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

citytillidie

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

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.

Man City are being punished for lying to the previous investigation were they have already been found guilty, maybe if they had of been open and honest then this would not have been an issue

weldoninhio

Martin Tyler AgueroooOO wrote: »

UEFA run the European competitions and clubs are there by licenses given UEFA so UEFA have the rights to run it as they see fit and if clubs aren't happy they don't have to enter those competitions and if they break the license agreements UEFA have the right to remove them from those competitions.

Would this not be seen as a restriction of trade under EU law?? Surely a sheik or oligarch should be allowed invest whatever they want into an EU company once it’s all through the accounts and above board.

gimli2112

there's barriers to trade all the time between jurisdictions, can't see the EU getting bent out of shape over Russian Oligarchs or oil rich Arab states, sure the UK kicked Roman out of the country

gormdubhgorm

weldoninhio wrote: »

Would this not be seen as a restriction of trade under EU law?? Surely a sheik or oligarch should be allowed invest whatever they want into an EU company once it’s all through the accounts and above board.

Remember EU law will no longer apply to the UK. Not to sidetrack the thread but it will be interesting to see what rules the English FA bring instead of Bosman.

As for the main issue I would say Man City will appeal and get thier ban halved.

weldoninhio

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Remember EU law will no longer apply to the UK. Not to sidetrack the thread but it will be interesting to see what rules the English FA bring instead of Bosman.

As for the main issue I would say Man City will appeal and get thier ban halved.

This is historical though, when EU law did apply.

ArmaniJeanss

weldoninhio wrote: »

Would this not be seen as a restriction of trade under EU law?? Surely a sheik or oligarch should be allowed invest whatever they want into an EU company once it’s all through the accounts and above board.

EU have already accepted that FFP is valid.

daheff

JPA wrote: »

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

You are claiming there is discrimination involved. I'm asking you on what grounds and under which jurisdiction you are claiming the discrimination

Muahahaha

Dots1982 wrote: »

Are people copping on that City are pretty fcuked here?

I think everyone apart from City fans realise how serious it is. Was reading the other day how force majure clauses are standard in footballers contracts. So things like a player being guaranteed X bonus for getting to specific stages of the CL now come into contention- the player can now sue Man City for non-performance of the contract because the actions of Citys owners got them kicked out of the CL. This allows players to get completely out of their contracts and City could see themselves having a forced fire sale of their best players. Same goes for Pep, if the CAS uphold the decision and he has no CL football then he will be able to walk, along with compensation for City not performing their side of the contract.

On top of this no CL football will mean a deficit in their income of about £100m. They have a £300m annual wage bill and will still be under FFP rules so the club cant just be bailed out for this shortfall. So if it all comes to pass there is no simple way out of this, they would have to drastically cut their wage bill by selling players and then getting new ones on much reduced wages which means lesser players than what they have now. 2 years out of the CL could soon turn into 3, 4 or even 5 years as they will be undergoing a complete rebuilding program.

So yeah, CIty are pretty fcuked here.

gimli2112

yeah contracts will generally make you liable if it fails because of a deliberate and reckless act

POKERKING

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think everyone apart from City fans realise how serious it is. Was reading the other day how force majure clauses are standard in footballers contracts. So things like a player being guaranteed X bonus for getting to specific stages of the CL now come into contention- the player can now sue Man City for non-performance of the contract because the actions of Citys owners got them kicked out of the CL. This allows players to get completely out of their contracts and City could see themselves having a forced fire sale of their best players. Same goes for Pep, if the CAS uphold the decision and he has no CL football then he will be able to walk, along with compensation for City not performing their side of the contract.

On top of this no CL football will mean a deficit in their income of about £100m. They have a £300m annual wage bill and will still be under FFP rules so the club cant just be bailed out for this shortfall. So if it all comes to pass there is no simple way out of this, they would have to drastically cut their wage bill by selling players and then getting new ones on much reduced wages which means lesser players than what they have now. 2 years out of the CL could soon turn into 3, 4 or even 5 years as they will be undergoing a complete rebuilding program.

So yeah, CIty are pretty fcuked here.

We have been down in the second division getting 35 thousand fans week in week out(of which i was one) without a pot to piss in watching absolute turds playing (although they werent as bad as some of the players we had in the first division that got us relegated in the first place!) now that was city being pretty ****ed! This is a drop in the ocean compared to that and no matter what happens the same fans that get slagged over the empthyhad will still go week in week out......so all in all its not the end of the world!

POKERKING

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.

Ah still bitter over last years title race i see! Just get over it man and enjoy watching your own teams greatest ever season. Your anti city crusade the past 12 months is tiresome.

ozzy jr

POKERKING wrote: »

We have been down in the second division getting 35 thousand fans week in week out(of which i was one)

Looks like the current city accountant has logged in

~Rebel~

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.

AC Milan's punishment was exactly this severe - 2 year European ban, and a fine. After appealing to CAS, and agreeing to open their financial books to UEFA, it was lessened to a 1 year European ban, with the second year suspended until 2021 when their finances will be reviewed. If all is in order then, they just have the 1 year ban, if still in breach, they'll serve the second year.

When City appeal to CAS, I could see similar, if they agree to open their books, and if they can prove they didn't provide false figures.

The latter is the most important aspect - having your finances out of whack is one thing, lying about it is much more serious.



Also, I think it's worth noting, there's a lot of conspiratorial talk amongst City fans that UEFA has always had it out for them, and wanted them cut down. Largely it seems like a "they're just jealous" argument. But I've yet to hear anyone answer "Why" convincingly. Man City being in the Champions League is a good thing for UEFA. Pep being in the Champions League is a good thing for UEFA. De Bruyne, Sterling, Aguero, B Silva, Rodri, Fernandinho, Ederson etc being in the Champions League is a good thing for UEFA.

They bring viewers, and eyeballs.They've been involved in huge, high profile games, and are unequivocally one of the best teams in Europe to watch. If anything,I would say UEFA would actually have turned a blind eye to quite a bit, until they were pushed too far by information being made publicly available that City had actively lied about their sponsorship deals. What's UEFA supposed to do then? They've been totally backed into a corner where they have had to act because of how City have handled things. There's nothing else they could've done. And even with that, they only came out with this after a full year's investigation.

Blud

weldoninhio wrote: »

Would this not be seen as a restriction of trade under EU law?? Surely a sheik or oligarch should be allowed invest whatever they want into an EU company once it’s all through the accounts and above board.

They can invest whatever they want. It just means that they can't play in UEFA competitions if they breach certain limits, and potentially face PL points deductions too.

Have at the "investment" all they like.

Dots1982

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think everyone apart from City fans realise how serious it is.

Dunno about that, load of posters here saying they’ll get out it on appeal. ciaran Murphy on secondcaptains saying the worst that’ll happen is they finish second instead of first.

Think the majority are still not grasping how massive this is.

Pauliedragon

~Rebel~ wrote: »

AC Milan's punishment was exactly this severe - 2 year European ban, and a fine. After appealing to CAS, and agreeing to open their financial books to UEFA, it was lessened to a 1 year European ban, with the second year suspended until 2021 when their finances will be reviewed. If all is in order then, they just have the 1 year ban, if still in breach, they'll serve the second year.

When City appeal to CAS, I could see similar, if they agree to open their books, and if they can prove they didn't provide false figures.

The latter is the most important aspect - having your finances out of whack is one thing, lying about it is much more serious.



Also, I think it's worth noting, there's a lot of conspiratorial talk amongst City fans that UEFA has always had it out for them, and wanted them cut down. Largely it seems like a "they're just jealous" argument. But I've yet to hear anyone answer "Why" convincingly. Man City being in the Champions League is a good thing for UEFA. Pep being in the Champions League is a good thing for UEFA. De Bruyne, Sterling, Aguero, B Silva, Rodri, Fernandinho, Ederson etc being in the Champions League is a good thing for UEFA.

They bring viewers, and eyeballs.They've been involved in huge, high profile games, and are unequivocally one of the best teams in Europe to watch. If anything,I would say UEFA would actually have turned a blind eye to quite a bit, until they were pushed too far by information being made publicly available that City had actively lied about their sponsorship deals. What's UEFA supposed to do then? They've been totally backed into a corner where they have had to act because of how City have handled things. There's nothing else they could've done. And even with that, they only came out with this after a full year's investigation.

The theory isn't UEFA want city out specifically. Theory is that the group of "elite" "richest" whatever you want to call it pressured city UEFA into these rules so they could always remain top of the pile as other clubs would never be able to compete financially because they are not allowed spend the money necessary to compete.
They also wanted some kind of "historic" entry system to the champs league whereby those teams would always qualify regardless of league position. It does seem credible to me.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Pauliedragon wrote: »

The theory isn't UEFA want city out specifically.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

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

Unfortunately there are some who have their conspiracy tin foil hats on.

City have spent, and spent hugely; and to date they’ve really only gotten a slap on the wrist.
The latest incident isn’t just the spending, but the way they were trying to cover it up, and the lack of cooperation. It’s something similar to Saracens in rugby, financial doping to get around the rules.

BorneTobyWilde

City for a while were buying up players from Liverpool, Arsenal, United, and Spurs during this time. It was more about weakening the teams around them so they could not challenge, all on the back of dodgy books

Agent Coulson

Listening to Off The Ball tonight talking about this.

They ended up talking about an email celebrating the death of the chair of the investigatory chamber and wishing death on the other 6 members.

One internal communication by Simon Cliff, the Etihad’s in-house lawyer, said that Khaldoon al-Mubarak, the chairman, warned Gianni Infantino, then Uefa’s general secretary and now president of Fifa, that City would not accept a sanction for exceeding the allowed €45m losses in 2012 and 2013. According to Cliff, Khaldoon told Infantino: “He would rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue [Uefa] for the next 10 years.”

No room for compromise there. There was worse to come. One of the focuses of City’s anger is the investigatory chamber (IC), the body that looks into breaches of the financial rules. When Cliff’s reaction to the death of Jean-Luc Dehaene, a former chair of the IC, was made public, shock waves went through Nyon: “1 down, 6 to go,” the lawyer wrote. It sent a chill down the spines of the members of the committee.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/man-city-champions-league-ban-fine-uefa-appeal-latest-points-deduction-a9337326.html

LuckyLloyd

POKERKING wrote: »

Ah still bitter over last years title race i see! Just get over it man and enjoy watching your own teams greatest ever season. Your anti city crusade the past 12 months is tiresome.

I’ll be well over it in a few weeks when we’ve written Pep’s City out of the league record books. Well over it.

And clearly I am far from the only one out there who finds City bankrupt as a club in every way other than financial.

gstack166

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I’ll be well over it in a few weeks when we’ve written Pep’s City out of the league record books. Well over it.

And clearly I am far from the only one out there who finds City bankrupt as a club in every way other than financial.

Want some gin for your lemons? Lol. Hilarious.

LineOfBeauty

~Rebel~ wrote: »

AC Milan's punishment was exactly this severe - 2 year European ban, and a fine. After appealing to CAS, and agreeing to open their financial books to UEFA, it was lessened to a 1 year European ban, with the second year suspended until 2021 when their finances will be reviewed. If all is in order then, they just have the 1 year ban, if still in breach, they'll serve the second year.

When City appeal to CAS, I could see similar, if they agree to open their books, and if they can prove they didn't provide false figures.

The latter is the most important aspect - having your finances out of whack is one thing, lying about it is much more serious.



Also, I think it's worth noting, there's a lot of conspiratorial talk amongst City fans that UEFA has always had it out for them, and wanted them cut down. Largely it seems like a "they're just jealous" argument. But I've yet to hear anyone answer "Why" convincingly. Man City being in the Champions League is a good thing for UEFA. Pep being in the Champions League is a good thing for UEFA. De Bruyne, Sterling, Aguero, B Silva, Rodri, Fernandinho, Ederson etc being in the Champions League is a good thing for UEFA.

They bring viewers, and eyeballs.They've been involved in huge, high profile games, and are unequivocally one of the best teams in Europe to watch. If anything,I would say UEFA would actually have turned a blind eye to quite a bit, until they were pushed too far by information being made publicly available that City had actively lied about their sponsorship deals. What's UEFA supposed to do then? They've been totally backed into a corner where they have had to act because of how City have handled things. There's nothing else they could've done. And even with that, they only came out with this after a full year's investigation.

If City as we know it didn't exist then those players and that coach would be at different clubs, old school elite clubs, which is the way they want it.

City will argue that they are no more breaking these rules than a raft of other top European clubs are. They will attack Uefa's process in coming to the conclusion that they have. They will go after FFP ruthlessly. Football journalists are using the term "scorched earth" to describe City's line of defence on this and that's what it will be, maybe Uefa have chosen the wrong club to go after and maybe by the end of this Uefa's power in the European game will be significantly weakened.

ozzy jr

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

If City as we know it didn't exist then those players and that coach would be at different clubs, old school elite clubs, which is the way they want it.

City will argue that they are no more breaking these rules than a raft of other top European clubs are. They will attack Uefa's process in coming to the conclusion that they have. They will go after FFP ruthlessly. Football journalists are using the term "scorched earth" to describe City's line of defence on this and that's what it will be, maybe Uefa have chosen the wrong club to go after and maybe by the end of this Uefa's power in the European game will be significantly weakened.

Jesus

What top European clubs have also done what city have done?

LineOfBeauty

ozzy jr wrote: »

Jesus

What top European clubs have also done what city have done?

It seems they'll go into other clubs advertising deals and outline the faults in some of them, for example Bayern Munich and Adidas.

jem

I do think this is make or break for UFEA.
IF city win the case all the "power" will be gone to the clubs with money.
The city owners will throw millions and millions at the case and as said above use a scorched earth attack.
I understand the idea behind the FFP and stoping clubs going burst however do think it shouldn't have been about losses per say more about loans to cover the losses.
In my opinion the way it should be is :
If club A's ownership wants to throw money at building the club they should be able to do so only if the money they invest is not by way of loans rather by way of shares.
I seem to remember abramovich converting his loans in the club into shares a number of years ago.
In addition to this if a club wants to rack up losses the owners must provide bank guarantees/ bonds to cover the losses for the following 3 years.

The first of these would cover the likes of portsmouth where the owner just recalled his loans to the club because of his own financial difficulties.
While the latter would cover if an owner did run into problems then a club wouldnt go burst due to the contracts that the players have signed forceing a club to go to the wall.

All of the above being said Man City did sign up to the rules and they seem to have broken them.

ozzy jr

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

It seems they'll go into other clubs advertising deals and outline the faults in some of them, for example Bayern Munich and Adidas.

What is the issue with that deal? (Genuine question, as I have no idea).

Is it as shady as the Etihad deal, where the company only paid £8m and the owner paid the rest?

citytillidie

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

It seems they'll go into other clubs advertising deals and outline the faults in some of them, for example Bayern Munich and Adidas.

But this ban is for lying to UEFA and not showing the correct accounts basically breaking the trust between club and UEFA

gimli2112

I imagine Adidas and BM have a very close relationship with both being German. Adidas may very well have over paid as a result but nothing to the extent of some of the City deals where it looks like Sheik Mansour actually put up a portion the funds himself.
There's a strong suspicion the UAE tourism board and the airline are nothing more than vehicles the ownership are using to ferry funds to the club.
This jihad City are calling upon UEFA is not going to attract support from the other big clubs and that's going to be their biggest problem methinks

LineOfBeauty

ozzy jr wrote: »

What is the issue with that deal? (Genuine question, as I have no idea).

Is it as shady as the Etihad deal, where the company only paid £8m and the owner paid the rest?

Adidas own a large share of Bayern and sponsor them and City seem to think it's led to shady payments. I don't know if that's true or not, but I guess we will find out.

Who knows, a little shady is still shady. The legal ins and outs of the case I don't know, really nobody knows until it hits the CAS and City outline their case. I know that I've never been in favour of FFP and, from a Uefa perspective, I can't think of a worst club to go after given City's limitless wealth, the attitude of the people who own the club, and that they are not tied down to Europe's old hierarchy, they are outsiders and they view themselves as such. To me, I think Uefa are on dangerous ground.

weldoninhio

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Adidas own a large share of Bayern and sponsor them and City seem to think it's led to shady payments. I don't know if that's true or not, but I guess we will find out.

Who knows, a little shady is still shady. The legal ins and outs of the case I don't know, really nobody knows until it hits the CAS and City outline their case. I know that I've never been in favour of FFP and, from a Uefa perspective, I can't think of a worst club to go after given City's limitless wealth, the attitude of the people who own the club, and that they are not tied down to Europe's old hierarchy, they are outsiders and they view themselves as such. To me, I think Uefa are on dangerous ground.

Would love to see City put an end to UEFA. I’d imagine they already have a team of people looking into every deal UEFA have done in the recent past.

LineOfBeauty

weldoninhio wrote: »

Would love to see City put an end to UEFA. I’d imagine they already have a team of people looking into every deal UEFA have done in the recent past.

I think Uefa have put themselves in a vulnerable position, because while City's ownership will be on trial, you can bet Uefa and some of the most high profile clubs in Europe will be put on trial too by City.

super_furry

weldoninhio wrote: »

Would love to see City put an end to UEFA. I’d imagine they already have a team of people looking into every deal UEFA have done in the recent past.

Think you're vastly over-estimating what City can and will do.

They signed up to the rules of the competition, they broke them and then lied to try and cover that up.

The whole 'well other boys are doing it too Miss!' argument is a wash. Look at PSG - they broke the rules, held their hands up and took their medicine.

ArmaniJeanss

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I think Uefa have put themselves in a vulnerable position, because while City's ownership will be on trial, you can bet Uefa and some of the most high profile clubs in Europe will be put on trial too by City.

Do CAS allow their courtrooms to be turned into a circus?
What if they say to City that they'll hear the appeal purely on the evidence of this particular case, and not on 'but what about the others'.
It's generally the way courts operate (CAS may be different?). I'd expect a rather dry 'you submit your case, now you on the other side submit your case, both keep it short and to the point please' affair.

TitianGerm

We can quite clearly see sports washing in full flow now. The lengths the City fan base will go to protect their owners is amazing.

I'd say it's mission successful so far from the owners point of view.

ozzy jr

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

you can bet Uefa and some of the most high profile clubs in Europe will be put on trial too by City.

You're really coming out with some weird sh!t

Fitz*

To be fair, City calling out Juventus over the Fiat payments was warranted. It was just another way of the Agnelli family who own both Juventus and Fiat, of funneling money into the club. But, that will not help garner support for their case.

The numbers that City were getting from Ethiad were so perplexing, it was a clear case of inflating sponsorship costs. Emirates paid £100m for a 15 year stadium naming deal with Arsenal, which also included a 7 year jersey sponsorship. This was to start in 2006. A few years later in 2012, this was increased to £150m. Arsenal were a pretty big club then too. In 2011, Man City got a similar stadium & jersey sponsorship deal worth £400m over 10 years, more than double what Arsenal were getting. And to be fair at the time Man City were nowhere near as popular as Arsenal. They hadn't even played CL football yet.


https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

irelandrover

If the whole point of FFP is to make sure clubs don't go bankrupt then why does it matter if the Ethiad deal isn't inline with other sponsorship deals? As long as the money is guaranteed for City then that is all that should matter. Why can addidas as part owner of Bayern also sponsor them but the owner of City can't.

gimli2112

Adidas presumably are sponsoring them with their own money.

I've said before teams have bought success in the past the difference this time around is that what City have done is against the rules.

LineOfBeauty

ozzy jr wrote: »

You're really coming out with some weird sh!t

What bit is odd? A major part of City's defence will be highlighting how some of Europe's superclubs do business in, what City deem, shady ways. Do you think the likes of Bayern and Juventus will enjoy their potential wrongdoings being made public?

Tippex

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

What bit is odd? A major part of City's defence will be highlighting how some of Europe's superclubs do business in, what City deem, shady ways. Do you think the likes of Bayern and Juventus will enjoy their potential wrongdoings being made public?

if they go down that route heavily by saying well we done it coz these guys done something similar it is a very juvenile way of behaving especially in an appeal process.

The only way City comes out of this stronger than UEFA would be to get enough clubs on board to form a super league and the yearly revenue clubs would be expecting would likely be 250m per season each.

UEFA has massive power with the clubs. Just look at the figures UTD regularly get 90-100m per year participating in europe (this is based on being part of the UEFA family).

For a club to breakaway there would need to be substantial upside to them to support city and I cannot honestly see it happening (UTD, Liverpool, Real, Barca, Bayern, Juve, AC) all weild too much power for this to happen.

Then you have the problem of being affiliated with FIFA and corruption is one thing but FIFA corruption is on another level.

Yes UEFA are the most powerful federation for club football but everything goes back to FIFA and no matter what we say most players dream of winning the world cup and if a team is not affiliated with FIFA the players cannot play in FIFA tournaments.

The scorched earth approach will have a little effect but it will take a lot more than the claimed £30m being talked about

LineOfBeauty

Tippex wrote: »

if they go down that route heavily by saying well we done it coz these guys done something similar it is a very juvenile way of behaving especially in an appeal process.

The only way City comes out of this stronger than UEFA would be to get enough clubs on board to form a super league and the yearly revenue clubs would be expecting would likely be 250m per season each.

UEFA has massive power with the clubs. Just look at the figures UTD regularly get 90-100m per year participating in europe (this is based on being part of the UEFA family).

For a club to breakaway there would need to be substantial upside to them to support city and I cannot honestly see it happening (UTD, Liverpool, Real, Barca, Bayern, Juve, AC) all weild too much power for this to happen.

Then you have the problem of being affiliated with FIFA and corruption is one thing but FIFA corruption is on another level.

Yes UEFA are the most powerful federation for club football but everything goes back to FIFA and no matter what we say most players dream of winning the world cup and if a team is not affiliated with FIFA the players cannot play in FIFA tournaments.

The scorched earth approach will hav a little effect but it will take a lot more than the claimed £30 being talked about

It's difficult to predict because there really isn't much of a precedent for this. Maybe it is a breakaway league, maybe it's the end of FFP, maybe it's City earning more money by playing lucrative friendlies around the world instead of CL. I don't know, that's why it's interesting.

weldoninhio

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Do CAS allow their courtrooms to be turned into a circus?
What if they say to City that they'll hear the appeal purely on the evidence of this particular case, and not on 'but what about the others'.
It's generally the way courts operate (CAS may be different?). I'd expect a rather dry 'you submit your case, now you on the other side submit your case, both keep it short and to the point please' affair.

They wouldn’t need to bring it up in court. You can be sure UEFA are up to their necks in corruption. City may just tell them, fine we’ll take the 2 year ban, but we’ll sink you and everyone associated with you. Look at what happened to Sepp.

TitianGerm

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

It's difficult to predict because there really isn't much of a precedent for this. Maybe it is a breakaway league, maybe it's the end of FFP, maybe it's City earning more money by playing lucrative friendlies around the world instead of CL. I don't know, that's why it's interesting.

Who do you think will join this break away league? City and PSG yes but anyone else?

Do you think the best players in the world would rather play in friendlies or in the CL on a Wednesday night?

x43r0

irelandrover wrote: »

If the whole point of FFP is to make sure clubs don't go bankrupt then why does it matter if the Ethiad deal isn't inline with other sponsorship deals? As long as the money is guaranteed for City then that is all that should matter

From what I understand, it's the fact that they lied about the sponsorship source that has compounded the initial offence which was the FFP breach.

David Conn covered it better than I can on the football weekly podcast yesterday. He gave an analogy of getting caught for speeding, you get points on your license for the offence and that's the end of it.

But say for example you lied and said someone else was driving the car. If caught, that offence would carry a punishment much more serious that the initial offence (prison time in this example analogy)

I'd recommend giving it a listen, it's covered in the opening 10mins of the podcast: https://www.theguardian.com/football/audio/2020/feb/17/manchester-citys-ban-the-race-for-fifth-and-more-football-weekly-podcast

8-10

irelandrover wrote: »

If the whole point of FFP is to make sure clubs don't go bankrupt then why does it matter if the Ethiad deal isn't inline with other sponsorship deals? As long as the money is guaranteed for City then that is all that should matter. Why can addidas as part owner of Bayern also sponsor them but the owner of City can't.

It's a bit late now to be questioning a law you signed up to follow, broke, got punished for, broke again, and then lied about it to cover-up....don't you think?

This attitude of 'yeah we broke it and lied about it but it wasn't doing what it intended anyway' is a weak argument as is the 'but the other boys are doing it too' argument

The only way the ban should be lifted is if they prove they weren't in breach and didn't cover it up.

Any other club found in breach should also get a ban proportionate to the one City got relative to the extent of the breach.

Morzadec

citytillidie wrote: »

But this ban is for lying to UEFA and not showing the correct accounts basically breaking the trust between club and UEFA

This. The ban is not for falling foul of FFP (a minor offence), it's for lying to UEFA. Essentially fraud. Far far more serious. The extent of the lying too (i.e. 59 million) It's really important these aren't conflated in the debate.

No other club has been found guilty of this. Personally I'd be surprised if a club of Bayern's history and prestige was fiddling the books and lying to UEFA. It takes a special kind of arrogance and feeling of untouchability to do what the City owners/executives did.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

If City as we know it didn't exist then those players and that coach would be at different clubs, old school elite clubs, which is the way they want it.

City will argue that they are no more breaking these rules than a raft of other top European clubs are. They will attack Uefa's process in coming to the conclusion that they have. They will go after FFP ruthlessly. Football journalists are using the term "scorched earth" to describe City's line of defence on this and that's what it will be, maybe Uefa have chosen the wrong club to go after and maybe by the end of this Uefa's power in the European game will be significantly weakened.

And that would be a waste of time.

Just like the fellow who is up for drink driving and says "sure half the parish is at it".

We're all guilty is not a defence but an admission. Now, they can bring specific allegations to UEFA to commence investigations of other clubs, but it won't get them off the hook.

super_furry

Jesus Christ, had a look around that Blue Moon forum just there.

They're a special bunch of people, aren't they?

LuckyLloyd

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

It's difficult to predict because there really isn't much of a precedent for this. Maybe it is a breakaway league, maybe it's the end of FFP, maybe it's City earning more money by playing lucrative friendlies around the world instead of CL. I don't know, that's why it's interesting.

You keep ignoring the AC Milan precedent. One of the old elite insider clubs full of tradition and history in all the ways City aren’t.

gstack166

8-10 wrote: »

It's a bit late now to be questioning a law you signed up to follow, broke, got punished for, broke again, and then lied about it to cover-up....don't you think?

This attitude of 'yeah we broke it and lied about it but it wasn't doing what it intended anyway' is a weak argument as is the 'but the other boys are doing it too' argument

The only way the ban should be lifted is if they prove they weren't in breach and didn't cover it up.

Any other club found in breach should also get a ban proportionate to the one City got relative to the extent of the breach.

Don’t think they had a choice in that. I think it was agreed by a majority that voted for it, City weren’t one of them obviously,

Remember Khaldoon saying years ago in one of his end-of-season interviews that he didn't agree with UEFA's version of progress (FFP) and City's way would be more viable and more successful.

Says to me that City never agreed to FFP, suspecting a majority vote got FFP through.

Who made up the rules?

Who changed the rules? (To ensnare City initially)

Who changed the rules again to suit mainly the Italian league?

Is there a bias connecting the G 14 on the FFP committee that was responsible for the rule changes?

And what curious goings on involving Juve sponsor Fiat and Bayern's Audi & Adidas deals who all have a take in the clubs. This I think is City’s grievance and why they refused a plea deal that would of seen them not banned just fined for admitting guilt.