City banned from champions league,,,

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.

That clubs should only be allowed to grow over time and not via investment from a club owner.

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

"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.

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.

"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.

"The rules may have been introduced to prevent clubs going bust"

Do you think City are in danger of going bust?

you know very well mover

that is not why the rules were introduced

which bit are you referring to Charlton?

Reduced to a suspended and a fine on appeal imo.

Oliver Holt
@OllieHolt22
But let's not pretend that Uefa's brand of FFP is some well-intentioned device to save football from the oligarchy of the privileged. It's the opposite of that. It's designed to enshrine old money and keep out challengers.

all the clubs signed up to FFP rules whether they are flawed or not
to start crying about being caught by them now is frankly pathetic
City fans boo the CL anthem anyway so Im sure everybody will be happy they are out of the competition
They are lucky not also to have a transfer ban and got away with it by the skin of their teeth
Perhaps they should look at themselves rather than blaming others and learn some lessons

If City have broken the rules then they deserve to be banned. They also have the right to appeal UEFA's decision.

If City turn up at the appeal with so called new evidence then the UEFA charge of non co operation will be proven
Its not just the breach of FFP that is being judged here but the actions of the club owners to the charge

Obviously the owners are used to making their own rules being part of the ruling elite of an evil totalitarian state
The fact that we are supposed to have fit and proper tests for club owners is a joke

Everton should also be investigated - getting £100m for the option on naming rights for a stadium that hasnt even got planning permission yet is another clear case of financial doping

Do people seriously think FPP was introduced 'to stop clubs going bust' ?

FFP didn't do much good for Bury

ian herberts article in the daily mail yesterday man city are "a grubby club with under the table dealings "

Spot on Rothko.

And Ian Herbert.

Feb 16, 2020 -- 10:01AM, 23nights wrote:

ian herberts article in the daily mail yesterday man city are "a grubby club with under the table dealings "

They are an embarrassing club and laughing stock. Plastics. Look at that boy Foden, can't get a match as Pep wants to have £100m ready made players instead.

Perspective here from a Spurs fan:

This just serves as a reminder that, regardless of what they have won over the past decade, Manchester City are still just a small local club cheating their way to the top table with steroids. Even when some of the best football the country has ever been seen was being played at their stadium, there were still thousands of empty seats every week. Through the most in-your-face, dodgy, corrupt practices, a family with a long list of human rights abuses directly attributed to their names has turned them into their plaything, without a care in the world for who else they have screwed over along the way.

If we look at Tottenham alone, our past decade could have been very different had City (and Chelsea before them) not won the lottery. Ten years ago, Levy's first vision was finally coming to fruition, we had an emerging side of talented players that played good football, assembled through intelligent scouting and careful budget planning. Modric, Bale, Lennon, Defoe, King, Dawson, Huddlestone, Rose and even a teenage Harry Kane - the foundations were there to build a top side for the next few years. We had been camped outside the gates of the Champions League for years, biding our time, waiting for one of the old "big four" to blink and drop out. Finally - Liverpool did, they made some terrible decisions on and off the pitch from 2008-2010 and their team fell to pieces. It should have been our moment to capitalise. It should have been our turn. But instead, this small local club who had already tried selling their soul and dignity to a disgraced Thai politician, suddenly muscled their way in ahead of us. Who knows how things could have turned out differently for us if Man City's squad was still made up of players of the calibre of Emile Mpenza and Rolando Bianchi. Logically, we'd have been looking at four more Champions League qualifications over the past decade just by virtue of having finished one place behind those who did qualify with City occupying one of those places. Thing what that extra exposure and revenue (especially pre-stadium construction) could have meant for us at that point. Would Modric and Bale's heads have been turned as quickly as they were if we'd been Champions League regulars? What if we'd actually been able to sign players like Craig Bellamy, Gareth Barry and Sergio Aguero, all of which we bid for, only to be completely blown out of the water by ridiculous offers of money from Man City? What if this hadn't had the knock on effect to distort the market, where agents representing our transfer targets saw this kind of activity from City and decided that therefore, their players were "worth" way more in wages than they actually were? What if, at the time we finally had a side that looked good enough to win the league, Kyle Walker hadn't received a "treble your money" offer from them?

We tried to do things by the book. Fairly, ethically, morally - the right way that every club should be proud of.  And City came along with their financial doping and spoilt it. They might not have directly knocked us out of any cups, or beaten us in the two title races we were involved in. But make no mistake, this behaviour from Man City has had a huge hindrance on our fortunes over the past decade. And for that reason, I am over the moon with this ruling. F*ck Manchester City, f*ck their spoilt and tiny fan base and f*ck their evil owners - you have had it coming and quite frankly you have gotten off lightly.

themover • February 16, 2020 11:21 AM GMT
"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?

Because they are the rules FFS? How do you not realise that even at this stage? Why do you think City have been sanctioned?

themover • February 16, 2020 11:25 AM GMT
"The rules may have been introduced to prevent clubs going bust"

Do you think City are in danger of going bust? No, but it is irrelevant and I've no idea why you think that is relevant or would even ask me that? What is your point?

If I were a City fan, I'd be massively píssed off with the people running the club and their attitude. I'd be happy with the FFP rules because they are fairly easy to circumvent even if you want to financially dope the club, I certainly wouldn't be complaining about them. Look at some of the wasteful signings they have made over the years and how they haven't bothered trying to sell players or get wages off the books for players who added very little to the squad.If they'd done that they'd be alright but their attitude has been 'why bother, fúck the rules'

The attitude is that of a regime that has never had to earn or work for money and has never had to abide by rules because they come from a background of absolute wealth and power. The reason they are in this mess is because of the contempt they have shown from day 1 more than anything else imo.

They haven't even sought to explain how the emails were supposedly taken out of context, as they claim, or to explain how their finances are legit. What sort of approach is that?
Even now the noises coming out of the club stink of arrogance and being above the rules and they are already talking about having compiled a dossier on other big clubs' finances and sponsorship. That's like going into a murder trial with the defence of 'my next door neighbour killed someone too and so did they guy two doors down'. It's a ridiculous approach.

I still don't think they will be banned from the CL but it would be great for their owners to be put in their place and for some manners to be put on them.

CAS tend to reduce pretty much everything on appeal, UEFA have to know this is going to be fought to the highest level so be interesting what they have as they have to be anticipating it and think they have some kind of case to be upheld.

that article from the Tottenham fan is laughable, he insinuated Tottenham could have got Aguero if Man City hadn't of got there first! there record signing was Darren Bent for 16 million, Aguero was high in demand in Europe at the time and I don't think Tottenham would have been on his top 10 list somehow.

Tottenham never won anything for 3 main reasons, Daniel Levy, managers and players.
Daniel Levy has always tried to do things on the cheap, players on low wages and making cheap signings never had a manager who was top level, til Mourinho, though he's it's not prime Mourinho, never made any top level signing, I literally can't think of any world class player they've signed that top European clubs also wanted to get. Blaming other clubs for not having ambition yourself is scapegoating, the fans had ambition, the owner content to appear to be 'challenging'. The reason why they made top 4 in the end wasn't because of Levy's shrewdness, it was because United and Arsenal went into freefall once Fergie left United and Wenger overstaying in his job and Chelsea yo-yoing with different managers.

What they have done well is produce players and made them better, Modric (who was not world class when he joined), Bale and Kane are 3 very good examples, but Modric and Bale had to move on because they were not going to win anything and it's a matter of time before Kane follows them.

the only two clubs who have really been affected by City have been Man City and Liverpool who have finished runners up to them twice each, but then Man United are a club that are treadwatering in a sea of debt.

PSG have made a laughing stock of FFP, yet they've somehow managed to get away from it.

PSG are the worst culprits in all of this FFP garbage

There's no way they could compete at the top table without filthy amounts of oil money

I love the French league but they are 2nd tier at best, about level with Portugal

I dont agree with the first half of the Tottenham lad's piece really. A bit whiny and aftertiming. Bale and Modric would clearly still have left.

He's right though in them distorting the market. Without City, VVD or Maguire would have cost about £40m I reckon. Biggest ones obviously are PSG with their Neymar deal, though that worked out very well for us in the fee for Coutinho.

But the whole league is affected where decent players like Sigurdsson, Tielemans and Ballet are costing big, big money to smaller clubs while the likes of Grealish, Maddison and Traore will be on the market for Pogba level rates.

Interesting thing is what do City do now. Surely they can't go on spending as they have done. Do they do a Chelsea and start buying and loaning a load of kids. Do they change their scouting system completely?

Yes, this is only the beginning of it really and City will cost UEFA tens of millions in legal fees before it is concluded. IMO UEFA will not want the validity of their rules tested and run the risk of having to pay their own and City's legal fees if they lose, so it will be settled for money only and no ban. I think UEFA want to punish City for the content of the emails rather than be seen to be letting them go without standing up for themselves as they would look ridiculous ans it would make a complete mockery of FFP if they did nothing.

I don't think City have to do much going forward. They can continue spending but need to get more players/wages off the books who don't contribute much and won't be much of a loss to the squad and they've been doing that more in the last few years anyway. They were basically in the clear for this period until the emails came out and that's what caused UEFA to reopen the case as it was clear from the emails that they had cooked the books and lied to UEFA.

PSG are just as if not more ridiculous but their main guy is also on the UEFA board and there is no real willingness to take on them or City imo, it's just that UEFA had to respond to the emails. City are already up there with Chelsea in terms of the young players they sign and they have made large profits from selling them in the last few years which they weren't doing in the period they are being sanctioned for. They already have their house in order a lot more than they did during that period.

If UEFA dont get ban upheld there done.....
Laughing stock.

Remember man utd were quick to accuse City of financial doping, like as soon as their reign of financial superiority had been extinguished. Mainly due to the way they sold the club. Seemed they wanted new rules implemented on city when they (utd)ran out of cash.cant say I understand the fair play rules as seems its not a level playing feild and never has been, ffs real Madrid complaining about other clubs  financial fairness, ffs yor avin a jiraffe.

Spanish government money a helluva lot cleaner than City or PSG money....

if something isn't done football as we know it is finished

the only teams able to compete will be the tope ten elite and the rest will be about survival, its a piss take when the champions league is full of teams who were third or fourth and genuine champions need to play three games to qualify like say dutch league , due to a system where the more cash you have the more your able to earn 


apart from supporters , how many on Saturday watched the Forest v WBA game instead of the other 12 30 kick off in the supposed worlds greatest league ?

Everything that you ever wanted to know about financial fair play but were afraid to ask

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/26/77/...

United never ran out of cash, have you not seen how much they've spent recently? Their owner sucks money out of the club and they still generate a bucketload more than anyone else in the league despite that, including City if you put market values on City's sponsorships. City have barely outspent them over the last 5 years while their owner has pumped hundreds of millions in and the Glazers have taken hundreds of millions out. United's revenues are arms-length and genuine because they are one of the biggest clubs in the world.

Liverpool blow out of the water any argument that the only teams able to compete will be the richest teams. Dortmund and Atletico have been competitive for a good while on much lower budgets than PL clubs too. If you want to break into the elite you should have to be successful and well-run on and off the pitch for a sustained period like those 3 cclubs have been, not just be bankrolled with state money to bridge the gap other teams have taken decades to build for themselves by being successful and well run. Real were bankrolled by the King for years but that was before FFP was introduced and there were no rules against it, that is the difference.

Elvis bankrolled Real Madrid

https://www.thescore.com/uefa/news/1907746/
european-soccer-is-crumbling-behind-uefas-champions-league-facade

That article is about distribution of Euro prize money which is an entirely separate issue to FFP and entirely irrelevant to PL clubs, all of whom make more money from the PL alone than most other Euro clubs who do well in Europe, never mind the ones who don't. And even more irrelevant to a perennial CL club like City, which this thread is about. The fact that Euro leagues, including the PL, are suffering from CL prize money distribution is completely irrelevant to City's case.

What is City and its fans' obsession with attacking UEFA? Attack the messenger, ignore the message.
When the emails were leaked do you think UEFA had any option other than to reopen the case they had already closed without banning City?
Do you think UEFA had any option other than to ban you when you refused to engage with them after they reopened the case?
Why haven't you channeled even 1% of your energy into the cretins who wrote the emails, cooked the books and then refused to engage with UEFA, acting as if they are above the law and answerable to nobody even though they signed up to FFP and the FFP process? The people who claim that their finances are in order and that the emails were 'taken out of context' but refuse to explain how that is or how the finances are in order? WTF did you expect UEFA to do?

Shouldn't UEFA be open to any scutiny? That piece is just one example that shows UEFA are not interested in anything that does not protect the established elite "Basically, these plans promote a closed-off system that protects the established elite. It's no surprise that the scheme was formed with pressure from the prestigious European Club Association, a group headed by Juventus owner Andrea Agnelli."

City welcomed UEFA re-opening the case. Stolen documentation of course is not normally permissable in any court.
When you say City refused to engage with them what do you mean? City provided UEFA with it's evidence.
I have no idea if the emails are even genuine, taken out of context, or whether they prove City have cooked the books or not so why would I channel any energy into that when there is CAS and/or courts that will make that decision with more information than I have. I wouldn't take UEFA's word for it if they said the sun would come up tomorrow. You say City acted as if they are above the law, you don't know that as you haven't seen any of the evidence, as I haven't. UEFA are rules not law. Whether FFP is legal or not has never been challenged in a court. I haven't seen City's 200 pages of documentation provided to UEFA as their evidence so how can I comment about the people that claim their finances are in order?

If City have broken the rules then they deserve to be banned, I have already said that.

I have no clue to their guilt or innocence however it’s all going to be decided one way or the other I imagine the prem league will await the final decision then if found guilty will act upon it

I’m guessing they will start the following season after the result with a point deduction and a fine not sure if they will be stripped of ant historic titles personally don’t think they should be

well UEFA has seen the evidence provided by City and decided they are guilty. They are the governing body after all whether City like it or not.
why did City sign up to the FFP rules if they thought they weren't legal
FFS

rothko, may I ask why you think there is a UEFA rule that limits the amount of money an owner can invest in their club?

(I am aware there is the rule, and that City may have broken it)

Manchester City
@ManCity
"The fans can be sure of two things.

"The first one is that the allegations are false. And the second is that we will do everything that can be done to prove so."

Manchester City CEO, Ferran Soriano

City have impliedly verified that the emails are genuine by stating that they were 'taken out of context'. That wasn't smart imo.
If you have 'irrefutable evidence' that you have not breached FFP then you don't agree to a settlement and squad retrictions as City did years ago, you hand over that evidence and then you fight to clear your good name. You make a settlement when you know there is a breach and want to limit the fallout from it.

This matter should have been dealt with and City full vindicated 4 years ago if they did nothing wrong. Ask yourself why that didn't happen? There is only one answer.

I don't know why you keep asking people why they think there is a UEFA rule that limits owner spending? Do you actually think that is relevent? Because you are deluded if you do.

The fact is the rule has been long in place, City agreed to comply with it and with the sanction process as every club in Euro comps has to in order to get a licence. And now they have refused to engage fully with that process, claiming it is unfair and have left UEFA with no option but to ban them. I don't see why you can have any issue whatsoever with UEFA in doing that - they 100% had to do it. Direct your ire at the cloak and dagger dishonest mugs running your club and tarnishing its good name.

Man City Xtra
@City_Xtr
·
25s
BREAKING: Pep Guardiola has signed a new contract extension with Manchester City until 2023!

I agree lurka, City should have taken UEFA to the cleaners years ago.

"I don't know why you keep asking people why they think there is a UEFA rule that limits owner spending? Do you actually think that is relevent? Because you are deluded if you do."

I never said it was relevant to the City situation. I just asked why you thought there was a restriction on owner investment in the FFP rules. I guess you don't want to reply to the question.

Lol they don't have the evidence to take them to the cleaners, they are pretending they do and are claiming they have a dossier on other clubs finances/sponsorships, which is completely irrelevant to their case with CAS by the way. What they are doing is claiming that they have a big stick to beat UEFA with but refusing to show them the size of the stick. It is a common tactic used to negotiate a settlement in legal cases. Another word for it is bluffing.

I have replied to that question before. It is to stop petrostates and billionaires fastracking decades of success and being well run by financial doping.

Thank you. Is that not in breach of EU anti-competition law?

Or in other words it is to protect the Elite establishment?

It clearly doesn't protect the elite establishment though does it? City and PSG wouldn't be perennial CL KO stage clubs if it did. City wouldn't even be in the CL at all. They've managed to break into that group by having petrodollars pumped in for years and outspend the biggest clubs in the world.

The fact is the rules are toothless, ineffective and very easy to circumvent unless you are stupid enough to get caught committing fraud. That's why you should be very angry at the mugs running your club and not UEFA and I reckon it's only a matter of time before your owner comes to that conclusion.
Liverpool weren't an elite Euro club in terms of finances when Klopp took over and he's trumped the whole lot of them on a fraction of their spending. Why can't you strive to be a well-run club instead of trying to outspend everyone else to get there?

I've no idea whether the rules are in breach of EU Law as it's never been tested by a court but I'd doubt they are. And I highly doubt City will go there or even genuinely intend to go to CAS with this. What they are doing is making threats that they have a strong case and will go all the way with it solely for the purpose of strengthening their hand in future settlement negotiations with UEFA.

City and PSG would have spent considerably more than they already have done if it was not for FFP restrictions, so of course it is protecting the elite establishment. Liverpool may not have been able to buy the players it has done if, for example, City offered £150m for the likes of VVD. Messi may well have found himself at PSG or City, along with Neymar. Ronaldo went to one of the G-14 so no problems there! If PSG and City's owners were allowed to invest what they wanted it wouldn't have taken to long for either of them to get remotely close to winning the Champions League, which neither have to date.

Retrictions on further spending by City and PSG protects every club. They have already massively inflated the transfer and wages markets over the years to unsustainable levels.

Lol. If Pep wanted VVD he'd have got him for a lot less than £75m before Liverpool but he prefers poor defenders like Stones, Laporte, Walker, Danilo, Mendy etc etc. Have you not copped on yet that he doesn't sign defenders for their defensive qualities? If he did you'd have won the CL by now or at least got to a final and he'd have signed a replacement for Kompany last Summer.

Spending more is no guarantee of further success either, as City and PSG have already proved for years. Pep needs a defence to win the CL and he hasn't shown any sign of even being interested in signing good defenders. Conceding goals, esp at home, has been his downfall at City in the CL.

The fact is the rules are toothless, ineffective and easy to cirumvent unless you are caught committing fraud. You had gotten away with it with a drop in the ocean fine and no ban which proves this. If the cretins running your club hadn't acted with 100% disregard for the rules and been caught lying to UEFA you wouldn't be facing a ban. Be angry at them and not UEFA. I suspect your owner will come to that conclusion pretty soon if he hasn't already. The fact is if you sold a few surplus players during that period like any properly run football club would have you wouldn't even have got fined. But it's hard to sell players who are on wages far above what anyone else would pay them.

"They have already massively inflated the transfer and wages markets over the years to unsustainable levels."

How have City done that? Our highest transfer fee is £67m I believe, and De Bruyne is our highest paid player. Compare that to PSGs signings and the salaries of Ronaldo and Messi etc.

In the Premier Leage there is not one position where City have spent more on a player than another club in the league, and United's salary to Sanchez eclipses any salary I know of in the league.

Could a former footballer named Omer Riza play a key role in the next chapter of Manchester City's bitter and potentially defining legal battle with Uefa over their two-year ban from European club competitions?

Back in 2008, the dual British-Turkish national, a former fringe player at Arsenal and West Ham, walked out on Turkish club Trabzonspor and returned to England, claiming he had not been paid.

An arbitration panel appointed by the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) found he had terminated his contract and fined him 61,000 euros (£50,701).

So Riza appealed, first to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), then the Swiss Federal Court, and ultimately to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Last month, Riza - who has retired as a player and is now coaching at Watford's academy - heard he had finally won a decade-long legal battle. The ECHR decided the European Convention of Human Rights had been violated because the arbitration panel was appointed by the TFF's directors, and therefore Riza had legitimate reason to doubt it had approached his case with the necessary independence and impartiality.

So what relevance does all this have to Manchester City - a dominant force in the English game - as they prepare to appeal to Cas, and ramp up their fight against a shattering punishment?

A punishment that has done immeasurable damage to the club's reputation, added to the controversy surrounding owners already accused of using the club to furnish or 'sportswash' Abu Dhabi's image and divert from its questionable human rights record.

A punishment that has tainted the team's achievements, thrown the future of players, manager and finances into doubt, and could yet see the Premier League dock points and strip titles.

Based on City's typically aggressive statement responding to the ban and £25m fine, there are several parts to the defence the club will be expected to mount:

That they deny breaching Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations and have "irrefutable evidence" to prove it, despite Uefa's guilty verdict.
The suggestion - strongly denied - that Uefa pre-determined its decision because of alleged leaks to the media last year that correctly predicted the referral of the case to the club financial control body's adjudicatory chamber.

According to Cas, this argument was "not without merit" when it rejected City's attempt to get Uefa's case thrown out before a verdict was reached last year. Cas also said the leaks were "worrisome". But to make this argument stick the club would surely need solid evidence? City could demand access to private emails and communications, so expect a separate legal battle over disclosure when the case is heard.

That the leaked emails which appear to show City deceived Uefa - and which were published by German magazine Der Spiegel - were obtained illegally and were "out-of-context materials purportedly hacked or stolen", so should therefore be deemed inadmissible.

Even though Der Spiegel's source - Rui Pinto, the figure behind website Football Leaks - is awaiting trial in his native Portugal on multiple charges of computer hacking, which he denies, sports law experts seem to agree this will be a difficult argument for City to win. They have not denied the authenticity of the documents after all.

That the punishment is disproportionate or unfair compared to previous FFP cases or other clubs. City will certainly point to the fact a two-year ban is unprecedented, and therefore potentially excessive. They will also refer to other clubs' sponsorship arrangements with companies linked to their owners.

That this was a "prejudicial process" because it was "judged by Uefa" - ie the adjudicatory panel was effectively biased because it was appointed by Uefa and therefore lacked independence.

This final argument in particular has received little sympathy - and indeed much criticism. With highly respected legal minds such as top British barrister Charles Flint QC hired for their independence and integrity on the adjudicatory panel, and City fully aware of the system they had signed up to, many have portrayed this as disrespectful and, simply, sour grapes.

And whether you see FFP as a crude means of protecting club football's traditional status quo, or a sensible approach that has stabilised finances, many believe City breached rules they had agreed to adhere to - and then misled officials about it and therefore must be punished, especially as Uefa claims the club failed to co-operate with the investigation.

But does the conclusion of the Riza case just three weeks ago give City and their sizeable team of lawyers cause for optimism, and partly explain their defiance?

Leading British sports lawyer John Mehrzad thinks so.

"That case will be at the forefront of their lawyers' minds," he says. "They can't have missed it. I can already predict the argument they will run at Cas.

"The ECHR said that, in terms of a fair trial process, having a disciplinary body that also appoints the panellists who carry out the decision-making means there isn't sufficient distance between the two.

"In terms of the adjudicatory chamber members' expenses and appointments, they are at the behest of Uefa. That's not going to necessarily be sufficient to show a lack of impartiality, but you can see how there are arguments, and they have to raise those points now for them to be considered further down the line. City will say they had no choice but to sign up to these rules, and we've seen this argument of a lack of freedom used by claimants in key sports cases in the past."

Mehrzad predicts that, with money no object, City's lawyers will refer Cas to the precedent set by the Riza verdict, confront Uefa with the threat of dragging their case out in similar fashion, make clear their willingness to take their challenge to higher courts, and hope the governing body offers a settlement involving a reduced punishment, rather than risk the uncertainty of a drawn-out legal fight.

"We've seen this in other sports law sagas," he says. "These are cases that if you want them to run and run, the ultimate body is the ECHR.

"The Turkish process took 10 years, and if you can threaten to get a sanction suspended for that long, and make a mockery of the process, you'd think they'll be able to cut a deal."

Perhaps ominously for Uefa, one leaked email published by Der Spiegel featured City lawyer Simon Cliff explaining that rather than settle with the governing body, the chairman "would rather spend £30m on the best 50 lawyers in the world to sue them for the next 10 years".

Uefa would, of course, argue this case is very different to one involving Turkish football more than a decade ago. And Mehrzad concedes such a challenge over impartiality would only apply to a Cas panel, rather than Uefa's, and even then be a long-shot. Indeed, most legal experts offering up analysis believe Uefa's case appears solid.

The question is whether it is prepared to take the risk of a defeat that would have major ramifications?

This case has been hugely damaging for City. But there is real danger here for Uefa too, especially at a time when the grip of European football's governing body on the club game is under mounting strain.

This comes with the European Club Association wanting the Champions League expanded by four matchdays amid a long debate over reform of the competition and continuing rumours of clandestine talks about a possible breakaway or 'Super League'.

Fifa, the world governing body, is preparing for an enlarged, 24-team Club World Cup in China next year.

There are growing fears over the threat posed by ever-richer and more powerful 'super clubs' to national leagues' competitiveness and sustainability.

And Uefa has to try to stand up for its rules against clubs - like Abu Dhabi-owned City, who have state-backed Chinese investors (as well as US private equity investors) and are valued at £3.7bn, and Qatar-owned Paris St-Germain - that have the support of entire nation states, not just wealthy individuals.

"There is an enormous amount hinging on this," adds Mehrzad. "If City are successful in getting a ruling about the processes adopted by Uefa, a whole series of other clubs will be able to use that and say: 'We should never have been sanctioned in the first place.'

"There's no doubt City have enough money and a fleet of lawyers to take this on for years, so Uefa is being put under the spotlight.

"We've seen the integrity of the FFP system challenged before, but this could be about the entire make-up of football's regulatory regime, so the repercussions are enormous."

The tone of City's outrage in their statements, and the sense of defiance and confidence now emerging from the club, should be seen in this context - not just as an expression of anger and shock by owners and executives who have become accustomed to getting their own way, but perhaps also as a strategy designed to send a message to Uefa.

A message that this is far from over. A message that the clubs - rather than the governing body - should set the rules in future.

Much remains uncertain.

There is no guarantee City will be granted a suspension of their ban when they apply for it in the coming days at the same time as any appeal. The decision - made by a Cas official - will be based on an assessment of the merits of City's appeal, so this initial decision will give a strong indication of their prospects.

If a hearing is not expedited, it is likely to be the middle of next season before a full Cas hearing takes place. So if City can get the ban suspended pending the outcome of their appeal, it is easy to see how months - or even years - of legal wrangling could lie ahead, with the Swiss Federal Court the next potential port of call after Cas.

Last year, South African athlete Caster Semenya did exactly that after Cas found in favour of governing body the IAAF (now World Athletics) in its legal battle with her over rules requiring her to take testosterone-suppressing medication. The Swiss court temporarily suspended the ruling pending a more reasoned hearing.

These are truly extraordinary times in sports law. Alongside the City case, Cas is also being asked to decide whether to uphold the World Anti-Doping Agency's qualified ban of Russia before the Tokyo Olympics this summer.

The stakes are high in such cases. Entire governments lie behind the claimants. National prestige and reputation is on the line. The supporters of such parties admire their defiance, condemn the regulations, and portray such cases as witch-hunts, rather than sympathising with those trying to uphold the rules.

The resolve and resources of sports regulators and governing bodies are being tested like never before.

However you feel about this issue, it is a sad state of affairs when deep pockets and expensive lawyers will determine the future direction of the beautiful game.

Is that not better than governing bodies being run by clubs/associates that, at the very least, could be said to have a conflict of interest? A question recently asked of Rick Parry the former Chief Executive of Liverpool who sat on the panel in Citys case. He declined to comment.

themover • February 19, 2020 11:59 AM GMT

rothko, may I ask why you think there is a UEFA rule that limits the amount of money an owner can invest in their club?

(I am aware there is the rule, and that City may have broken it)

whether you think or I think the rule is achieving what its meant to is not really relevant
perhaps its had the effect of protecting some of the established clubs in the CL maybe it hasn't
Whats relevant is that's its there and Man City signed up to it
They had got away with it until the hacker and newspaper exposed them which meant the UEFA were misled and lied to
Even if they get a legal team as good as OJ Simpsons and get off they will still be charged with not cooperating and withholding vital evidence from the original enquiry
whilst Man City say they have a dossier of info if they proceed to CAS UEFA will be all over their recent dealings like a rash

City voted against it. The rules were changed after the event. UEFA had all of Citys accounts and had audited them.

Ronaldinho on UEFA & City's ban:

"It was kind of expected. It is no secret that UEFA has a history of corruption and that FFP was implemented to protect the big cartel clubs from new upcoming clubs that could surpass them. I stand with Manchester City."

That a set of accounts have been audited has little significance when deliberate falsifications have taken place.

Ronaldinho eh, that well known deep thinker and world authority on regulatory compliance.

Not sure UEFA are deep thinkers the amount of times CAS turn their decisions over!

Citeh are a desperate club, truly desperate.

themover • February 19, 2020 3:50 PM GMT
City voted against it.
i can understand why the concept of respecting the outcome of a vote is alien to your owners

city group got a nice 360 million share buy/investment so won't be that upset 

plenty dosh eh??

PSG president Nasser Al-Khelaifi charged for bribing ex-FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11820/11938417/
psg-president-nasser-al-khelaifi-charged-for-bribing-ex-fifa-secretary-general-jerome-valcke

One of the UEFA Executive Committee

They have distorted the transfer market by paying £50m for the likes of Kyle Walker. United paid Sanchez that ridiculous wage because they knew City were interested too, which they were, and they knew they had to offer more than them. They paid Yaya Touré around £250k a week 10 years ago which was an obscene amount at the time. The fact is that PSG and City are not big enough clubs to be able to compete financially with Europe's elite and the only reason they are is because they are backed by petrostates. If you need it explained to you any further how that distorts the transfer and wage markets then there is no hope for you. The very fact that they are competing financially with Europe's elite is a distortion of the markets and the natural order of things.

As I said above and as that UK Lawyer said in that article above, they are making threats and claiming innocence solely for the purpose of negotiating a future settlement with UEFA, they know they are in the wrong and have been caught out but they also know UEFA are unlikely to want it dragged out for years too. They have no intention of going all the way with this either but will play chicken with UEFA until they back down and settle with them.

Mover, you suggested that FFP protects the elite establishment because City and PSG would have spent a lot more if it wasn't for FFP rules and you seem to think that no restrictions on spending are a good thing or that restrictions are anti-competitive. If there were no restrictions then the likes of Real, Barca, Bayern etc would be courting other petrostates to remain competitive with those two. Are you honestly in favour of that? I am of the view that state backed clubs distort competition in football far more than FFP does and that the Commission would be far more likely to have an issue with unrestricted spending than they would with FFP rules. Neither state is an EU member state but I am sure they can find a way to curtail their spending under existing competition law if it comes to that.

The supply (top players) is the same, the demand (no. of clubs able to pay top fees/wages and competing for those players) is increased. It is basic stuff and you can play dumb and pretend you don't understand that if you want.

The "elite" clubs need the transfer fees and salaries to be high so that noone else can buy them (except when a Chelsa, City, PSG turns up). For example, if Dortmunds Erling Haaland becomes available which clubs do you think he can go to that could afford say a £150m transfer fee and £300k a week?

"The fact is that PSG and City are not big enough clubs to be able to compete financially with Europe's elite"

That's how they like it and they restrict it through FFP.

haaland had a €20m release clause at Salzburg and had a €40m release clause at Dortmund. His agent controls the price every time he moves

The agents will want to get a bumper deal from one of the "elite" ie Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Manchester United. They wouldn't be able to keep increasing the release clause if they didn't know one of them could pay it.

If that were the case he wouldn't have gone to Dortmund, he'd have gone somewhere bigger. By controlling the fee it will be more about who pays a higher agent's fee and wages. Nobody will pay more than €40m fee when he moves next and Dortmund are powerless to keep him but it actually means that he will be affordable to a lot more clubs than just the elite.

Neymar 222m (euros) PSG
Mbappe 135m PSG
Felix 126m Atletico (using Griezmann transfer fee)
Griezmann 120m Barcelona
Coutinho 120m Barcelona
Dembele 105m Barcelona
Pogba 105m Man United
Hazard 100m Real Madrid
Ronaldo 100m Juventus
Bale 100m Real Madrid
Ronaldo 94m Real Madrid
Higuain 90m Juventus
Maguire 97m Man United
Lukaku 85m Man United
VVD 85m Liverpool
Suarez 83m Barcelona
Lukaku 80m Inter
Pepe 80m Arsenal

and you say City have "distorted" the market.

City enter the list at number 24 with KDB for 75m

You can distort the market without breaking a transfer record. The very fact that you are using external petrostate money to fund the running of your club distorts the market as explained to you already ad nauseum. HTH

Stop acting dumb and needing everything explained to you in fine detail numerous times over. You can't be that thick

Never heard such nonsense. I'll leave you to your own imagination!

Didier Drogba on whether UEFA was right in their decision to ban Man City:

"Absolutely not, this is a clear indication that the game we all love is going in the wrong direction. This means no new clubs can challenge the top. I'm glad Man City is appealing it."

What does distorting the market actually mean? I'm assuming it means that when clubs spend big, it then inflates the selling (asking price) for players to a league, in other words, clubs abroad try to take advantage/liberties with English clubs wanting to buy their players, they may ask for inflated transfer fees but that doesn't mean that any club actually has to pay it, that's their own prerogative if they want to overpay, they're not forced to and if clubs make a habit of not overpaying they'll develop a reputation for it and selling clubs will know they're not likely to budge on their own valuation, whereas clubs know Madrid will overpay and selling clubs will never sell cheap to them.

Clubs like Man City on their own do not distort the market regardless of being state run/spending money they haven't earned because clubs like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Man United, Juventus etc have been paying inflated prices for years, and now Liverpool who spend within their means, buy goalkeepers and central defenders for 70+ mil, Man City simply would have to be doing this on their own and paying vastly more than everyone else to have the effect of distorting the market.

But as it is, they are now just part of an elite group of clubs, but they're not welcomed by UEFA who as one journo put it "want to enshrine old money and fend off new challengers".

Then you look at wages, City are again no different to the established, elite European clubs who have been paying big whacks to their star players fending off any hope their domestic rivals have, Bayern are a good example, they can only attract players like Lewandowski, Robben, Ribery, Coman, Coutinho, Neuer etc because they pay well over 130k a week to all of them, Lewandowski is on 275k a week, Coutinho who is only on loan is on 240k a week and even the keeper is on 260k! no other club in Germany and not many in Europe can compete with that, they may well spend within their means but lack of salary caps distorts the market and that's not the fault of any one club, it's the fault of the system, who have the Champions League product to look after.
Arsenal another example, under the radar not spending too big on transfers, yet giving Ozil 350k a week.

City are simply being used as a punch bag, they probably have done wrong but all accounts, but fans of other big clubs accusing them of distorting the market is a case of throwing stones in glass houses regardless of how each clubs earns they money, as explained above, City simply add to the sphere of different potential winners of the biggest trophies, and that is what the establishment is rebelling against.

Didier Drogba of Abramovich's Chelsea, no conflict of interest there. Players aren't generally going to have an issue with it as it means there is more money in the markets for them to get their hands on and more places for them to get paid big. Agents likewise.

Of course City and PSG have distorted the market. It's a couple of billion more in the markets over the last 5-10 years and there are now 2 more clubs in demand for the very top players, which drives up the price of top players and their wages and that trickles down to the price/wages of lesser players too. £50m for full backs etc. City and PSG don't have to spend more than the top clubs to distort the market.

There is a fundamental difference between a club spending its own money on players because it's spent decades building success to be in that position and one with no history or global fanbase spending someone else's. You do not need external money to be able to compete with the biggest clubs, as Liverpool, Atletico and Dotrmund have proven. Being a well run club is a much better and sustainable avenue to longer-term success but unfortunately these petrostates aren't used to having to do things properly or having to wait for what they want and they're not used to being told how they should have to do it either and the brazen attitude of City in all of this is a reflection of that. In Liverpool's case they have trumped the whole lot of them spending less net than bottom half PL sides.

As Liverpool hacked into Citys scouting network that will have helped them as well. Settled out of court for £1m.

PSG were the first club to spend £50m on a defender I believe when they paid Chelsea £50m for David Luiz.

City enter the list at number 24 with KDB for 75m

With the exception of PSG though weren't all those other clubs in the list complying with FFP & not trying to cheat the system ?

Isn't that what this is all about ?

I see Raheem Sterling is blowing kisses & fluttering his eyelashes to Real Madrid.

FFP doesn't apply to the European aristocracy.

Real are linked with Sterling most summers. His contract runs out in 2023 so would take a sizeable offer at the moment.

FFP doesn't apply to the European aristocracy.

Liverpool have never needed FFP anyway. We've always only spent what we earned. Took us a long time to become part of the so-called 'aristocracy'. City tried to buy success under Peter Swales in the 70's whereas we had a scouting system that was 2nd to none that unearthed gems like Keegan, Clemence, Neal, Case, Heighway etc. So it's irrelevant what City's owners think about UEFA because the findings come from an independent group & not UEFA themselves.

Real are linked with Sterling most summers

That maybe so. But does Sterling say complimentary things about them every summer ?

FFP is written by UEFA. Hardly likely to put some rules in place that could be detrimental to their own clubs! For one it's even ok to be £500m in debt!

Didn't City sign up to FFP ?

Yes, if they have broken the rules they deserve a ban.

Although UEFA of course have been known to change the rules and back date them.

Yes, if they have broken the rules they deserve a ban.

At the end of the day this is about deceit & lies from City towards football's governing body. They've blatantly cooked the books right under UEFA's nose & in their very own kitchen too. Not only that they've had the cheek to spit their dummy out & cry 'victim' about the whole thing.

Sterling wouldn't last 2 years at Madrid.....

My Cousin is representing Man City in court against UEFA, he's mustard but 20k A DAY

MrMeaner, I haven't seen the evidence and neither have you so to say they've blatantly cooked the books is maybe premature. UEFA believe they have otherwise they wouldn't have come up with the fine and ban, City don't believe they have. Both will provide their evidence to CAS, and after possibly the Swiss Court, after which we may get to see the evidence offered from both parties.

Andrea Agnelli (Juventus Chairman and UEFA Executive Committee Member)  :

“I have great respect for everything that Atalanta are doing, but without international history and thanks to just one great season, they had direct access into the primary European club competition. Is that right or not?”

Agnelli sticking his foot in his mouth again!

"Former UEFA President Michel Platini Has Lost His Appeal Against His Football Ban Over A 2011 Payment From Former FIFA Boss Sepp Blatter
The Court Found That The Imposed Ban Was Neither "Excessive Nor Arbitrary."

https://www.dw.com/en/
michel-platini-loses-appeal-against-his-fifa-football-ban/a-52650316

Aleksander Čeferin (UEFA President):

“As with other clubs, they are our asset, I respect them. I don't want to say that, 'now we don't like Manchester City'. We like them, they are our club. But this process is a separate thing, that I don't interfere with.”

the top and bottom of it is that city had originally got away with it - no allegations of UEFA corruption from City then of course not