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

klose

It would be funny if they appealed it and the money fine was reduced but the CL ban stood, they'd probably happily pay double the monetary fine to get back into the CL such is their endless pit of oil money.

I must say its brilliant to see and a bit of a watershed moment in English football, hopefully the FA dish out some punishment too when their investigation concludes.

8-10

sabat wrote: »

The dream from a rival fan's perspective would be for an actual shadow salary system, offshore or otherwise, to exist and be exposed-that would leave no choice for the FA but to invoke the relegation to League 2 rule and consider stripping titles.

Speaking of a shadow salary system, Pep protested very vocally after the accusations came up that Roberto Mancini was paid more than double his salary by secretly holding a 'consultant' role at one of the Sheik's other companies that paid him a separate salary.

Pep basically said we're innocent until it's proven, and he was batting off the question that he had a similar arrangement to get paid extra. At the time I definitely thought he protested too much in that interview.

If Mancini was paid double his wage in secret, and that fact didn't come out until after Pep joined, then I don't think it's a stretch to think that Pep benefitted from a similar arrangement.

And then you have to wonder about the players...

PhlegmyMoses

8-10 wrote: »

Speaking of a shadow salary system, Pep protested very vocally after the accusations came up that Roberto Mancini was paid more than double his salary by secretly holding a 'consultant' role at one of the Sheik's other companies that paid him a separate salary.

Pep basically said we're innocent until it's proven, and he was batting off the question that he had a similar arrangement to get paid extra. At the time I definitely thought he protested too much in that interview.

If Mancini was paid double his wage in secret, and that fact didn't come out until after Pep joined, then I don't think it's a stretch to think that Pep benefitted from a similar arrangement.

And then you have to wonder about the players...

I have wondered about City and Chelsea's wage structures for years. I think that it is curious that their players rarely agitate for big moves elsewhere in more glamorous locations than Manchester, even if it is just agitation in the press by their agents to leverage a better deal. Looking at it and the likes of Aguero on 200k a week etc seems at odds with his worth relative to say what PSG or Barca or RM could pay him. I am convinced that they are getting extraneous payments somewhere to stay inside the boundaries.

Guy:Incognito

Have CAS the power to increase the sanctions if they deem it too lenient?

Imagine they added a year

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Have CAS the power to increase the sanctions if they deem it too lenient?

Imagine they added a year

They extended the ban on Paolo Guerrero for drugs violations, initially set at 1 year, halved on appeal, changed to 14 months by CAS

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Guerrero

Muahahaha

Guardian reporting that unless the CAS hearing takes place pretty soon (unlikely) that City will still be in next seasons CL and then be banned for two seasons thereafter should they lose the appeal to the CAS.

Peps contract runs until summer 2021 so that would allow him another season to have a crack at the CL and then leave City to go elsewhere. So its looking like 5th place getting CL football for next season is a non-runner. Maybe CAS has a system that allows a team skip the court list queue , if they dont though it could be months before the case takes place in which case the ban and fine would be suspended until the hearing happens. That delay will allow City to compete in next seasons CL.

Thanx 4 The Fish

We all know what will happen, somewhere money will change hands and the outcome of the hearing will be that City are reinstated and UEFA end up suspended from the competitions that they currently own/run leaving it open for some Arabian company to fill the gap and change the whole structure of the comp so City only have to play in the final and still lose it..

Or something like that.....

Pauliedragon

As RTÉ are pointing out this isn't a case of UEFA against city it's UEFA against the Chinese and Abu Dhabi governments. How often have we seen Chinese athletes blatantly ignore rules and a blind eye is turned very quickly. This is gonna drag on. If I was a betting man I'd wager city will be lining up in the champs league next season.

ozzy jr

Pauliedragon wrote: »

As RTÉ are pointing out this isn't a case of UEFA against city it's UEFA against the Chinese and Abu Dhabi governments. How often have we seen Chinese athletes blatantly ignore rules and a blind eye is turned very quickly. This is gonna drag on. If I was a betting man I'd wager city will be lining up in the champs league next season.

What about the Russians, they got banned from everything.

This will drag on though, I'd be surprised if it's sorted by the time the draw is made for next seasons CL group stage.

Pauliedragon

Pauliedragon wrote: »

As RTÉ are pointing out this isn't a case of UEFA against city it's UEFA against the Chinese and Abu Dhabi governments. How often have we seen Chinese athletes blatantly ignore rules and a blind eye is turned very quickly.

How often? Compared to, say, US athletes. Or British athletes.

I'm not aware of any suggestion that Chinese athletes who test positive get more leniancy and other countries just put up with it.

UrbanFret

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

To think that there were posters who scoffed at the original leaks about this as 'fake news' and without substance.
I think even City were arrogant enough to believe the same but have been proven very wrong.

Proven? So you have seen this "evidence". Don't be too sure City won't play in next seasons champions league,and the year after that as well. There will be a day of reckoning. then the truth will come out.

gimli2112

Deleted User wrote: »

How often? Compared to, say, US athletes. Or British athletes.

I'm not aware of any suggestion that Chinese athletes who test positive get more leniancy and other countries just put up with it.

Sir Mo Farah, Sir Bradley Wiggins and Paula Radcliffe MBE all have question marks over them.

Agent Coulson

Team Sky have huge question marks to them when it comes to British teams.

gimli2112

gimli2112 wrote: »

Sir Mo Farah, Sir Bradley Wiggins and Dame? Paula Radcliffe all have question marks over them.

That's precisely my point.

Saying the Chinese have some advantage because they bury adverse findings is strange. I don't see UEFA folding because they're up against China or the UAE.

Plus, why wouldn't they have folded before now? They've made a decision and imposed a sanction, I don't buy the idea that they'll get all scared on Man City on appeal.

Pauliedragon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How often? Compared to, say, US athletes. Or British athletes.

I'm not aware of any suggestion that Chinese athletes who test positive get more leniancy and other countries just put up with it.

One example is the guy (can't remember his name) who literally smashed his blood vials in front of a tester. No ban for missing the test. Rio Ferdinand got 8 months for missing tests. The Chinese Olympic soccer team were recently quarantined in Aus due to Corona virus before being allowed play. If that was any other country they wouldn't have been allowed play at all.

Pauliedragon

Pauliedragon wrote: »

One example is the guy (can't remember his name) who literally smashed his blood vials in front of a tester.

Want that the exact opposite to this case - he was cleared by the swimming authorities and CAS accepted the appeal and we await a decision? Was there a decision?

ozzy jr

UrbanFret wrote: »

Proven? So you have seen this "evidence". Don't be too sure City won't play in next seasons champions league,and the year after that as well. There will be a day of reckoning. then the truth will come out.

Do you think Manchester city haven't breached the FFP rules?

gimli2112

listening to the radio and there's a City fan on almost crying saying he wants city to take UEFA to the European Court of Justice. I can't stop laughing. Brexit ftw

Pauliedragon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Want that the exact opposite to this case - he was cleared by the swimming authorities and CAS accepted the appeal and we await a decision? Was there a decision?

That's the point I'm making. If Paddy Murphy did that he'd surely be banned. This guy wasn't. Why?

Cantona's Collars

gimli2112 wrote: »

listening to the radio and there's a City fan on almost crying saying he wants city to take UEFA to the European Court of Justice. I can't stop laughing. Brexit ftw

https://www.captiongenerator.com/1667052/Somewhere-in-the-Emerates

gimli2112

awesome

UrbanFret

ozzy jr wrote: »

Do you think Manchester city haven't breached the FFP rules?

I won't believe anything until I see the evidence. City have already being punished for this "breach" part of that settlement was that it could not be revisited. Yet here we are.

Dots1982

ozzy jr wrote: »

Do you think Manchester city haven't breached the FFP rules?

Isn’t it more than that? I think they stand accused of breaching accounting rules by misstating their income.

marklazarcovic

UrbanFret wrote: »

I won't believe anything until I see the evidence. City have already being punished for this "breach" part of that settlement was that it could not be revisited. Yet here we are.

I don't think they will put it on hold untill you have reviewed it,sorry.

UrbanFret

UrbanFret wrote: »

I won't believe anything until I see the evidence. City have already being punished for this "breach" part of that settlement was that it could not be revisited. Yet here we are.

UEFA have reviewed the evidence it appears. City are allegedly cheats.

Pauliedragon

Pauliedragon wrote: »

That's the point I'm making. If Paddy Murphy did that he'd surely be banned. This guy wasn't. Why?

But that's a question for FINA. CAS certainly weren't scared to pick up the appeal despite his exoneration by FINA.

I'm not saying all sports bodies get it right all the time. But the idea that UEFA and CAS will roll over because it's the UAE really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I mean, UEFA already announced a finding and sanction, I'd say it's hard to "get to" CAS.

The_Kew_Tour

They were cheats in 2012 but people didn’t seem as outraged then, most celebrated it.

ERG89

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

They were cheats in 2012 but people didn’t seem as outraged then, most celebrated it.

Thing is most couldn't prove it then & they were just considered Chelsea 2.0
UEFA might not be able to prove it unless they have the silver bullet in terms of admissible evidence when it reaches CAS or whoever after them. Football Leaks even if they are highly likely to be true will not be worth the paper they are printed on due to how the information was obtained.

JPA

I don't know if it's been answered but if the evidence is from leaked emails is it inadmissible in a court? If it's from hacked emails then even worse.

Have UEFA conducted their own research? Do City have to allow them access to their accounts?

Mushy

JPA wrote: »

I don't know if it's been answered but if the evidence is from leaked emails is it inadmissible in a court? If it's from hacked emails then even worse.

Have UEFA conducted their own research? Do City have to allow them access to their accounts?

May not have to allow them access to accounts, but uefa dont have to allow them into the competition

Iused2likebusts

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

They were cheats in 2012 but people didn’t seem as outraged then, most celebrated it.

Other people then got over their outrage and celebrated them last year.

The_Kew_Tour

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Other people then got over their outrage and celebrated them last year.

Good for them

Harry Palmr

The Premier League investigation is continuing apace, they better not reach a judgement until sometime next season:)

JPA

Mushy wrote: »

May not have to allow them access to accounts, but uefa dont have to allow them into the competition

Just playing devil's advocate but if they don't have stone cold evidence then can they? It would be a bit amateur hour if UEFA don't have proper evidence.

wonski

JPA wrote: »

Just playing devil's advocate but if they don't have stone cold evidence then can they? It would be a bit amateur hour if UEFA don't have proper evidence.

Pretty sure they did have enough evidence.

It's not like it is unbelievable anyway even for us here.

JPA

wonski wrote: »

Pretty sure they did have enough evidence.

It's not like it is unbelievable anyway even for us here.

That's not how courts work.

Mushy

JPA wrote: »

That's not how courts work.

I just dont see how a court can overrule and make them be allowed in. The courts may be able to say that the owners can find the club that way, but uefa dont have to allow them in to the competition either

wonski

JPA wrote: »

That's not how courts work.

What courts?

This is not high court case or whatever you think it is.

If I organise a run for under 15 years old I have a right to disqualify anyone over 15.

City broke the FFP rules set by UEFA. They can be kicked out if they broke those rules.

JPA

wonski wrote: »

What courts?

This is not high court case or whatever you think it is.

If I organise a run for under 15 years old I have a right to disqualify anyone over 15.

City broke the FFP rules set by UEFA. They can be kicked out if they broke those rules.

The question is how do UEFA know they broke the rules? Emails??

And if they are kicked out without proper evidence it's discrimination.

I'm just asking questions here. This is a long way from concluded.

daheff

JPA wrote: »

And if they are kicked out without proper evidence it's discrimination.

Explain which of the grounds for discrimination this breaches, and which legal system is in force.

JPA

daheff wrote: »

Explain which of the grounds for discrimination this breaches, and which legal system is in force.

What are you on about? I'm just asking questions.
My main question is, is this ban based on leaked emails?

Agent Coulson

Part of the ban seems to be for failing to cooperate in the investigation.

That to me reads as though City would not open their books to UEFA to prove they are not guilty.

The independent Adjudicatory Chamber of the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) said City had broken the rules by "overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts and in the break-even information submitted to Uefa between 2012 and 2016", adding that the club "failed to cooperate in the investigation".

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/51510284

MD1990

City already admitted in 2014 they breached FFP & payed a 50m fine.

They have previous & it will be used against them in this case.

Guy:Incognito

JPA wrote: »

What are you on about? I'm just asking questions.

The bit they quoted was very much a statement, not a question.

ArmaniJeanss

JPA wrote: »

The question is how do UEFA know they broke the rules? Emails??

And if they are kicked out without proper evidence it's discrimination.

I'm just asking questions here. This is a long way from concluded.

Worth bearing in mind that this isn't a criminal case under the UK/Ire type system we are familiar with, so the evidence needed is likely somewhat short of proof beyond reasonable doubt. So, your earlier reference to wanting there to be 'stone cold evidence' may not actually be a requirement in this case which is just a rules breach after all.
Conor74 may be able to clarify what sort of proof CAS look for.

Pauliedragon

wonski wrote: »

What courts?

This is not high court case or whatever you think it is.

If I organise a run for under 15 years old I have a right to disqualify anyone over 15.

City broke the FFP rules set by UEFA. They can be kicked out if they broke those rules.

UEFA signed up voluntarily to the CAS and are thereby are bound any ruling the CAS make. Why do people not understand this?

wonski

Pauliedragon wrote: »

UEFA signed up voluntarily to the CAS and are thereby are bound any ruling the CAS make. Why do people not understand this?

There is no CAS ruling yet, so what is there to not understand?

UEFA believes City broke the financial fair play policy. Up to the City to prove they are wrong.

Pauliedragon

wonski wrote: »

There is no CAS ruling yet, so what is there to not understand?

UEFA believes City broke the financial fair play policy. Up to the City to prove they are wrong.

Yes you're right but until the CAS rule which wont happen anytime this year (unlikely anyway) Man city will play in the champions league next season. It's the same as if your found guilty in a court and you appeal then your bail is continued until the appeal is heard. Under the international sports courts Man city are still innocent until proven guilty which means they are not banned from anything yet. If say the hearing is this time next year and the CAS find in UEFAs favour they will be banned from the 21/22 season onwards. The CAS decide Man citys guilt from here not UEFA.

Muahahaha

Mushy wrote: »

I just dont see how a court can overrule and make them be allowed in. The courts may be able to say that the owners can find the club that way, but uefa dont have to allow them in to the competition either

UEFA dont *have* to let them into the competition but it is a court of arbitration whereby both parties have signed up to the rules to respect the ruling of the court. If the CAS ruled in Man Citys favour but UEFA just said 'nah, not having it' then City can appeal again to the Supreme Court of Switzerland, which would take even more time and likely City would still be able to compete in the CL until the Supreme Court case is resolved.

UEFA going against any CAS decision would also have the unintended consequence of eroding trust with all other clubs across Europe on matters of legal resolution. There would be no point in clubs agreeing to CAS acting as an honest broker between disputing parties if they knew that UEFA could ride roughshod over the decision anyway.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Worth bearing in mind that this isn't a criminal case under the UK/Ire type system we are familiar with, so the evidence needed is likely somewhat short of proof beyond reasonable doubt. So, your earlier reference to wanting there to be 'stone cold evidence' may not actually be a requirement in this case which is just a rules breach after all.
Conor74 may be able to clarify what sort of proof CAS look for.

I can't pretend to be au fait but presume you're right. Almost all legal decisions are based on the balance of probabilities , except for criminal courts (in common law countries anyway) where the beyond reasonable doubt arises. So the proof usual amounts to...is it likelier than not that X did Y, not "stone cold proof" as some poster mentioned.