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

gimli2112

yeah I think City will have a difficulty with the emails, I've already seen it suggested but the only way they get out of this is allege the emails are fakes
I actually don't think they are going to buy their way out of this one

Drumpot

gimli2112 wrote: »

yeah I think City will have a difficulty with the emails, I've already seen it suggested but the only way they get out of this is allege the emails are fakes
I actually don't think they are going to buy their way out of this one

I’d never underestimate the motivating power of money to UEFA or FIFA. We are having the next World Cup in a country that’s not safe for players to play in at the usual summertime slot and has deplorable human rights record. People are dieing in the creation of the stadiums. If City owners play their cards right, they will buy their way back into the tournament.

gimli2112

I'm not so sure they have a lot of enemies. RM, Barce us etc. When you see the head of the Spanish FA acting like the pillar of morality you know you're in trouble

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Have the Premier League commented anything on this? But strange that the rules only apply to one competition when then have benefitted in every domestic competition too...

ArmaniJeanss

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Have the Premier League commented anything on this? But strange that the rules only apply to one competition when then have benefitted in every domestic competition too...

In fairness there are lots of technical rules that are different between EPL and UEFA comps (off the top of my head there's squad sizes, the amount of yellows needed for a ban, head to head v goal difference) so it's not necessarily that surprising that there would be a difference in 'finance' rules.

And as we saw with the transfer window change and subsequent recent climb-down (and dare I say Brexit), the English have a tendency to think they know better than those foreigner types and to come up with different rules.

Harry Palmr

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Have the Premier League commented anything on this? But strange that the rules only apply to one competition when then have benefitted in every domestic competition too...

The Premier League are currently running their own investigation into City

from 2019

https://twitter.com/richard_conway/status/1104050422547972096

Fuller twitter timeline here https://www.eurosport.com/football/premier-league-confirm-manchester-city-investigation_sto7176532/story.shtml

.G.

Allowed a bigger 3 year deficit in the PL as opposed to the CL, £105m compared to €45m but the information supplied to both is supposed to be the same so that the Premier League can award a club a UEFA licence to compete. If they lied to UEFA, which they emails prove they did, they also lied to the PL. City have never once claimed the content of the emails is false, just that they were illegally obtained but UEFA didn't obtain them that way and once they ended up in the public domain, you can use them without issue.

CAS will want this dealt with speedily as will City and UEFA, they heard AC Milan's case in the summer the same year they got banned, I expect this will be similar.

gimli2112

JPA wrote: »

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

They were hacked by a Portugeuse hacker who sold the emails to Der Spiegal. Liverpool then hacked their systems and stole their scouting reports. I'd say their IT guy is bricking it.

Harry Palmr

Liverpool logged in, no hacking required.

gimli2112

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Liverpool logged in, no hacking required.

Well then it's practically their fault

Guy:Incognito

gimli2112 wrote: »

Well then it's practically their fault

Not something you should be doing obviously, it's bad form. But I'd have thought when an employee leaves, it'd be standard practice to deactivate their log ins for company sites.

FluffPiece

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Not something you should be doing obviously, it's bad form. But I'd have thought when an employee leaves, it'd be standard practice to deactivate their log ins for company sites.

Yes it should be standard practise and a fairly simple process taking seconds in any well run environment.

Completely unethical for the scouts to login of course also.

Pauliedragon

I wonder if the e mails were obtained illegally would that work in cities favour.

marklazarcovic

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I wonder if the e mails were obtained illegally would that work in cities favour.

In a law court maybe,but they weren't illegally obtained by uefa,were in public domain

Muahahaha

.G. wrote: »

CAS will want this dealt with speedily as will City and UEFA, they heard AC Milan's case in the summer the same year they got banned, I expect this will be similar.

Yeah was wondering myself will CAS fast track it. If they do other cases will have to get bumped down their list. This page shows their hearing list is full right up until April 28th. All sorts of stuff going on there like Middlesborough vs Real Murcia and the Japanese Mountaineering & Sport Climbing Association (JMSCA) vs. International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC)

On April 8th CAS will hear the fascinating fight between the Islamic Republic of Iran Judo Federation and the International Judo Federation where a massive judo brawl could break out at any moment, Man City might have to wait their turn behind the judo lads
https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/news-detail/article/list-of-cas-hearings-3.html

PopePalpatine

adaminho wrote: »

Actually just realised, if one of the English teams were to win the Europa league 9th could technically get in.

So you're saying there's a chance for Arsenal?

PopePalpatine

cjmc wrote: »

Have the EPL/ English fa ever re-cinded a title. Ever ?

I'm trying to think if any league ever rescinded a title. It sounds like something which would happen in 90s Colombia to a drug money-fuelled team.

Mushy

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm trying to think if any league ever rescinded a title. It sounds like something which would happen in 90s Colombia to a drug money-fuelled team.

If you mean worldwide, weren't Juventus match fixing ones rescinded

Pauliedragon

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm trying to think if any league ever rescinded a title. It sounds like something which would happen in 90s Colombia to a drug money-fuelled team.

Marseille 1993 I think I read in anorher thread the title was offered to 2nd place PSG but they declined so there's no winner officially that year.

8-10

A reminder of Pep's reaction when asked if he ever received extra payments like Mancini was reported to have received...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGliEqbzL3c

Denial? Nope. Attack the question. Outrageous that you'd suggest it. This seems to have been City's tactic throughout. Shout loudly about how absurd the claims are.

LineOfBeauty

I wonder what the long term ramifications from this will be for European football? In targeting Man City Uefa have nailed their colours to the mast, that is, they hope to maintain the status quo by aligning with those super clubs who have never made it a secret that they are strongly opposed to how City operate and the threat they pose. Uefa will have known the consequence of doing this, that being that FFP will be challenged in court, if it breaks down then the floodgates are open. It also leaves themselves very open a split and could well be the 1st step in a breakaway superclub league or competition being formed outside of Uefa's jurisdiction.

As a City fan I can't wait until the day we are rid of Uefa for good, this might be the start of that.

gimli2112

this was brought in to combat a City / PSG type emergence, there's something decidedly shady about FFP, it's a good thing for the current top clubs and their fans and that's about it
what's surprising me is how easy City were caught and that they didn't cover their tracks, admittedly they were allegedly hacked but still. there is a certain amount of arrogance about them and this isn't unique to City but the Etihad sponsorship deal was a joke and everyone knew it

Umaro

FFP has also been good for clubs in the Football League. Yes, it's not the exact same model as the one UEFA make clubs abide by, but its drastically slowed down the amount of clubs that overspend and enter administration.

It was introduced in the 11/12 season:

In the 10 years prior to that, 35 clubs went into administration.

In the 9-ish years since it came in, only 7 clubs have done so (and just 2 in the past 6 years).

(Source)


FFP was all about sustainable growth without putting clubs and livelihoods at risk. You use the money you earn to improve the squad, stadium and training facilities - if you do it well enough you move up the leagues.

gimli2112

I didn't even know it applied to the lower leagues, when you consider what Risdale did with Leeds you can understand the need for something like this. I saw Saracens in the rugby got absolutely murdered for breaching a salary cap in their sport.

Muahahaha

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I wonder what the long term ramifications from this will be for European football? In targeting Man City Uefa have nailed their colours to the mast, that is, they hope to maintain the status quo by aligning with those super clubs who have never made it a secret that they are strongly opposed to how City operate and the threat they pose. Uefa will have known the consequence of doing this, that being that FFP will be challenged in court, if it breaks down then the floodgates are open. It also leaves themselves very open a split and could well be the 1st step in a breakaway superclub league or competition being formed outside of Uefa's jurisdiction.

As a City fan I can't wait until the day we are rid of Uefa for good, this might be the start of that.

I dont think UEFA deliberately targeted City, they would have got away with breaches of FFP had the emails not been hacked. Once they were in the public domain UEFA had no choice but to act or other clubs might have started threatening to break away if they did not uphold their own rules. Lets not forget that in the emails was City staff celebrating with glee about the death of a UEFA official who was on a 7 man investigating committee, "one down, six to go" was the quip.

Also if there was any superclub breakaway from UEFA City would be in danger of being excluded from it. Why would the other clubs let them in when they have been shown to break the rules that all other clubs have signed up to?

ozzy jr

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

super clubs who have never made it a secret that they are strongly opposed to how City operate

When YOU say how city operate, what exactly do you mean?

Do you think the big clubs are opposed to a team operating legitimately?

Or do you think the big clubs are opposed to a team cheating?

If it's proven that city have cheated to get where they are, do you think they should be punished, or do you think they should be allowed to continue cheating?

ozzy jr

gimli2112 wrote: »

this was brought in to combat a City / PSG type emergence

Not true.

https://mobile.twitter.com/draper_rob/status/1228771225457090560?s=21

gimli2112

ozzy jr wrote: »

Not true.

https://mobile.twitter.com/draper_rob/status/1228771225457090560?s=21

but Roman is the exact same kind of scenario, there's little doubt in my mind this is its prime aim

LineOfBeauty

ozzy jr wrote: »

When YOU say how city operate, what exactly do you mean?

Do you think the big clubs are opposed to a team operating legitimately?

Or do you think the big clubs are opposed to a team cheating?

If it's proven that city have cheated to get where they are, do you think they should be punished, or do you think they should be allowed to continue cheating?

I think the big clubs are opposed to letting any clubs join their cartel that controls the club game. I think they are terrified by City and have been for a long time. I think FFP was always a reaction to the threat of City (and PSG) and Uefa have chosen now to strike. But it's dangerous, and if they lose everything could change and not in the way they want it to.

ozzy jr

gimli2112 wrote: »

but Roman is the exact same kind of scenario, there's little doubt in my mind this is its prime aim

Nah, state funding by an oil rich country is a world away even from Abramovich.

ozzy jr

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I think FFP was always a reaction to the threat of City (and PSG) and Uefa have chosen now to strike.

But FFP was in the planning stages before the Arabs for involved in both those clubs.

UEFA haven't chosen to strike now, other clubs including city have already been fined or banned, prior to this.

gimli2112

it's like the sham fit and proper persons test the PL have for club ownership. you have some of the biggest crooks and despots in the world owning and running football teams who have supposedly passed this test. These things are designed to maintain the status quo.

LineOfBeauty

ozzy jr wrote: »

But FFP was in the planning stages before the Arabs for involved in both those clubs.

UEFA haven't chosen to strike now, other clubs including city have already been fined or banned, prior to this.

Probably in reaction to the likes of Chelsea and the likes of Thaksin Shinawatra getting involved in football at the time.

No punishment has been this severe, it's a declaration of war, Uefa know it is and so do City. No point dressing it up as a run of the mill thing.

Tippex

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Probably in reaction to the likes of Chelsea and the likes of Thaksin Shinawatra getting involved in football at the time.

No punishment has been this severe, it's a declaration of war, Uefa know it is and so do City. No point dressing it up as a run of the mill thing.

no punishment has been this severe mainly due to the following

1. This is the second time Man City have fallen foul of FFP regs
2. Man City actively hid the source of the sponsorship money
3. Man City used false statements when hiding the sources to gain participation licenses
4. Man City refused to co-operate with the investigation
5. There has been a couple of reprehensible things published in the hacked emails

ozzy jr

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Probably in reaction to the likes of Chelsea and the likes of Thaksin Shinawatra getting involved in football at the time.

No punishment has been this severe, it's a declaration of war, Uefa know it is and so do City. No point dressing it up as a run of the mill thing.

Oh give over. Declaration of war ffs. Jeez, they were caught once, fined and then were caught again. What did you expect?

LineOfBeauty

ozzy jr wrote: »

Oh give over. Declaration of war ffs. Jeez, they were caught once, fined and then were caught again. What did you expect?

What do they expect? Man City were aware this was on the way since December and probably even before that given it was a Uefa investigation. Man City will fight it though and fight it very strongly. If I were a betting man I think City will win.

j8wk2feszrnpao

ozzy jr wrote: »

Oh give over. Declaration of war ffs. Jeez, they were caught once, fined and then were caught again. What did you expect?

Absolutely. The fault here is with City, nobody else. No point spinning this to be an issue with UEFA. City transgressed rules that they signed up to. UEFA didn't force them to spend 100m on FBs, a CB that Pep won't play...... City are on a PR mission, much like the owners acquisition of City and their branding, to divert the issue away from what they have done.

Benzino

Even the city fans can't admit they breached the rules, funny really.

I suspect CAS will reduce the ban to 1 year.

TitianGerm

If City didn't like FFP they just shouldn't have signed up to it. They agreed so they should be bound by the rules the same as everyone else.

8-10

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

What do they expect? Man City were aware this was on the way since December and probably even before that given it was a Uefa investigation. Man City will fight it though and fight it very strongly. If I were a betting man I think City will win.

Do you believe Man City didn't break the rules then?

LineOfBeauty

8-10 wrote: »

Do you believe Man City didn't break the rules then?

I believe that the rules were unfairly created to keep Man City out of the elite clubs in Europe. I hope Man City break their rules in court.

LuckyLloyd

That didn't happen.

And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

And if it was, that's not a big deal.

And if it is, that's not my fault.

And if it was, I didn't mean it.

And if I did...

You deserved it.

Muahahaha

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

What do they expect? Man City were aware this was on the way since December and probably even before that given it was a Uefa investigation. Man City will fight it though and fight it very strongly. If I were a betting man I think City will win.

One of the hacked emails revealed senior City staff discussing a comment attributed by Citys owner Sheik Mansour saying that he would rather spend £30m on 50 of the worlds best lawyers than admit wrongdoing to UEFA.

Dont think it will matter myself, so long as UEFA can show that City broke the rules the CAS will uphold the decision. Only question now is will they adjust the punishment.

8-10

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I believe that the rules were unfairly created to keep Man City out of the elite clubs in Europe.

That doesn't answer my question.

Those rules were created. Everybody knew what they were and they applied to all clubs equally.

Do you believe Man City didn't break the rules then?

Dots1982

Are people copping on that City are pretty fcuked here?

Harry Palmr

It getting worse for them.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/17/manchester-city-sponsorship-covered-by-abu-dhabi-government-not-etihad?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1581960139

Referring to the Etihad sponsorship, the US airlines’ “Partnership for Open and Fair Skies” document said: “While Etihad asserts that it funded the $640m [total] cost of the sponsorship of Manchester City ‘from its own liquidity,’ it provides no such evidence and fails to address the contrary evidence that the US airlines submitted on this point: an internal study that [the consultants] prepared for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, which states that the Executive Council of Abu Dhabi – not Etihad – covers the cost. As an internal document that was not intended for public release, [the consultants’] study is particularly probative of the funding’s true source.”

Etihad denied that absolutely in their response to the US airlines’ allegations, submitted to the US departments in May 2015. The Abu Dhabi airline rejected the claim that its huge funding from the Abu Dhabi government represented “subsidies The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”

eigrod

Harry Palmr wrote: »

It getting worse for them.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/17/manchester-city-sponsorship-covered-by-abu-dhabi-government-not-etihad?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1581960139

That looks pretty damning. Looks like most of the incriminating evidence is coming from within (emails, internal Consultants reports)

ozzy jr

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I believe that the rules were unfairly created to keep Man City out of the elite clubs in Europe.

Ffs

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I hope Man City break their rules in court.

Why didn't they challenge the rules beforehand, instead of agreeing to them, breaking them, getting fined, agreeing to them again, breaking them again and getting caught again!

They just look daft now.

Ordinary man

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That didn't happen.

And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

And if it was, that's not a big deal.

And if it is, that's not my fault.

And if it was, I didn't mean it.

And if I did...

You deserved it.

All except the last line sounds like the defence that liverpool club and fans for suarez. Gotta love hyprocites

j8wk2feszrnpao

Ordinary man wrote: »

All except the last line sounds like the defence that liverpool club and fans for suarez. Gotta love hyprocites

So this is about Liverpool now? Weak.