Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 289 comments are related to the topic:
City banned from champions league,,,
City banned from champions league,,,
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 289
|
By:
https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/
the-deficiency-of-fairness-in-financial-fair-play |
|
By:
That this has become a battle of the lawyers is a sad state of affairs for the beautiful game
 That Manchester City sought to mislead UEFA is a matter of fact. |
|
By:
Have you seen the proof from UEFA then?
|
|
By:
or are you basing it on docmentation released to the press from a hacker currently awaiting trial in Lisbon?
|
|
By:
No, I have not personally seen the evidence but can make a considered judgement based on :
[1] What has been widely reported in the quality press [2] The output and actions of UEFA If Man City haven't behaved as reported, then we have a much bigger problem, don't we. UEFA will have undertaken a thorough investigation involving lawyers, accountants, and officials from Manchester City. The likelihood that , after all of that, Manchester city are squeaky clean and are being picked on by UEFA are very small indeed. |
|
By:
Even you must have smiled when you put down points [1] and [2]
 |
|
By:
FFP was brought in Platini as he did not want clubs to spend their way to success
He wanted to protect the interests of the big clubs especially Real Madrid, Barcelona |
|
By:
Why would they pick on Man City, as there's simply no need to, as they don't actually win anything in Europe and are just another European Club and lets face it, the Club has hardly gone mad about it.
|
|
By:
Man City have, since the initial release of the documents, refused to comment on documents allegedly stolen from CFG or it's personnel. UEFA have therefore decided to penalise City for non-cooperation. City previously complained to the UEFA Disciplinary body, a complaint validated by CAS. UEFA has then proceeded to penalise City based on the evidence it has for serious breeches of FFP by overstating it's sponsorship revenue in it's accounts. That evidence has yet to be released by UEFA and won't be until after an appeal, assuming there will be one. City also have stated they have provided evidence to UEFA showing UEFA's account to be incorrect.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I think also it is highly unlikely this ban will start from next season, mainly because that is not in City's interest. Guardiola is in his last year and I doubt he'll be going before then. The CAS case, even though it might be done by July, does not prevent them from going higher to the Swiss Supreme Court even if the result goes against them. UEFA's worst case scenario (imo) is City sue UEFA for violation of anti-competition legislation. Infantino didn't want to go down that road previously but maybe the new guy does. CAS overruling UEFA looks better than UEFA doing nothing.
|
|
By:
Angoose thanks for the clarification re Barca and Real. Didn’t know that.
|
|
By:
Me neither, I was aware that there had been a change but couldn't recall the details, Dr Google to the rescue
 |
|
By:
How does BF settle the forecast and top X places if they are deducted points this year?
The rules do say that relegation is relegation even if caused by a deduction, so that part is clear. Or is a Premier League deduction this year unlikely? Perhaps we need a market for it |
|
By:
Interesting to note that every single team has been traded in the relegation market (Liverpool
has been removed already, so I can't see if that was bet....probably not). |
|
By:
Will they deduct points? they might as well if they can't play in the CL anyway, so deduct them 20 points now and be done with it
It wont taint Pools achievements because we know its been done for 2 months anyway |
|
By:
In other words, deducting points this season wouldn't be much of a punishment.
Unless they take off enough to make them relegation candidates. |
|
By:
So 50 points then
|
|
By:
The Premier League has been carrying out it's own investigation since last March with no timeframe when it will be completed.
|
|
By:
FFP has always been a con and simply protectionism from the establishment to preserve their status.
City are under no danger with these owners. Their pockets are bottomless and if they were sold it'll be another gazillionaire. There are real dangers to smaller clubs and questions about the fit and proper owner checks, but this isn't it by miles. That said, the rules are there and City were pretty blatant in flouting them. A bit churlish to whinge about being punished now. Interesting thing is what happens next. If there's an appeal it needs to be soon. You can't have Sheff U finish 5th, budget for the CL and then lose out after that. Next is what the PL does. Interesting one locally is whete Everton's money is coming from and how the maths play out. But they've shelled out millions on players as well as their new ground and their commercial income can't be close to covering that. Is this the start of a crackdown or were City just bashed for taking the Mick out of UEFA? |
|
By:
be interesting to see if any players or indeed pep clear off to pastures new if they don't get it overturned
|
|
By:
I thought that Pep would leave before this came up and perversely think it will make him stay.
|
|
By:
not sure myself, I can see reasons why he'd stay but i can see it being a flag to some clubs to come and have a go at getting him
|
|
By:
30m compensation?
|
|
By:
A long time coming this, posted about it many many times.
Just hope UEFA stick to there guns and dont give in to the filthy City money.... |
|
By:
Why would they if they have evidence?
|
|
By:
Delighted as a football fan with this decision and it's been a long time coming but I had given up hope that UEFA would do anything substantial about it or that FFP had any real teeth.
If you want to reach the top of the game and win the big pots then you should have to do it the way Liverpool have. By being well run from top to bottom on and off the pitch and spending within your means as a club. That is the way it always was before these sugar-daddies polluted the game and it's the way it always should be going forward. It is possible to do and we've seen Dortmund and Atletico Madrid do similar fairly recently too over a fairly long period. If you want to be one of the top Euro clubs long-term then do it by being well run for decades and building up a huge fanbase over decades like all the top Euro clubs have. What City and PSG have done has made a mockery of football. When is the last time City sold a player they bought for £20m+ for a profit? They operate on the basis of mney is no object while the other clubs operate within their means. Their manager has to ask fans to turn up for games and fill the stadium at times. City's attitude has been appalling and fairly stupid too. They have treated the rules and UEFA with contempt, haven't really denied the existence of the emails but rather actually confirmed that they are legit. Their owner previously threatened that he'd rather spend £30m on lawyers to tie up UEFA in legal proceedings than pay a fine for breach of FFP. That is exactly what he will do, he will exhaust the appeals process under FFP rules and then he will seek to shoot down the rules themselves and will tie up UEFA and cost them tens of millions in legal fees in the process. A long way from being over and still unlikely at this stage that they will serve a FFP CL ban imo. |
|
By:
just wait for the appeal till then were filling balloons
|
|
By:
lurka, that might be your wish but it has nothing to do with FFP.
|
|
By:
The next thing they need to clamp down on is the likes of City and Chelsea buying up all the young players and loaning them out in the hope that they can sell one or two of them for a huge profit. Chelsea have been very successful at this more recently and have used the profits made to comply with FFP.
What has nothing to do with FFP mover? Will you give it a rest that it's all about protecting the bigger clubs and is a witchhunt FFS? Your club has been taking the piss for over a decade and wouldn't even be in the PL if it wasn't for injected cash given how poorly it was run before sugar-daddies came along. |
|
By:
That clubs should only be allowed to grow over time and not via investment from a club owner.
|
|
By:
Man City had been in the top division of English football a long time before 2008 so I can't agree that they wouldn't be if it wasn't for the sugar-daddies, as you put it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Manchester_City_F.C._seasons |
|
By:
"Will you give it a rest that it's all about protecting the bigger clubs and is a witchhunt FFS?"
It's certainly not there to prevent clubs from going bust otherwise the last club that would be under investigation would be Man City. |
|
By:
Owners are allowed to invest under the rules, just not to the ridiculous levels the City owners have. The made a complete mess of covering it up as legit revenue, the club is not run on a sound financial basis and their attitude to UEFA and the rules has been disgraceful and very stupid. I still don't think they'll be banned but there is hope. The fact is City could be a more successful club if they were actually well-run financially and only took contributions from the owner that are allowed under the rules. They have never had any notion of even trying that.
The intention of the rules City breached is clearly to stop clubs doing what City have done. That is a clear fact you and all City fans seem to ignore repeatedly. The rules may have been introduced to prevent clubs going bust but they have evolved and that is not the only reason for them anymore. Get your head around that FFS. |
|
By:
"Owners are allowed to invest under the rules, just not to the ridiculous levels the City owners have."
Why not? It's the owners club and money. |
|
By:
"The rules may have been introduced to prevent clubs going bust"
Do you think City are in danger of going bust? |
|
By:
you know very well mover
|
|
By:
that is not why the rules were introduced
|
|
By:
which bit are you referring to Charlton?
|
