Manchester City banned from Champions League for two seasons

[RD2003]

Answer the question, please.

OK, yes I would, or maybe I wouldn't. This is how pointless hypothetical situations always leave me feeling.

 

[RD2003]

Fucking double post again.

 

[belboid]

There’s always been an elite in UEFA and FFP has done nothing to try and lessen that . By the rules , aside from obstruct the investigation which they were fined for ,City have done nothing wrong . Incidentally City were fined less than the elite QPR and they admitted they breached FFP.

They may have done wrong, but it’s too late now - is a part of the ruling. Of course, such constraints are relevant and important, but....Not sure what point your making re QPR, that rather more seems to support the idea they only really go after the small fry. PSG appear to have exploited/bent the rules even worse than city, but are also getting away with it. There is no block on them joining the ‘elite’, indeed uefa would love it. Anyone claiming there is a desire to exclude city specifically is ridiculous.

On the broader point, it is right that ffp does help to maintain the current elite in their spots. It’s not absolute tho, Leipzig are getting there within ffp rules, ditto Dortmund. It’s England and Italy really getting a hard time, because of our wanky ownership rules. That isn’t ffp’s fault, but if the system stops one club from being able to buy the thing whilst also stopping half a dozen clubs from going bust because the owners haven’t actually got a bottomless pit if money, then that would seem to work okay in my book.

In

Yes but why is the decision corrupt ?

We won’t entirely know this till they release the full judgement, but the unspecified number of ‘out of time’ offences ruled out is a bit eye brow raising.

 

[editor]

Yet again, what has this got to do with the specifics of the City case? Simply spouting well-worn and ineffectual cliches adds nothing to the debate.

Because this case is a product of what modern football has become - a trading commodity of TV rights, billionaire owners, shifty agents, badge-kissing players who are off the second they get a better offer and the blind loyalty of fans being abused on a regular basis. If it had been Man Utd in the dock, all your vital criticisms about corruption at EUFA and FIFA would have evaporated into the ether.

You're only coming up with this because the endless success of the multi-billion club you watch on TV has been threatened. If it was any other club you couldn't give a fuck and you can't see past that.

 

[belboid]

Yet again, what has this got to do with the specifics of the City case? Simply spouting well-worn cliches and peddling ineffectual nostrums adds nothing to the debate.

Whereas copy and pasting a headline without reading the accompanying text adds what?

You don’t care what happens to the rest of football as long as your team are looked after. You aren’t alone in holding such an opinion, but you must be able to see how it poses certain risks, at least.

 

[RD2003]

Whereas copy and pasting a headline without reading the accompanying text adds what?

You don’t care what happens to the rest of football as long as your team are looked after. You aren’t alone in holding such an opinion, but you must be able to see how it poses certain risks, at least.

It seems like you are the one who is not reading the text of the articles linked to. And you have got this the wrong way round. Football was fucked by the formation of the PL and the transformation of the European Cup into the cynical, money-grubbing CL, with all it entailed: the monopolising of all the prize money by those clubs who were best-positioned to take advantage at the time, turning them into self-perpetuating elite competitions; rising ticket prices and all the rest of it followed on. City's owners were simply trying to join in, for good or ill, and found themselves under attack for being good enough at what they do to intrude on what was meant to be an already sewn-up market.

 

[RD2003]

Because this case is a product of what modern football has become - a trading commodity of TV rights, billionaire owners, shifty agents, badge-kissing players who are off the second they get a better offer and the blind loyalty of fans being abused on a regular basis. If it had been Man Utd in the dock, all your vital criticisms about corruption at EUFA and FIFA would have evaporated into the ether.

You're only coming up with this because the endless success of the multi-billion club you watch on TV has been threatened. If it was any other club you couldn't give a fuck and you can't see past that.

Again, you are just trying to transfer your own thoughts on the matter onto me, with arguments which are, at best, only tenuously connected to what we're supposed to be discussing: the specifics of the thrown-out case against City.

 

[editor]

Again, you are just trying to transfer your own thoughts on the matter onto me, with arguments which are, at best, only tenuously connected to what we're supposed to be discussing: the specifics of the thrown-out case against City.

A €10 million fine doesn't sound like much a vindication of their total innocence to me, but you've done an excellent job on swerving all those awkward questions.

 

[editor]

It seems like you are the one who is not reading the text of the articles linked to. And you have got this the wrong way round. Football was fucked by the formation of the PL and the transformation of the European Cup into the cynical, money-grubbing CL, with all it entailed: the monopolising of all the prize money by those clubs who were best-positioned to take advantage at the time, turning them into self-perpetuating elite competitions; rising ticket prices and all the rest of it followed on. City's owners were simply trying to join in, for good or ill, and found themselves under attack for being good enough at what they do to intrude on what was meant to be an already sewn-up market.

"Simply trying to join in"

Now that is priceless.

 

[belboid]

It seems like you are the one who is not reading the text of the articles linked to. And you have got this the wrong way round. Football was fucked by the formation of the PL and the transformation of the European Cup into the cynical, money-grubbing CL, with all it entailed: the monopolising of all the prize money by those clubs who were best-positioned to take advantage at the time, turning them into self-perpetuating elite competitions; rising ticket prices and all the rest of it followed on. City's owners were simply trying to join in, for good or ill, and found themselves under attack for being good enough at what they do to intrude on what was meant to be an already sewn-up market.

Darling boy, you are the one claiming that the report completely exonerates City despite the text being clear that that isn’t the case. You have come up with an excuse for the obstruction they have definitely been found guilty of and you’ll come up with excuses for any other shit they do. It’ll be interesting to see the full report when it finally comes out to see just how many of the charges weren’t looked at, for being out of time.

As to the premier league being the actual font of all evil, well the champions league was created at the same time and for the same reason. Both hold their very large share of the blame and only a child thinks there must be one simple big bad.

Good for you that you’re a city supporter, not one of the smaller clubs whose owners excesses have driven them to the wall. No team deserves to be treated like Blackburn, but once you start playing those games those are the risks you take.

 

[The39thStep]

They may have done wrong, but it’s too late now - is a part of the ruling. Of course, such constraints are relevant and important, but....Not sure what point your making re QPR, that rather more seems to support the idea they only really go after the small fry. PSG appear to have exploited/bent the rules even worse than city, but are also getting away with it. There is no block on them joining the ‘elite’, indeed uefa would love it. Anyone claiming there is a desire to exclude city specifically is ridiculous.

On the broader point, it is right that ffp does help to maintain the current elite in their spots. It’s not absolute tho, Leipzig are getting there within ffp rules, ditto Dortmund. It’s England and Italy really getting a hard time, because of our wanky ownership rules. That isn’t ffp’s fault, but if the system stops one club from being able to buy the thing whilst also stopping half a dozen clubs from going bust because the owners haven’t actually got a bottomless pit if money, then that would seem to work okay in my book.

In
We won’t entirely know this till they release the full judgement, but the unspecified number of ‘out of time’ offences ruled out is a bit eye brow raising.

With QPR I was trying to put City’s financial penalty in context as Ian Herbert kept going on about a massive fine . PSG owners also have Bein Sport so are in a clear position of cosyness I think their chair is quite high up in UEFA.
City’s out of time offences isn’t anything new other clubs have had allegations ruled out by the same criteria and it’s clearly stated in the guidance . I think part of City’s treatment was influenced by the Football leaks stuff which Bayern and others touted about .
At the end of the day top European clubs are part of a multi billion industry with constant plots about how to further maximise revenue whether it be UEFA running a system to ‘protect’them or the seemingly timeless threat of a breakaway super league . It’s a business across the board that is as bent as fuck .

 

[belboid]

With QPR I was trying to put City’s financial penalty in context as Ian Herbert kept going on about a massive fine . PSG owners also have Bein Sport so are in a clear position of cosyness I think their chair is quite high up in UEFA.
City’s out of time offences isn’t anything new other clubs have had allegations ruled out by the same criteria and it’s clearly stated in the guidance . I think part of City’s treatment was influenced by the Football leaks stuff which Bayern and others touted about .
At the end of the day top European clubs are part of a multi billion industry with constant plots about how to further maximise revenue whether it be UEFA running a system to ‘protect’them or the seemingly timeless threat of a breakaway super league . It’s a business across the board that is as bent as fuck .

Absolutely, and your point about PSG and Bein is very well made. Protecting rights holders is far more important than protecting football.

I’m quibbling over the time outs, but I like a good quibble, so it is relevant to point out that if the timed out charges relates to matters they got away with earlier due to obfuscation and hiding documents, then it’s a fairly shallow exoneration.

 

[RD2003]

Darling boy, you are the one claiming that the report completely exonerates City despite the text being clear that that isn’t the case. You have come up with an excuse for the obstruction they have definitely been found guilty of and you’ll come up with excuses for any other shit they do. It’ll be interesting to see the full report when it finally comes out to see just how many of the charges weren’t looked at, for being out of time.

As to the premier league being the actual font of all evil, well the champions league was created at the same time and for the same reason. Both hold their very large share of the blame and only a child thinks there must be one simple big bad.

Good for you that you’re a city supporter, not one of the smaller clubs whose owners excesses have driven them to the wall. No team deserves to be treated like Blackburn, but once you start playing those games those are the risks you take.

Which text do you keep referring to? If it's the one from CAS (the only one that ultimately matters), then it makes it quite clear that City were not guilty of all charges, that the fine was imposed for non-cooperation with UEFA at various stages of the 'investigation, and that it considers this a minor issue. It isn't me who comes up with excuses for the non-cooperation, but the club itself, citing the prejudicial nature of the process initiated by UEFA: something the three panel judges must have largely accepted, hence the reduced fine. Nor is it City's fault that UEFA reintroduced issues that the club had already been punished for. What is the club supposed to do? Say 'Oh yeah, sorry, go punish us again'? Hence the acceptance of the panel that these were out of time.

And I do wish you and editor would read what I actually say instead of what you'd like me to have said. I stated quite explicitly that City's current owners came in to be part of the same process which had already distorted football. My quibble is with the closed shop nature of the way that process was being run, and the attacks on City for simply trying to muscle in on what other clubs and the footballl authorities who constantly bow down to them had already created. Why should City be punished for trying to compete and doing only the same thing as Chelsea, quite legitimately, did a few years before when no FFP rules (hijacked by the cartel clubs, as the former head of UEFA admitted to Martin Samuels) existed? Put simply, it wasn't City who made it all about the money; that ship had sailed long before.

And if you think City is run in the same way as other clubs that shyster owners have left in tatters, you're way off the mark. Unlike so many of their detractors, the club is not carrying a massive load of potentially unsustainable debt for a start. Debt, however, is allowable within FFP whereas City's model is subjected to constant criticism and attack just because it threatens the sense of entitlement of the cartel clubs in the ECA/G14. Nor has any other club invested so heavily in the local area and the club's academy and wider facilities.

 

[JimW]

I've seen plucky fairytale Bournemouth touted as a far more glaring example of bought success, though only know the vague story.

 

[RD2003]

"Simply trying to join in"

Now that is priceless.

What else do you think they were doing?

 

[RD2003]

I've seen plucky fairytale Bournemouth touted as a far more glaring example of bought success, though only know the vague story.

All success is bought to one extent or another, at all professional levels. Can anybody remind me when any PL champion won it with a team of players recruited from the local parks, playing with jumpers for goalposts?

 

[RD2003]

A €10 million fine doesn't sound like much a vindication of their total innocence to me, but you've done an excellent job on swerving all those awkward questions.

Ive explained several times what the fine was for, and it is out there in the media, if you can find it within all the compliant stirring up of bitterness on behalf of certain other clubs. I can't help it if you don't want to see it.

 

[editor]

All success is bought to one extent or another, at all professional levels. Can anybody remind me when any PL champion won it with a team of players recruited from the local parks, playing with jumpers for goalposts?

Now that's a strong contender for Strawman of the Week. Well done.

And just for some perspective of these underdogs 'simply trying to join in':

Since 4 August 2008, the club has been owned by Sheikh Mansour, one of football's wealthiest owners, with an estimated individual net worth of at least £17 billion and a family fortune of at least $1 trillion. Sheikh Mansour bought the club in 2008 for £210 million in a much publicised deal and has since accumulated annual losses of £535 million, excluding approximately £200 million on facility upgrades.

However the value of the club has soared tenfold from £210 million in 2008 to over £2 billion in 2018 according to Forbes representing a realistic opportunity of profit on Mansour's investment if he was to sell the club to a willing buyer at the market rate.[4] Although the club is still majority owned by Mansour, in 2015, a 13.79% stake purchase of the club's parent company, City Football Group (CFG), by the CITIC Group for £265 million valued it at $3 billion.

The club's most recent financial report in November 2015 showed a £10 million profit following the elimination of amortised transfer fees and a reduced salary bill which was incurred during the early years of Mansour's investment - both of which allowed a £100 million net spending on transfers in summer 2015.In the 2014-15 season, the club are the second richest football club in England by revenue and overall are the sixth worldwide with a revenue of €463.5m according to Deloitte, and have been consistently in the Europe's Top 20 since 2004.

Level of financial power
Since the Robinho shock signing on the transfer deadline day in September 2008, the club have been branded "the richest club in the world" by the media and the Robinho signing heralded a new era of spending for the club with Sheikh Mansour willing to invest in the club off the pitch and on it by signing new players.

Having spent in approximately £320m on transfers from the arrival of Sheikh Mansour in September 2008 to September 2010 it was reported that owner Sheikh Mansour had earmarked £500m for transfers - regardless of any revenue during that two-year period. The report highlighted the club's immense spending power, meaning as of September 2010 there was a surplus transfer bu

Man City are up there with the richest of the rich standing shoulder to shoulder with football's elite, buying their way to success.

 

[belboid]

Which text do you keep referring to? If it's the one from CAS (the only one that ultimately matters), then it makes it quite clear that City were not guilty of all charges, that the fine was imposed for non-cooperation with UEFA at various stages of the 'investigation, and that it considers this a minor issue. It isn't me who comes up with excuses for the non-cooperation, but the club itself, citing the prejudicial nature of the process initiated by UEFA: something the three panel judges must have largely accepted, hence the reduced fine. Nor is it City's fault that UEFA reintroduced issues that the club had already been punished for. What is the club supposed to do? Say 'Oh yeah, sorry, go punish us again'? Hence the acceptance of the panel that these were out of time.

And I do wish you and editor would read what I actually say instead of what you'd like me to have said. I stated quite explicitly that City's current owners came in to be part of the same process which had already distorted football. My quibble is with the closed shop nature of the way that process was being run, and the attacks on City for simply trying to muscle in on what other clubs and the footballl authorities who constantly bow down to them had already created. Why should City be punished for trying to compete and doing only the same thing as Chelsea, quite legitimately, did a few years before when no FFP rules (hijacked by the cartel clubs, as the former head of UEFA admitted to Martin Samuels) existed? Put simply, it wasn't City who made it all about the money; that ship had sailed long before.

And if you think City is run in the same way as other clubs that shyster owners have left in tatters, you're way off the mark. Unlike so many of their detractors, the club is not carrying a massive load of potentially unsustainable debt for a start. Debt, however, is allowable within FFP whereas City's model is subjected to constant criticism and attack just because it threatens the sense of entitlement of the cartel clubs in the ECA/G14. Nor has any other club invested so heavily in the local area and the club's academy and wider facilities.

I’ve quoted the text, you ignored it. The bit that says an unspecified number of charges are out of time. You may consider it irrelevant, I don’t.

And as to the ‘closed shop’ tosh, well, it isn’t complete and utter tosh, but it hasn’t (as mentioned) stopped Dortmund or Leipzig, nor PSG. The coefficient probably does more to maintain the closed shop.

You’re right about the ludicrous allowing of leveraged buyouts, it’s absurd. Not entirely convinced it’s all about protecting the big boys though, as it nearly bankrupted Liverpool.

 

[RD2003]

Now that's a strong contender for Strawman of the Week. Well done.

And just for some perspective of these underdogs 'simply trying to join in':



Man City are up there with the richest of the rich standing shoulder to shoulder with football's elite, buying their way to success.

Now that's a strong contender for Strawman of the Week. Well done.

And just for some perspective of these underdogs 'simply trying to join in':



Man City are up there with the richest of the rich standing shoulder to shoulder with football's elite, buying their way to success.

I don't see why that can be construed as anything other than trying to join in, nor how you expect a club to be able to compete in the modern game without the money to match those who already have the prize money sewn up in a de-facto closed shop competition. If not trying to join in, what else was he trying to do? Create a facility for swimming with fucking dolphins?

Every time a club targets a particular player and purchases him, it can be construed as an attempt to buy success. But it depends on whether you can do it in a sustained and sustainable way, and also on having a stategic plan and the means to carry it through. Nobody, least of all me, would deny that City have been lucky with the owner's choice of club.

I have never used the words underdogs, by the way. Again, it's a case of you trying to put words into my mouth. It is because City haven't been underdogs for over a decade that they come under such sustained attack.

 

[strung out]

Man City are up there with the richest of the rich standing shoulder to shoulder with football's elite, buying their way to success.

It's been like this for at least the last 30 odd years. I give zero shits about any theoretical or actual breaking of a rule that was specifically designed to stop any newcomers muscling in to the elite.

Football at the top level is monstrous. Owners at the top level are monstrous. Manchester City are no different to any of the other elite clubs though, and shouldn't be punished for trying to buy their way into a exclusive members only club, even though I would liquidate every single last one of them if I had my way (and give Bristol Rovers the title by default).

 

[RD2003]

I’ve quoted the text, you ignored it. The bit that says an unspecified number of charges are out of time. You may consider it irrelevant, I don’t.

And as to the ‘closed shop’ tosh, well, it isn’t complete and utter tosh, but it hasn’t (as mentioned) stopped Dortmund or Leipzig, nor PSG. The coefficient probably does more to maintain the closed shop.

You’re right about the ludicrous allowing of leveraged buyouts, it’s absurd. Not entirely convinced it’s all about protecting the big boys though, as it nearly bankrupted Liverpool.

And I answered it in pointing out that CAS obviously thought it an issue off such minor proportions that they reduced the fine by 2/3. And if charges are out of time, then they're out of time. As I said, what are City supposed to do? Asked to be punished again?

Strange that you put PSG in the same category as the other two for obvious reasons. But it remains to be seen whether Dortmund or Leipzig (and the former in particular can hardly be said to lack money) can achieve in their own league what City have done here. For a start, they, like other German clubs, routinely have their best players picked off by Bayern, in a process which as made the Bundesliga as much a one-club league as the Scottish PL. Bayern have won the last eight titles when previously it had never been won more than three times in a row. It's a situation akin to Manyoo winning 13 PL titles-unprecedented, and not possible before the PL and the resulting ability of those best placed when it was first formed to accrue the funds to pick off the best players from other clubs.

 

[Wilf]

He isn't directly responsible for it. For all we know he might have doubts about most things that happen in Abu Dhabi. Or he might not. It isn't, as I said, in his personal power to change the whole set-up any more than it's within the powers of an individual minister in any other government.

'Sheikh Mansour, selflessly and at some personal risk, devoting his life to rooting out corruption, murder and slave labour, tirelessly bringing to light all the horrors perpetrated by his own family and his own government'. You really are a fucking idiot.

 

[TremulousTetra]

A €10 million fine doesn't sound like much a vindication of their total innocence to me, but you've done an excellent job on swerving all those awkward questions.

so you get arrested for murder, your found innocent of murder, but found guilty of resisting arrest. Being found guilty of resisting arrest, doesn't make you guilty murder?

This is the analogy for Manchester city. Right from the start UEFA, bunch of idiots who couldn't run a piss up in a brewery, were declaring to anyone who would listen, before even their own investigation had started, that Manchester city were guilty would be banned. Because it was a corrupt investigation, Manchester city went straight to cas, who themselves criticised UEFA at that point, but told Manchester city they had to wait for the end result. They did, and were vindicated.

It's actually bang out of order for making them pay a fine for resisting arrest from the corrupt Keystone cops organisation that UEFA is. In my opinion.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I’ve quoted the text, you ignored it. The bit that says an unspecified number of charges are out of time. You may consider it irrelevant, I don’t.

And as to the ‘closed shop’ tosh, well, it isn’t complete and utter tosh, but it hasn’t (as mentioned) stopped Dortmund or Leipzig, nor PSG. The coefficient probably does more to maintain the closed shop.

You’re right about the ludicrous allowing of leveraged buyouts, it’s absurd. Not entirely convinced it’s all about protecting the big boys though, as it nearly bankrupted Liverpool.

so UEFA take Manchester city to task about a number of issues. They then sign a contract that says said issues are dealt with. They then try to reintroduce those issues in a court of law if Manchester city have to abide by UEFA rules and contracts shouldn't UEFA have have 2 as well?

UEFA are a bunch of corrupt idiots.

 

[TremulousTetra]

(see here the league table of most spending Premier league history. https://i.redd.it/1japqv3owek11.jpg

I've just had a Liverpool fan telling me "Manchester City's success doesn't count because City bought it". And "he was glad he didn't support a club like that".

All clubs who have won the Premier League have bought success, but some have paid a lot more for it than others. Here's the list starting with the most frugal.

Manchester United 3,200,000,000÷13 Premier League trophies equals 246,000,000 per trophy
Leicester City 1 trophy 614,000,000
Arsenal 2,251,000,000÷3 Premier League trophies equals 750,000,000
Manchester City 3,040,000,000÷4 trophies 760,000,000
Chelsea 4.312 billion divided by 5 Premier League trophies equals 862,000,000 per trophy
Blackburn 1 trophy 1,203,000,000
Liverpool 1 trophy* at a staggering cost of 3,278,000,000

They have not only spent the most to BUY the Premier League, it is by a staggering amount.

Liverpool have spent a monumental 13 times more than Manchester United to BUY the league. And nearly 3 times as much as their nearest rival, Blackburn.

This will be the most expensive Premier league ever purchased.

(Manchester city have been 4th most frugal purchasers of Premier league titles.)

 

[belboid]

Not often I can say the citeh fans remind me of Rafa.

Sadly their ‘facts’ are no more convincing than his.

 

[belboid]

a rule that was specifically designed to stop any newcomers muscling in to the elite.

this is just rubbish though. If it was so specifically designed, how come PSG are welcomed with open arms? How come Dortmund and Leipzig are doing okay? And how come the Italisn giants have done shit? It doesn't make sense as an argument.

There is absolutely loads to be critical of UEFA and FIFa about, but ffp isn't it.

 

[belboid]

(see here the league table of most spending Premier league history. https://i.redd.it/1japqv3owek11.jpg

I've just had a Liverpool fan telling me "Manchester City's success doesn't count because City bought it". And "he was glad he didn't support a club like that".

All clubs who have won the Premier League have bought success, but some have paid a lot more for it than others. Here's the list starting with the most frugal.

Manchester United 3,200,000,000÷13 Premier League trophies equals 246,000,000 per trophy
Leicester City 1 trophy 614,000,000
Arsenal 2,251,000,000÷3 Premier League trophies equals 750,000,000
Manchester City 3,040,000,000÷4 trophies 760,000,000
Chelsea 4.312 billion divided by 5 Premier League trophies equals 862,000,000 per trophy
Blackburn 1 trophy 1,203,000,000
Liverpool 1 trophy* at a staggering cost of 3,278,000,000

They have not only spent the most to BUY the Premier League, it is by a staggering amount.

Liverpool have spent a monumental 13 times more than Manchester United to BUY the league. And nearly 3 times as much as their nearest rival, Blackburn.

This will be the most expensive Premier league ever purchased.

this is far and away THE most stupid post on the subject I've seen though. Absolutely moronic. An almost random figure that takes no account of the fact the not all those teams were in the PL all the time and, more importantly is the gross figure, not the net. Who do you think has spent the most net over the last ten years?

1 | Manchester City | Net spend: £1.1bn
Who else?

City have spent a crazy £1.39bn this decade with a net spend of more than £1bn.

Their most expensive signings have been Rodri, Kevin de Bruyne and Riyad Mahrez.

Like PSG, all that spending hasn’t been enough to win them the Champions League - although they have picked up a ridiculous 198 points in their two previous Premier League seasons.

(Liverpool were 12th, by the way)

(Manchester city have been 4th most frugal purchasers of Premier league titles.)

You must have believed that '£350m a week for the NHS' if you believe this nonsense.

 

[belboid]

And I answered it in pointing out that CAS obviously thought it an issue off such minor proportions that they reduced the fine by 2/3.

uhh, you clearly haven't read the summary report cos that aint why they reduced the fine. But hey ho. We'll see more next week.

If you hadn't fiddled those figures, your progress would probably have been delayed a year or two, maybe even three or four. You might only have another two titles, and, oh, the same number of European trophies. What a fucking tragedy that would be. Well worth another club or two you don't support going under.