.

While I do think talk of where the money comes from (blood money etc) should be separated from this discussion, I also think if there was a time to talk about it, now is probably the best instead of randomly bringing it up after City trash another team. It should just be done in another thread though imo.

eagle eye wrote: »

And they were punished as far as I'm aware?

I'm no expert on the case, but they were fined before from another investigation, but the recent leaks reveal that City lied/covered up information during that investigation, hence another one was triggered. I think that's reasonable to be honest, as the severity of the crime should be taken into account when dishing the punishment.

Mr.H

Benzino wrote:

Interesting, what rules would they have broken? FFP doesn't apply to the PL, right? It's only for CL and EL.

PL have their own ffp which is also investigating city. The fa are investigating separately the transfer young players while fifa are also investigating the international transfer of underage players.

City face 4 different investigations because they are shady as f. In fact the fbi are also looking at them for money laundering through their MLS club.

Benzino

Mr.H wrote: »

PL have their own ffp which is also investigating city. The fa are investigating separately the transfer young players while fifa are also investigating the international transfer of underage players.

City face 4 different investigations because they are shady as f. In fact the fbi are also looking at them for money laundering through their MLS club.

Oh, that news to me!

citytillidie

If players are getting paid by other sources and not being declared then that would also be a case of the Tax man come a knocking and fraud investigations too

Shanotheslayer

Benzino wrote: »

Oh, that news toe me!

Yeh they're really toeing the line :pac:

Mr.H

Honestly as a rival fan i hope they are punished as they are cheating. No grey area. They are playing by the rules or they are not. Its sounds like the latter.

That been said i would take nothing away from they way they have played. It would be easy to make excuses are cry about them being unfair and bla bla. When kompany scored that goal i clapped. Amazing goal. As for a lot of the goals that were offside, meh it happens. We got some dodgy goals too. Not as many as them but again who cares. They won the league and deserved to win the league.

The only crap thing is they broke the rules to assemble that squad. And for that they deserve to be punished. They will be punished but it takes nothing from their achievement this and last season. Has been a great season. Must have been brilliant for true neutrals.

Mitch Connor

Benzino wrote: »

Interesting, what rules would they have broken? FFP doesn't apply to the PL, right? It's only for CL and EL.

Premier League has a FFP rule set as well - thought the threshholds differ to Uefa.

But if City were lying to Uefa about the sources of funds, or their full accounts etc, then they would also have been lying to the FA - they'd have been telling both institutions the same things.

So if Uefa find them guilty, I can't see how the FA wouldn't also find them guilty. There could be differences around how much they may/would have failed the FFP test by for each authority, maybe they would have failed Uefa and passed FA, but I would think the principal of it being deliberate and organised lying would be the bigger issue.

Mitch Connor

citytillidie wrote: »

If players are getting paid by other sources and not being declared then that would also be a case of the Tax man come a knocking and fraud investigations too

Maybe.

For example, we are led to believe Kompany was paid dividends from ownership in a Car Hire company that were really his City wages, funded directly by City.

So the Uefa/FA issue would be City lying over the wage build etc.

But, from a personal tax point of view their would be no issue in Kompany declaring the money earned from the Car Hire company. The ultimate source of the funds is irrelevant as long as it is properly declared and executed upon (from a general point of view)

citytillidie

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Maybe.

For example, we are led to believe Kompany was paid dividends from ownership in a Car Hire company that were really his City wages, funded directly by City.

So the Uefa/FA issue would be City lying over the wage build etc.

But, from a personal tax point of view their would be no issue in Kompany declaring the money earned from the Car Hire company. The ultimate source of the funds is irrelevant as long as it is properly declared and executed upon (from a general point of view)

Double contracts like Derry City and Rangers, should relegate them to League 2 :pac:

citytillidie

https://punditarena.com/features/emackenna/mackenna-manchester-city-mud/

citytillidie

citytillidie wrote: »

https://punditarena.com/features/emackenna/mackenna-manchester-city-mud/

That's grim reading

BonnieSituation

citytillidie wrote: »

https://punditarena.com/features/emackenna/mackenna-manchester-city-mud/

Well he got Irish rugby and Dublin GAA into that article anyway. So it's definitely a legitimate Ewan McKenna article.

citytillidie

citytillidie wrote: »

https://punditarena.com/features/emackenna/mackenna-manchester-city-mud/

It's a provocative article - while he is right to bluntly state the connection between Man City and war crimes, think it's a little harsh to target fans of the club as if they should be the ones to question a regime that has brought them to the top. I can fully understand why a City fan would point to the wrongs of other owners. Surely the main anger should be directed at a system that deems such people to be fit and proper to own a club rather than expect the fans to second guess that decision.

Mr.H

Deleted User wrote:

It's a provocative article - while he is right to bluntly state the connection between Man City and war crimes, think it's a little harsh to target fans of the club as if they should be the ones to question a regime that has brought them to the top. I can fully understand why a City fan would point to the wrongs of other owners. Surely the main anger should be directed at a system that deems such people to be fit and proper to own a club rather than expect the fans to second guess that decision.

You mean city fans who blame everyone else for making up lies?

eagle eye

Mr.H wrote:

You mean city fans who blame everyone else for making up lies?

He makes very valid points and you come up with that pathetic response.

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

You mean city fans who blame everyone else for making up lies?

I guess it's about expectations.

Let's face it, the Liverpool owner is connected to Bill Cosby. Now I'm not going to suggest that is remotely similar to the situation at Man City, merely that I don't think Liverpool fans should be subjected to abuse because of it. I don't expect fans to question the integrity of their owners when things go well.

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess it's about expectations.

Let's face it, the Liverpool owner is connected to Bill Cosby. Now I'm not going to suggest that is remotely similar to the situation at Man City, merely that I don't think Liverpool fans should be subjected to abuse because of it. I don't expect fans to question the integrity of their owners when things go well.

We should though, especially when the issues involved go far above and beyond their own personal morality and conduct. Like, some owner may be cheating on his wife, but I wouldn't expect fans to do anything about that. But when a club itself is being used directly as a nefarious tool, it's a different kettle of fish. The days of football being easy escapist fare have passed. It's too big now at the highest level, and as fans of these machines we have a certain responsibility towards where our money - and moreso our attention - goes. I know this can be difficult, when we all own products manufactured under shocking conditions - but with football it's a little different. With our phones, or runners etc, we buy the product. With football, we are the product. The club exists abstractly to represent us. Yes, they want to make money, but that only happens when they tap into something cultural at a grassroots level. And it's through that connection that they make their money, selling our attentions to TV stations and sponsors. So if they intend to use us as leverage, we should at least be holding them a little bit accountable when it appears their motives and operations are questionable.

As an aside, I'm curious about the Liverpool Cosby thing... I know Werner exec-produced The Cosby Show, but had never heard about any connections to him knowing about what Bill was up to. Would be interested to learn more on that though. Did a bit of a google, but didn't come up with much.

ThunbergsAreGo

~Rebel~ wrote: »

We should though, especially when the issues involved go far above and beyond their own personal morality and conduct. Like, some owner may be cheating on his wife, but I wouldn't expect fans to do anything about that. But when a club itself is being used directly as a nefarious tool, it's a different kettle of fish. The days of football being easy escapist fare have passed. It's too big now at the highest level, and as fans of these machines we have a certain responsibility towards where our money - and moreso our attention - goes. I know this can be difficult, when we all own products manufactured under shocking conditions - but with football it's a little different. With our phones, or runners etc, we buy the product. With football, we are the product. The club exists abstractly to represent us. Yes, they want to make money, but that only happens when they tap into something cultural at a grassroots level. And it's through that connection that they make their money, selling our attentions to TV stations and sponsors. So if they intend to use us as leverage, we should at least be holding them a little bit accountable when it appears their motives and operations are questionable.

As an aside, I'm curious about the Liverpool Cosby thing... I know Werner exec-produced The Cosby Show, but had never heard about any connections to him knowing about what Bill was up to. Would be interested to learn more on that though. Did a bit of a google, but didn't come up with much.

The time to question the owners both from a fans and a FA/UEFA perspective was when they took over.

How in the world were they deemed "fit and proper" - or does that translate to "has loads of money"

BonnieSituation

naughtb4 wrote: »

The time to question the owners both from a fans and a FA/UEFA perspective was when they took over.

How in the world were they deemed "fit and proper" - or does that translate to "has loads of money"

Does that absolve them now from questions?

givyjoe

naughtb4 wrote: »

The time to question the owners both from a fans and a FA/UEFA perspective was when they took over.

How in the world were they deemed "fit and proper" - or does that translate to "has loads of money"

What has the date of when they took over, got to do with their actions SINCE then? You're not seriously suggesting once they past the fit and proper test when they take over, they should then be given free reign to do whatever the fcuk they want without question?

ThunbergsAreGo

givyjoe wrote: »

Was has the date of when they took over, got to do with their actions SINCE then? You're not seriously suggesting once they past the fit and proper test when they take over, they should then be given free reign to do whatever the fcuk they want without question?

Are you telling me they hadn't committed war crimes and contravened human rights before they took over Man City? I think its absolute b*ll**** they passed the fit and proper test. I am questioning why no questions were asked at the time, or any real resistence to the takeover.

Everyone knew they were dodgy. I am not saying you cannot question what has happened since, but UEFA/FA knew what they were getting into at the time and were happy to take their money. The involvement of the UAE was always an issue and is not just now one because they are winning.

If they are found guilty (which is an IF given the power they have) then they should be punished accordingly.

Mr.H

eagle eye wrote:

He makes very valid points and you come up with that pathetic response.

Ok maybe it was badly worded and could have been more detailed.

My point is that when this stuff is talked about, city fans get defensive. They say that its all lies and pretend there is no truth in any of it.

Im not blaming fans by any means because its not their fault. But as fans you do cant just play dumb. When liverpool fans though hicks and gilett were up to no good, they took a stand. United fans and arsenal fans did the same. Now im not saying that those grievances are anything like war crimes but you cant just pretend the owners of the club are pure. They are using the club to wash their image.

They are winning over the fans by pilling on the cash and bringing success but do you really think its deserved? Is it really impressive that a team that cost that much won two domestic cups with the teams they faced?

Lets say for example city lost out to liverpool this season. What would stop city writing a blank cheque to buy vvd salah mane fabinho robertson and firmino? Of course liverpool could say no. But the point is if you lose and just buy everyone that is hardly impressive.

Its the shortcut mentality that will forever tarnish city now. People will always remember that they bought their success. Dont believe me? Blackburn, chelsea, monaco, anzi.............

givyjoe

naughtb4 wrote: »

Are you telling me they hadn't committed war crimes and contravened human rights before they took over Man City? I think its absolute b*ll**** they passed the fit and proper test. I am questioning why no questions were asked at the time, or any real resistence to the takeover.

Everyone knew they were dodgy. I am not saying you cannot question what has happened since, but UEFA/FA knew what they were getting into at the time and were happy to take their money. The involvement of the UAE was always an issue and is not just now one because they are winning.

If they are found guilty (which is an IF given the power they have) then they should be punished accordingly.

How on earth did you pick that up from what I posted?

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

When liverpool fans though hicks and gilett were up to no good, they took a stand.

I have to say, I remember Liverpool fans complaining that they were bad owners because of what happened at the club, that they failed to deliver a new stadium, or success (none of which could be levelled at the Man City owners) but don't remember them, or indeed ManU or Arsenal fans taking a stand over the ethics and morality of owners.

hetuzozaho

Mr.H wrote: »

Lets say for example city lost out to liverpool this season. What would stop city writing a blank cheque to buy vvd salah mane fabinho robertson and firmino? Of course liverpool could say no. But the point is if you lose and just buy everyone that is hardly impressive.

I know that's an extreme example, but essentially big clubs have always done this? Big club has issue, say need better defence, smaller club has great defender, big club buys defender, then success.

None of the big teams are really coaching their youth into success, they tend to just buy the good ones? Clubs who are financially weaker have faced this problem forever.

IncognitoMan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have to say, I remember Liverpool fans complaining that they were bad owners because of what happened at the club, that they failed to deliver a new stadium, or success (none of which could be levelled at the Man City owners) but don't remember them, or indeed ManU or Arsenal fans taking a stand over the ethics and morality of owners.

There was a good few (although some sadly didn't seem to mind) that said straight out that they didn't want the Saudi investors at United when the news broke earlier in the season.

I absolutely don't want them anywhere near United because of what they stand for. Even though it would undoubtedly turn United into an unbelievable force again it really isn't worth it to be a PR stunt for a bunch of murderers.

It would make every trophy win and success thereafter tainted.

Mr.H

Deleted User wrote:

I have to say, I remember Liverpool fans complaining that they were bad owners because of what happened at the club, that they failed to deliver a new stadium, or success (none of which could be levelled at the Man City owners) but don't remember them, or indeed ManU or Arsenal fans taking a stand over the ethics and morality of owners.

Morality wise i am more meaning the making a quick buck attitude as oppose to the concerns that face citys owners. But yes the fans stayed away from games, paraded before and after games. Bought merchandise from other clubs to show their opposition to the regimes. It was more because the owners said one thing and did another.

Mr.H

hetuzozaho wrote:

I know that's an extreme example, but essentially big clubs have always done this? Big club has issue, say need better defence, smaller club has great defender, big club buys defender, then success.

But the point is man city were not a big club. Now im not trying to wind anyone up with that statement so let me explain.

Very extreme example here. Let say villa come up this year. And lets say their owner really does have the cash and he has so much cash that he buys the whole city first team by offering bigger wages and money city cant turn down because it would stop all ffp investigations. Then villa go on the win the league. Is that right? Would that win be deserved? Earned?

hetuzozaho wrote:

None of the big teams are really coaching their youth into success, they tend to just buy the good ones? Clubs who are financially weaker have faced this problem forever.

Ironically before the money became an issue city had an amazing academy. United and liverpool are having a good deal of success recently

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

Ok maybe it was badly worded and could have been more detailed.

My point is that when this stuff is talked about, city fans get defensive. They say that its all lies and pretend there is no truth in any of it.

Im not blaming fans by any means because its not their fault. .............

That may be true of the online fans you are exposed to but it’s not a fair reflection.

I lived in Manchester in the early part of the century.

I had a season ticket for the first few seasons I was there and I knew eleven other season ticket holders that were friends and family.

Of those eleven only one now holds a season ticket. The other ten have not renewed their tickets and refuse to take any part, or joy, under the current owners.

Two of that ten had been going to home and away games for over 20 years.

Not all fans put success before everything else and I’m sure there will be plenty of other local fans that have reacted in a similar fashion.

hetuzozaho

Mr.H wrote: »

Very extreme example here. Let say villa come up this year. And lets say their owner really does have the cash and he has so much cash that he buys the whole city first team by offering bigger wages and money city cant turn down because it would stop all ffp investigations. Then villa go on the win the league. Is that right? Would that win be deserved? Earned?

Ha I know what you mean. I think we agree anyway.

I'm not really saying it is right or deserved, but it's always been like this for the richer teams IMO. This is just an extreme of whats been going on all along and now teams who historically benefited from being rich teams are now getting put out by even richer teams.

A team buying the best players from teams who need to take the money to survive and therefore give up their chance at success and hand it over to the richer team, that's top level football as I know it.

But I agree with you it is all a bit hollow. I felt the same when Van Persie won united the league that year Maybe should have just stayed with Excelsior

Benzino

In my opinion, I don't think UEFA should be checking the morality of prospective owners. Their checks should just be around the finances, can they afford the club and to run it for the next 5+ years etc, where is there money coming from (i.e. are they loaning the money to purchase the club).

If you start getting into the morality of where the money comes from (such as blood money that is referred to here), where do you draw the line? Is the owner of a clothing company that has children make their products suitable? What about Apple, a company that employed foxconn that had awful working conditions, would they qualify? Do we really want the likes of UEFA and FIFA deciding what is morally right or wrong? I wouldn't.

Sure, we all want good people in charge, 100%, but I don't think it's within UEFA's remit to decide who is good or not.

eagle eye

Mr.H wrote:

Im not blaming fans by any means because its not their fault. But as fans you do cant just play dumb. When liverpool fans though hicks and gilett were up to no good, they took a stand. United fans and arsenal fans did the same. Now im not saying that those grievances are anything like war crimes but you cant just pretend the owners of the club are pure. They are using the club to wash their image.

The difference is that those clubs weren't winning when this stuff happened.

ozzy jr

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't expect fans to question the integrity of their owners when things go well.

That's a terrible outlook to have

"If I get you a few football trophies, you'll turn a blind eye to my human rights abuses".

ozzy jr

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to say, I remember Liverpool fans complaining that they were bad owners because of what happened at the club, that they failed to deliver a new stadium, or success (none of which could be levelled at the Man City owners) but don't remember them, or indeed ManU or Arsenal fans taking a stand over the ethics and morality of owners.

You've obviously never heard of FC United of Manchester? Or what about when Rupert Murdoch tried to take over United?

spockety

Benzino wrote: »

In my opinion, I don't think UEFA should be checking the morality of prospective owners. Their checks should just be around the finances, can they afford the club and to run it for the next 5+ years etc, where is there money coming from (i.e. are they loaning the money to purchase the club).

If you start getting into the morality of where the money comes from (such as blood money that is referred to here), where do you draw the line? Is the owner of a clothing company that has children make their products suitable? What about Apple, a company that employed foxconn that had awful working conditions, would they qualify? Do we really want the likes of UEFA and FIFA deciding what is morally right or wrong? I wouldn't.

Sure, we all want good people in charge, 100%, but I don't think it's within UEFA's remit to decide who is good or not.

This.

To ensure fairness in any situation the rules need to be clear, and enforced by UEFA.

The morality is one for the fans, and it's up to the fans to decide how they enforce that one.

ozzy jr

ozzy jr wrote: »

You've obviously never heard of FC United of Manchester? Or what about when Rupert Murdoch tried to take over United?

FC United of Manchester is the prime example of the point I made.

The fans cared because they were afraid that the manner of the purchase would see the club starved of funds, and that the manager was on the way out. They only cared about the purchaser because of what they thought might happen to the club.

And obviously as the club remained successful, the protest very much dwindled.

.G.

"green and gold until we are sold" didn't last long either.

Mitch Connor

Deleted User wrote: »

FC United of Manchester is the prime example of the point I made.

The fans cared because they were afraid that the manner of the purchase would see the club starved of funds, and that the manager was on the way out. They only cared about the purchaser because of what they thought might happen to the club.

And obviously as the club remained successful, the protest very much dwindled.

FC United was about more than that. It was about the overall commercialisation of United, the PL and fans. Its fans who got sick of Sky dictating when they can watch the club, United's treatment of its own fans, the costs of supporting your side and a general disillusionment with both United and top level football.

FC United is still a thriving, well supported, community focused club.

It was far more than simply debt of Fergie being on the way out - it was the final straw of fan opinion and treatment not mattering at all, fans having zero say or sway in anything the club do.

Green and Gold on the other hand.... that is far more linked to success on the pitch than most involved would like to admit. FCUM though, I think you are wrong on that one.

Mr.H

Mitch Connor wrote: »

FC United was about more than that. It was about the overall commercialisation of United, the PL and fans. Its fans who got sick of Sky dictating when they can watch the club, United's treatment of its own fans, the costs of supporting your side and a general disillusionment with both United and top level football.

.

what happens when they get to the top? surely that is their aim? will they refuse to take the money or promotion?

ozzy jr

They're not set up just because of the Glazers, that was the final straw for a lot of them.

From their website......

FC United and TV
FC United is not opposed to live football being shown on television.

TV exposure and the revenue it generates are important to football. However, we believe that the balance has swung way too far in the TV companies' favour - and too far away from the match-going, admission paying, regularly attending football supporter.

FC United seeks to change the way that football is owned and run, putting supporters at the heart of everything. This includes a better and more balanced relationship with TV

Mr.H

ozzy jr wrote:

FC United seeks to change the way that football is owned and run, putting supporters at the heart of everything. This includes a better and more balanced relationship with TV

But again how? If they made it to the premier league they would have zero say in tv deals.

Anyway thats nothing to do with citys war lord

Mitch Connor

Mr.H wrote: »

But again how? If they made it to the premier league they would have zero say in tv deals.

Anyway thats nothing to do with citys war lord

Fook knows, but my assumption would be their funding and ownership model will settle them in a league far away from the PL.

hetuzozaho

Mr.H wrote: »

But again how? If they made it to the premier league they would have zero say in tv deals.

I don't think it's a worry for them but you would be inclined to believe that they would stick to their guns!

citytillidie

A little light reading

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/06/03/how-football-leaks-is-exposing-corruption-in-european-soccer

gstack166

https://www.mancity.com/news/club-news/club-news/2019/august/man-city-club-statement-fifa-investigation


One charge down. Admitted wrong doing on 1 player pre 2016 when guidance on the interpretation of the provisions was issued, since which date Manchester City has been fully compliant.

No transfer ban.

Harry Palmr

Different scandal entirely! Chelsea got a ban of two windows for mulitple offences and refusing to accept their guilt before anyone asks