City banned from UCL

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Part of the issue is financial accounts are filed after the event.

For example a team cheating FFP this season probably won't need to legally file their accounts until March 2021....perhaps even later if they are a private company.

The football administrators are always 2 years behind the offence.

For me, this is different to say PSG buying Neymar then not having to prove they could afford it for 2 seasons. This is a very visible cheat. They have given themselves money and told everyone that they have received it in sponsorship. Surely there must be regulations on reporting Sponsorship, like how much they are receiving, what the structure is and proving that it's coming from a third party not related to the club. This should happen for every club, at every level. And it should be done in advance of the deal going ahead.
Any wealthy club owners could buy any old label/brand and then give themselves a few hundred million extra.
ENIC could buy Chick King and put that on our shirts and tell Uefa that they paid £500,000,000 to do it, then blow all of that on players. It's so obviously a con it should never have been allowed to progress that far.
 

Blanchflower

Supporter
For me, this is different to say PSG buying Neymar then not having to prove they could afford it for 2 seasons. This is a very visible cheat. They have given themselves money and told everyone that they have received it in sponsorship. Surely there must be regulations on reporting Sponsorship, like how much they are receiving, what the structure is and proving that it's coming from a third party not related to the club. This should happen for every club, at every level. And it should be done in advance of the deal going ahead.
Any wealthy club owners could buy any old label/brand and then give themselves a few hundred million extra.
ENIC could buy Chick King and put that on our shirts and tell Uefa that they paid £500,000,000 to do it, then blow all of that on players. It's so obviously a con it should never have been allowed to progress that far.


The main sponsor (Etihad) is already essentially owned by the same people - and even then they still allegedly didn't pay the money via them.

Sheikh Mansour is fucking dodgy though, he's even caught up in all the 1MDB shit.
 
I think the Guardian Podcast has it right by separating the FFP issue with the basics that Man City didn't even try to cloak the financial doping that took place. It feeds in to the bigger idea that with enough resource you can outspend your rivals.

FFP is deeply flawed -the concept is right but, being honest, it means that by rights, Manchester United, because of their huge following (even now) should have the most fans therefore are more saleable to sponsors and therefore will have an advantage on every other club. If other clubs can't match that spending power how are they meant to redress the balance without some form of financial doping?

Over investing on your squad is still speculating and that money has to be found above and beyond what a club could afford normally. It's what Blackburn, Leeds, City have done over time to become a dominant force. So is it so bad that a 2nd Division team could never win the premier league, bearing in mind in the not far distant past City & Leicester were in the first division? I guess I'm wondering is Sheikh Mansoor just a modern day Jack Walker, albeit at a different scale?

I am certainly not advocating the City model but if other teams outside the established leading pack don't challenge how will we keep the Premier League as a competitive contest? Why shouldn't a Watford or Burnley be able to challenge that pack at some point in the future? How can they do that without the European Revenue or the fanbase?

I also accept that Liverpool have spent intelligently and are reaping the rewards of good scouting and management, that's always going to play a part and it should be the most important factor. Maybe they offer the alternative, sell good players for profit and reinvest wisely.

I think City deserve their ban and have little sympathy because of the scale of expenditure and the fact they're basically being used as an advert for a gulf state, there is some justice at the UEFA finding and it would be a shame if CAS ruled against the finding.

My concern is, certainly for the lesser teams, if they're not financially doped or over stretching by speculation, how do they ever challenge the status quo? FFP2, a player's draft, agreed europe wide transfer and contract ceilings? That's the trickier question.
 
After watching this. . . I doubt the ban will hold up, or if it does it won't come in to effect for atleast the next 5 years.

CAS will not find UEFA's process satisfactory as it is investigated, charged and Judged by themselves. How can that not be seen as an unfair process? Regardless of how guilty we all know City are this is the way of the world and City have found a loophole to extend this case for up to a decade.

The precedent for claiming "unfair investigation" is already there from the case mentioned in the video

5th will not get you CL this season, I would put my house on it.

 

ShutUpPatrik

Supporter
Now I'm a big fat dynamo!
After watching this. . . I doubt the ban will hold up, or if it does it won't come in to effect for atleast the next 5 years.

CAS will not find UEFA's process satisfactory as it is investigated, charged and Judged by themselves. How can that not be seen as an unfair process? Regardless of how guilty we all know City are this is the way of the world and City have found a loophole to extend this case for up to a decade.

The precedent for claiming "unfair investigation" is already there from the case mentioned in the video

5th will not get you CL this season, I would put my house on it.


This is how all these cases work. UEFA sets the rules for their competition and they enforce the rules themselves. AC Milan's punishment held up. Just like the FA sets the rules for all competitions organized and owned by them, as well as investigates any suspected breaching of said rules and delivering the verdict.

Why is it a loophole for City but not for AC Milan?
 
Last edited:
After watching this. . . I doubt the ban will hold up, or if it does it won't come in to effect for atleast the next 5 years.

CAS will not find UEFA's process satisfactory as it is investigated, charged and Judged by themselves. How can that not be seen as an unfair process? Regardless of how guilty we all know City are this is the way of the world and City have found a loophole to extend this case for up to a decade.

The precedent for claiming "unfair investigation" is already there from the case mentioned in the video

5th will not get you CL this season, I would put my house on it.


It's a UEFA competition, they decide who does and does not compete.
 
It's a UEFA competition, they decide who does and does not compete.
But UEFA have agreed to accept CAS as the arbitrator so it now follows that CAS has jurisdiction to decide on the present dispute.

It's interesting that it's not UEFA who investigated the case but CFCB, that weakens City's 'closed shop' case a lot if CAS recognise the distinction between UEFA and CFCB

Good piece in the Guardian last week:

Manchester City offer an olive branch now Uefa holds all the power | David Conn
 
This is how all these cases work. UEFA sets the rules for their competition and they enforce the rules themselves. AC Milan's punishment held up. Just like the FA sets the rules for all competitions organised and owned by them, as well as investigates any suspected breaching of said rules and delivering the verdict.

Why is it a loophole for City but not for AC Milan?
AC Milan didn't hire 50 of the best lawyers in the world and weren't willing to go to the extremes that city will to tie this up on court for a decade.

It's a UEFA competition, they decide who does and does not compete.

You are right but that process in its self is flawed. If they are the ones both gathering evidence, presenting charges and passing the sentence then it's easy to say that there's something unfair going on.

If Uefa had a process where they gathered evidence, presented charges and then took it to some sort of Sport's Tribunal who then decide the verdict and sentencing then that could be seen as a fair process

It's like a copper nicking me and then sitting in the judges seat deciding my verdict and sentence. The argument is that of course he would find me guilty because he's the one that nicked me! There's no part of the process that is impartial.

Believe me I hope i'm wrong!
 
After watching this. . . I doubt the ban will hold up, or if it does it won't come in to effect for atleast the next 5 years.

CAS will not find UEFA's process satisfactory as it is investigated, charged and Judged by themselves. How can that not be seen as an unfair process? Regardless of how guilty we all know City are this is the way of the world and City have found a loophole to extend this case for up to a decade.

The precedent for claiming "unfair investigation" is already there from the case mentioned in the video

5th will not get you CL this season, I would put my house on it.


City faces a likely tough case at CAS, which has previously upheld UEFA’s “Financial Fair Play” system and the use of evidence obtained by methods illegal under Swiss law.
 
You are right but that process in its self is flawed. If they are the ones both gathering evidence, presenting charges and passing the sentence then it's easy to say that there's something unfair going on.

If Uefa had a process where they gathered evidence, presented charges and then took it to some sort of Sport's Tribunal who then decide the verdict and sentencing then that could be seen as a fair process

It's like a copper nicking me and then sitting in the judges seat deciding my verdict and sentence. The argument is that of course he would find me guilty because he's the one that nicked me! There's no part of the process that is impartial.

Believe me I hope i'm wrong!
Ah right, I see what you're saying. That's an interesting analogy.
 
Top Bottom