Man city (not) banned from Champions league for 2 years [Mod note see first post]

Fitz*

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The big clubs absolutely should not want teams like PSG and City and there is absolutely no shame in that. City and PSG, and maybe Newcastle soon, create a scenario where it will be even more elitist, absent any kind of FFP protections. Basically be bought up by one of a handful of nation states that will back you or get to the back of queue. Did we mention that they won't actually buy your club either, because the initial outlay will be billions instead of hundreds of millions? So that avenue is all but closed off to you. Also, work hard and build your club? Nope, that's gone now, you can never hope to out earn these clubs backed by the wealth of a nation. It amazes me that people paint traditionally big clubs as the bad guys in this scenario, insofar as it is just one set of elitists looking after their own interests versus another. There is no noble cause in all of this

I don't really have a problem with new clubs coming to the fore myself, but it does seem a bit 'cheaty' for a club to spend hundreds of millions in inflated sponsorship deals and inflated transfer deals every year to get there. There's a lot more to be said for a club achieving organic growth rather than just going straight from 0-10.

Man City had not qualified for European football through their league position for 18 years (2 appearances in the UEFA Cup through the Fair Play League) and then all of a sudden get a massive influx of cash and are suddenly able to maintain a team that is capable of Champions League qualification directly through league position for 10 years +. It's a big jump.

When you compare that to someone like Spurs who built their way up along the ladder by becoming a club consistently midtable, to then competing in the European football places and were a Europa League mainstay, before then securing a Champions League place for a number of seasons, there was obvious organic growth.

DVDM93

Joe Exotic wrote: »

I dont think you understand how the trial system works:

1. OJ was not found innocent, trials dont decide innocence only guilt. He was found not guilty as in not enough evidence to justify a guilty verdict, as such he retained his presumption of innocence.

2. in the same manner City were cleared of the charges because CAS determind that UEFAs finding was flawed and there was not enough evidence to justify a guilty verdict. as such Ciity also retain the presumption of innocence (in sofar as that right is granted to cpmpanies).

3. furhter to this point the CAS judgement stated "MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS
SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS BUT DID FAIL TO COOPERATE WITH THE
UEFA AUTHORITIES"

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6785_Decision.pdf

Further down inthe release they state:
"The CAS award emphasized that most of the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber
of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred"

In other words they looked into some allegations and found them not having evidence and others were beyond the time limits (and so would not have been examined as they would be struck off immeadiatley)

Will be interesting reading when the Detailed jusdgement comes out, but how anyone can read the release and decide city were not cleared fully is beyond me, the fact that UEFA found them Guilty of charges which they knew (surely they were aware:eek:) were outside the time limit shows that the entire investigation and all findings must be viewed in light of the lack of integrity UEFA have shown.

& in the same manner Carole was never found guilty of killing her husband, so I think you need to get over it & move on, Joe.

8-10

Joe Exotic wrote: »

how anyone can read the release and decide city were not cleared fully is beyond me

Technically they weren't cleared fully as they still got a fine for breaching article 56 of Financial Fair Play regulations

For what UEFA were investigating, they were cleared, but they were still found to have broken FFP rules, just a small enough breach that a ban and 30m fine would have been excessive for so they only got a 10m fine for it.

Nitpicking, sure, but not fully cleared. That would have been a situation where they get no punishment whatsoever.

They'll happily pay the 10m anyway!

GLaDOS

The time-barred wording of suggests an element of getting off on a technicality rather than being wholly innocent.

Joe Exotic

8-10 wrote: »

Technically they weren't cleared fully as they still got a fine for breaching article 56 of Financial Fair Play regulations

For what UEFA were investigating, they were cleared, but they were still found to have broken FFP rules, just a small enough breach that a ban and 30m fine would have been excessive for so they only got a 10m fine for it.

Nitpicking, sure, but not fully cleared. That would have been a situation where they get no punishment whatsoever.

They'll happily pay the 10m anyway!

You are of course correct i was reffering mainly to the primary charges, you are right to point out that it was not a complete clearance.

Joe Exotic

GLaDOS wrote: »

The time-barred wording of suggests an element of getting off on a technicality rather than being wholly innocent.

Or it points to the fact that they never should have brought charges that were time barred and suggests CAS didnt even consider them as they were "auto" dismissed.

It will be interesting to read the full detailed finding in a few days to see exactly what CAs have to say on this point.

bennyl10

GLaDOS wrote: »

The time-barred wording of suggests an element of getting off on a technicality rather than being wholly innocent.

Exactly this, how anyone can read this city being fully cleared is mental.

UEFA did some wrong. but city are not innocent hereby any stretch

UrbanFret

bennyl10 wrote: »

Exactly this, how anyone can read this city being fully cleared is mental.

UEFA did some wrong. but city are not innocent hereby any stretch

Tell us so what apart from obstructing the investigation for which they have been fined they are guilty of?

Facts not hearsay.:rolleyes:

marklazarcovic

its not a coincidence that the statute of limitations expired imo, the whole "we did no wrong" by city is as transparent as their dubious wage structures and sponsorship deals.

id have some respect for the project if they held their hands up and said "dammit,sorry" . everyone knows they are dodgy now.

TTTT

Zebra3 wrote: »

Where does the €10,000,000 fine go?

Does it conveniently go in to UEFA's coffers to pay for first class flights, five star hotels, and Michelin star restaurant dinners for shysters like Delaney?

Ahem, FAI bailout?

Zebra3

TTTT wrote: »

Ahem, FAI bailout?

What about it?

Mitch Connor

UrbanFret wrote: »

Tell us so what apart from obstructing the investigation for which they have been fined they are guilty of?

Facts not hearsay.:rolleyes:

they haven't been found guilty (apart from obstruction), but being told charges were dismissed because the statute of limitations had run it does mean they were utterly cleared either. CAS simply said they can't be found guilty for offenses they may or may not have commited more than 5 years ago. CAS made not comment on whether they felt they did commit those illegalities, as that was not within their remit or scope.

Uefa found City guilty. City appealed and CAS said Uefa had no right to find City guilty due to time, and did not look into those charges at all.

jacool

Initially, the PSG case collapsed due to a deadline not being met.
Now, the Man City ban was quashed over five-year statute of limitations.
Timing, apparently







is everything.

Plasandrunt

UrbanFret wrote: »

Not so smug now.:rolleyes:

Ah well, there's always the 21 point gap.

Hococop

Does that mean if Newcastle did get taken over, the Saudi family could just change naming rights on the stadium, for £200 million a year without repercussions?

Mitch Connor

Hococop wrote: »

Does that mean if Newcastle did get taken over, the Saudi family could just change naming rights on the stadium, for £200 million a year without repercussions?

No, if they were found to be disguising equity investment as sponsorship, they'd be in breach.

As City may have been, if they were found guilty of it within 5 years of when Uefa said they did it.

Arghus

One of the most foregone conclusions in legal history.

noodler

Mitch Connor wrote: »

No, if they were found to be disguising equity investment as sponsorship, they'd be in breach.

As City may have been, if they were found guilty of it within 5 years of when Uefa said they did it.

Is there a sense city obstructed to get over the five year time limit?

gimli2112

no wouldn't think so. typically the time runs from the date of the cause of action until you actually sue. Once City were in the process the delays wouldn't have mattered.
it would be like going on the run after you commit a crime and if they can't catch you you're free

eagle eye

bennyl10 wrote:

Exactly this, how anyone can read this city being fully cleared is mental.

They were fully cleared.

bennyl10 wrote:

UEFA did some wrong. but city are not innocent hereby any stretch

UEFA are a bunch of buffoons. That's been made very evident.

super_furry

eagle eye wrote: »

They were fully cleared.

Fully cleared by a €10million fine?

doc_17

FOOTBALL HARASSMENT!

TOTAL EXONERATION!!

DVDM93

Sheikh Mansour makes £115,000 per minute.

By that context, the £8m fine by UEFA at 9:30AM would have been paid at 11:00AM.

TFBubendorfer

super_furry wrote: »

Fully cleared by a €10million fine?

Like it or not, City were fully cleared of all FFP related allegations.
The fine is for non-cooperation.

doc_17

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Like it or not, City were fully cleared of all FFP related allegations.
The fine is for non-cooperation.

You can’t say that yet until the full ruling is released. It would appear offences may have been committed but that they were weren’t charged in the time period that they should have been charged in. Which could have something to do with UEFA being obstructed.

eagle eye

super_furry wrote:

Fully cleared by a €10million fine?

The fine was for not cooperating. It had nothing to do with the accusations levelled against them.

xtal191

https://twitter.com/SkySportsNews/status/1283036679582953476

y0ssar1an22

hate that reporting. darmesh trying to get jose to say something controversial.

he said, if they are innocent there should be no fine. if they are guilty it should be a ban, either way its disgraceful. same as rte running the headline: Mourinho brands City ban overturn as 'disgraceful';

StringerBell

eagle eye wrote: »

They were fully cleared.


UEFA are a bunch of buffoons. That's been made very evident.

I don't think they were exonerated at all actually, more that uefa made a balls of it and the decision was that uefa could not punish them as they had contravened their own rules (will forget about the lack of cooperation part)

They got off on a technicality due to statute of limitations by the looks of things, which I would say is different to being cleared of all charges.

CAS don't clear of all charges anyway, they are a procedural arm.

eagle eye

StringerBell wrote:

They got off on a technicality due to statute of limitations by the looks of things, which I would say is different to being cleared of all charges.

That's not what happened.

UrbanFret

**** me it must be hard to actually read the CAS decision.

Guy:Incognito

Fair play to Etihad. Very generous.

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1288163809845284864

Shanotheslayer

Forget signing City players.Sign their commercial negotiators :pac:

Cookiemunster

Yeah, nothing dodgy about that at all. No siree, not one thing.

Agent Coulson

So CAS has confirmed what we all knew City financially doped and broke FFP however UEFA waited to long to do anything about it.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Fair play to Etihad. Very generous.

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1288163809845284864

You can cherry pick a lot out of huge document without context to make it fit what you believe...

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

You can cherry pick a lot out of huge document without context to make it fit what you believe...

You can also excuse a lot to fit what you believe.

What right thinking company decides to just pay more for a contract (4 times) in the middle of said contract, just to be nice to the company they are contracted too?

Not sure what in the passage you posted contradicts the tweet by Neil Harris

ahnowbrowncow

Deleted User wrote: »

You can cherry pick a lot out of huge document without context to make it fit what you believe...

They presume the deal was negotiated at fair value, based on whatever evidence and testimony given from Man City and Ethihad, and are happy that the companies have engineered enough degrees of separation to comply with the related parties rules.

The point being made is that a blind man can see through the legitimacy of the deal and see it for what it actually is, a flagrant disregard of the FFP rules.

.G.

If on twitter, the timeline of @tariqpanja is an interesting read. Uefa are a shambles in how they went about this appeal.

Agent Coulson

The lads over on Bluemoon are lodging complaints against the BBC and other media organizations with IPSO for their coverage and bias reporting of this CAS report :pac:

eagle eye

It'll all be forgotten about in a few years and City will be a huge club with lots of fans worldwide.
Then some guy will come along and buy a smaller club and pump money into them and City will line up with all the other powerhouses of football trying to prevent a club making it big.

Nijmegen

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Fair play to Etihad. Very generous.

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1288163809845284864

That entire thread is quite a read, but the nature of Etihad increasing their sponsorship from £35m per year to £73m per year over 3 years is, well, somebody hire me those City negotiators....

2ndcoming

eagle eye wrote: »

It'll all be forgotten about in a few years and City will be a huge club with lots of fans worldwide.
Then some guy will come along and buy a smaller club and pump money into them and City will line up with all the other powerhouses of football trying to prevent a club making it big.

I can guarantee that will not happen.

City will never ever be a big club. We are dealing with impossibly rich people from a volatile part of the world trying to legitimise themselves with an unlimited amount of money to do so.

y0ssar1an22

i know its a pittance in the grand scheme of things; but man city group now own 9 (?) clubs so i expect to see more of this.

aaron moy moved to city on a free from Melbourne city (owned as well by man city group, or whatever its called). days later was loaned to Huddersfield for 12 months and subsequently sold for ~9m.

i know its not related to the CAS/UEFA thing; but it doesn't seem 100% kosher either.

c.p.w.g.w

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i know its a pittance in the grand scheme of things; but man city group now own 9 (?) clubs so i expect to see more of this.

aaron moy moved to city on a free from Melbourne city (owned as well by man city group, or whatever its called). days later was loaned to Huddersfield for 12 months and subsequently sold for ~9m.

i know its not related to the CAS/UEFA thing; but it doesn't seem 100% kosher either.

Never knew about that...that's utterly bizarre carry on

Degag

2ndcoming wrote: »

I can guarantee that will not happen.

City will never ever be a big club. We are dealing with impossibly rich people from a volatile part of the world trying to legitimise themselves with an unlimited amount of money to do so.

What's your definition of a "big club?"

eagle eye

2ndcoming wrote:

City will never ever be a big club. We are dealing with impossibly rich people from a volatile part of the world trying to legitimise themselves with an unlimited amount of money to do so.

If they play nice football and are successful they'll grow and grow worldwide. It's really that simple.
The majority of the world doesn't care about politics. Football fans just want to be entertained and whoever gives them that gets their support.
In 2016 they passed Dortmund, Roma, Inter Milan and Spurs to become the 11th most popular team in the world. I'm sure they are well into the top 10 by now.

UrbanFret

2ndcoming wrote: »

I can guarantee that will not happen.

City will never ever be a big club. We are dealing with impossibly rich people from a volatile part of the world trying to legitimise themselves with an unlimited amount of money to do so.

City were a big.club before you were born. Don't embarrass yourself posting nonsense.

8-10

UrbanFret wrote: »

City were a big.club before you were born. Don't embarrass yourself posting nonsense.

In the context of global football today, they are a big club, but I don't think they're close to the likes of Real Madrid or Barcelona for example. I think there's been Champions League games, Lyon maybe?, where they didn't even come close to selling out the home game.

It's not strange to me that they command big sponsorship deals, same as many clubs across Europe who win trophies and compete in Champions Leagues most years.

But it's strange to me that they command the largest sponsorship deals in world soccer. They get money pumped in continually and spend more than anyone else in the league comfortably, but it's not like their attendance is the highest (5th in the league), global reach isn't as big as other clubs, and they're not regularly getting to European finals or winning International trophies.

I honestly believe that City are being financed in a way that is based on who the owners are rather than how organically successful they are.

Ethiad stadium was comfortably the most expensive naming rights deal in the league, I'd love to know what the losing bid was as my belief is they paid more than they needed to if this was a free market.

j8wk2feszrnpao

UrbanFret wrote: »

City were a big.club before you were born. Don't embarrass yourself posting nonsense.

City could be said to have been a big English club, but they were not a 'big club' in European/World terms. And they still are nowhere near the level of Utd/Liverpool/Bayern/Barca/Real/Barca. City are more like PSG, a recognizable domestic name, but limited success (esp in Europe) until recent years when oil money rolled in.