Manchester City Banned 2 Seasons From Champions League

[Bigpokey24]

There are rumors the epl may deduct points from City

[benteke]

Look at the clubs that have fallen foul of financial regulations lately - City, PSG..... clubs where money is being pumped in from external sources and maybe not operating in a true business sense. They can afford the fines. It's chicken change to them. They crave success and will do anything to get there.
That is why relegation is adequate deterrent. Exactly the opposite of why they are willing to break the law.

And after the Neymar and Mbappe mega transfers, PSG is doing its best to fall within FFP, they even deferred the Mbappe transfer in ordrer to meet rules.
And lately they are also selling to balance books
City just continued to arrogantly cook books

[benteke]

They can do what they want but relegating a club because of not reporting income is stupid and will open a can of worms. This is just blowing this out of proportion IMHO.

It's not stupid, it's very fair, Saracens have taken their medicine very well.
There's no can of worms that will be open, for what ?

The only can of worms that may open is if this punishment is reversed and City continues to arrogantly cook books.
That may cause other clubs to say hang on, we sometimes don't buy certain players in order to meet FFP, and City keeps getting away with it ....

[kenmega]

The Premier League won’t relegate Man City. More likely to be a fine, points deducted and a possible FA Cup/League Cup ban.

I remember in 1994 when the Premier League threatened Spurs with relegation punishment after being caught for financial irregularities by the FA in the 1980s. Then they changed the punishment from relegation to a 12 point deduction and a heavy fine to 6 point deduction and a fine and a FA Cup Ban. Alan Sugar appealed and won his decision for Spurs.

[Mr. Piffington]

Look at the clubs that have fallen foul of financial regulations lately - City, PSG..... clubs where money is being pumped in from external sources and maybe not operating in a true business sense. They can afford the fines. It's chicken change to them. They crave success and will do anything to get there.
That is why relegation is adequate deterrent. Exactly the opposite of why they are willing to break the law.

And after the Neymar and Mbappe mega transfers, PSG is doing its best to fall within FFP, they even deferred the Mbappe transfer in ordrer to meet rules.
And lately they are also selling to balance books
City just continued to arrogantly cook books

I don't think you know what you're talking about, the ban was for deceiving UEFA in 2014 not anything current, I think they (City) have been trying to comply.

[Mr. Piffington]

They can do what they want but relegating a club because of not reporting income is stupid and will open a can of worms. This is just blowing this out of proportion IMHO.

It's not stupid, it's very fair, Saracens have taken their medicine very well.
There's no can of worms that will be open, for what ?

The only can of worms that may open is if this punishment is reversed and City continues to arrogantly cook books.
That may cause other clubs to say hang on, we sometimes don't buy certain players in order to meet FFP, and City keeps getting away with it ....

Oga read my previous post. It will open a can of worms, if you start punishing players for something they had no hand in. My friend the traditional elite clubs can't keep winning it forever. Spending what you earn is a stupid rule because it just keeps the traditional elite permanently at the top and you know it, the only reason why you support it is because you want those support those clubs and you don't want another club to do what City did and relegate you to actually competing for top spots. If you really want to make it fair there either need to be a wage cap or a transfer cap into the first team not this UEFA mafioso inspired law designed to keep the money makers at the top forever.

[balo]

The Premier League won’t relegate Man City. More likely to be a fine, points deducted and a possible FA Cup/League Cup ban.

I remember in 1994 when the Premier League threatened Spurs with relegation punishment after being caught for financial irregularities by the FA in the 1980s. Then they changed the punishment from relegation to a 12 point deduction and a heavy fine to 6 point deduction and a fine and a FA Cup Ban. Alan Sugar appealed and won his decision for Spurs.

So Liverpool are due an EPL ring?

[txj]

The Premier League won’t relegate Man City. More likely to be a fine, points deducted and a possible FA Cup/League Cup ban.

I remember in 1994 when the Premier League threatened Spurs with relegation punishment after being caught for financial irregularities by the FA in the 1980s. Then they changed the punishment from relegation to a 12 point deduction and a heavy fine to 6 point deduction and a fine and a FA Cup Ban. Alan Sugar appealed and won his decision for Spurs.

So Liverpool are due an EPL ring?

For last season? Unlikely...

[txj]

They can do what they want but relegating a club because of not reporting income is stupid and will open a can of worms. This is just blowing this out of proportion IMHO.

It's not stupid, it's very fair, Saracens have taken their medicine very well.
There's no can of worms that will be open, for what ?

The only can of worms that may open is if this punishment is reversed and City continues to arrogantly cook books.
That may cause other clubs to say hang on, we sometimes don't buy certain players in order to meet FFP, and City keeps getting away with it ....

Oga read my previous post. It will open a can of worms, if you start punishing players for something they had no hand in. My friend the traditional elite clubs can't keep winning it forever. Spending what you earn is a stupid rule because it just keeps the traditional elite permanently at the top and you know it, the only reason why you support it is because you want those support those clubs and you don't want another club to do what City did and relegate you to actually competing for top spots. If you really want to make it fair there either need to be a wage cap or a transfer cap into the first team not this UEFA mafioso inspired law designed to keep the money makers at the top forever.

Spending what you earn is a prudent rule, which helps ameliorate club failure.

Spurs are not a traditional elite club. Neither is Atleti. But they are both growing without cooking their books.

Again you should properly educate yourself on the subject.

[Bigpokey24]

Seems last season championship may go to pool as well...

[Mr. Piffington]

They can do what they want but relegating a club because of not reporting income is stupid and will open a can of worms. This is just blowing this out of proportion IMHO.

It's not stupid, it's very fair, Saracens have taken their medicine very well.
There's no can of worms that will be open, for what ?

The only can of worms that may open is if this punishment is reversed and City continues to arrogantly cook books.
That may cause other clubs to say hang on, we sometimes don't buy certain players in order to meet FFP, and City keeps getting away with it ....

Oga read my previous post. It will open a can of worms, if you start punishing players for something they had no hand in. My friend the traditional elite clubs can't keep winning it forever. Spending what you earn is a stupid rule because it just keeps the traditional elite permanently at the top and you know it, the only reason why you support it is because you want those support those clubs and you don't want another club to do what City did and relegate you to actually competing for top spots. If you really want to make it fair there either need to be a wage cap or a transfer cap into the first team not this UEFA mafioso inspired law designed to keep the money makers at the top forever.

Spending what you earn is a prudent rule, which helps ameliorate club failure.

Spurs are not a traditional elite club. Neither is Atleti. But they are both growing without cooking their books.

Again you should properly educate yourself on the subject.

In this context it's stupid because not all teams have the same size fan base and not all teams are given the chance to catch up and compete with top teams. If you only have two teams as an example as to how non elite teams can catch up then you've made my point. What kind of fraudulent system has a so called league were one team has won the league for 7-8 years running? Manchester United has won the premier league 13 times, e never do? If Man City weren't in the picture they would have one it 14 times. Disgustya!

The only thing that would be fair would be a wage or a transfer cap, everthing else is hocus pocus designed to cater to an elite. If they set transfer limits then we can even things out a bit. A team that has revenue of $200 million/year vs a team that makes $30 million/year and you think that's fair? What if the team that makes $30 million/year wants to win trophies? How will they do it without serious investments? How will they do it when a $200 million/year top team takes their best players and they can't build on gains? Look at Ajax, two of their best players gone after making gains and yet you tell me it's fair, gtfoh.

[Mr. Piffington]

Seems last season championship may go to pool as well...

The tabloids are creaming themselves.

[txj]

They can do what they want but relegating a club because of not reporting income is stupid and will open a can of worms. This is just blowing this out of proportion IMHO.

It's not stupid, it's very fair, Saracens have taken their medicine very well.
There's no can of worms that will be open, for what ?

The only can of worms that may open is if this punishment is reversed and City continues to arrogantly cook books.
That may cause other clubs to say hang on, we sometimes don't buy certain players in order to meet FFP, and City keeps getting away with it ....

Oga read my previous post. It will open a can of worms, if you start punishing players for something they had no hand in. My friend the traditional elite clubs can't keep winning it forever. Spending what you earn is a stupid rule because it just keeps the traditional elite permanently at the top and you know it, the only reason why you support it is because you want those support those clubs and you don't want another club to do what City did and relegate you to actually competing for top spots. If you really want to make it fair there either need to be a wage cap or a transfer cap into the first team not this UEFA mafioso inspired law designed to keep the money makers at the top forever.

Spending what you earn is a prudent rule, which helps ameliorate club failure.

Spurs are not a traditional elite club. Neither is Atleti. But they are both growing without cooking their books.

Again you should properly educate yourself on the subject.

In this context it's stupid because not all teams have the same size fan base and not all teams are given the chance to catch up and compete with top teams. If you only have two teams as an example as to how non elite teams can catch up then you've made my point. What kind of fraudulent system has a so called league were one team has won the league for 7-8 years running? Manchester United has won the premier league 13 times, e never do? If Man City weren't in the picture they would have one it 14 times. Disgustya!

The only thing that would be fair would be a wage or a transfer cap, everthing else is hocus pocus designed to cater to an elite. If they set transfer limits then we can even things out a bit. A team that has revenue of $200 million/year vs a team that makes $30 million/year and you think that's fair? What if the team that makes $30 million/year wants to win trophies? How will they do it without serious investments? How will they do it when a $200 million/year top team takes their best players and they can't build on gains? Look at Ajax, two of their best players gone after making gains and yet you tell me it's fair, gtfoh.

You are apparently been disinformed.

Newly rich teams are allowed under FFP an elevated budget framework as long as they reach an agreement on the time frame for restoring balance in their financial structure.

If it was entirely about money, Leicester would not have won the league.

Yes you need investment, but ultimately you have to manage it well.

These same rules have ensured the health of European club football.

I have zero sympathy for City.

[benteke]

Look at the clubs that have fallen foul of financial regulations lately - City, PSG..... clubs where money is being pumped in from external sources and maybe not operating in a true business sense. They can afford the fines. It's chicken change to them. They crave success and will do anything to get there.
That is why relegation is adequate deterrent. Exactly the opposite of why they are willing to break the law.

And after the Neymar and Mbappe mega transfers, PSG is doing its best to fall within FFP, they even deferred the Mbappe transfer in ordrer to meet rules.
And lately they are also selling to balance books
City just continued to arrogantly cook books

I don't think you know what you're talking about, the ban was for deceiving UEFA in 2014 not anything current, I think they (City) have been trying to comply.

No, i was meaning that after 2014, they also did some deal with an investment group from China where they valued City at some 5billion and then City sold shares to the investment group for hundreds of millions. Seemed as dodgy as they come.
With such revenues they then supposedly met FFP rules even though they were able to spend some 200million in one season. All this is very hard to prove as being dodgy by the way, but seems as dodgy as the Etihad airways deal.
The way they defiantly throw lawyers at the whole thing makes one wonder

[benteke]

They can do what they want but relegating a club because of not reporting income is stupid and will open a can of worms. This is just blowing this out of proportion IMHO.

It's not stupid, it's very fair, Saracens have taken their medicine very well.
There's no can of worms that will be open, for what ?

The only can of worms that may open is if this punishment is reversed and City continues to arrogantly cook books.
That may cause other clubs to say hang on, we sometimes don't buy certain players in order to meet FFP, and City keeps getting away with it ....

Oga read my previous post. It will open a can of worms, if you start punishing players for something they had no hand in. My friend the traditional elite clubs can't keep winning it forever. Spending what you earn is a stupid rule because it just keeps the traditional elite permanently at the top and you know it, the only reason why you support it is because you want those support those clubs and you don't want another club to do what City did and relegate you to actually competing for top spots. If you really want to make it fair there either need to be a wage cap or a transfer cap into the first team not this UEFA mafioso inspired law designed to keep the money makers at the top forever.

What about AC Milan a traditional elite club that accepted a ban from Europe because they knew they have some transgressions over a number of years.
City must also accept their ban, it's only 2yrs.

[benteke]

In this context it's stupid because not all teams have the same size fan base and not all teams are given the chance to catch up and compete with top teams. If you only have two teams as an example as to how non elite teams can catch up then you've made my point. What kind of fraudulent system has a so called league were one team has won the league for 7-8 years running? Manchester United has won the premier league 13 times, e never do? If Man City weren't in the picture they would have one it 14 times. Disgustya!

The only thing that would be fair would be a wage or a transfer cap, everthing else is hocus pocus designed to cater to an elite. If they set transfer limits then we can even things out a bit. A team that has revenue of $200 million/year vs a team that makes $30 million/year and you think that's fair? What if the team that makes $30 million/year wants to win trophies? How will they do it without serious investments? How will they do it when a $200 million/year top team takes their best players and they can't build on gains? Look at Ajax, two of their best players gone after making gains and yet you tell me it's fair, gtfoh.

You are now acting as if City is the club that stopped United winning more titles hence why they are being punished.
Chelsea got Abramovich money and started challenging in 2004, but still after that United was still able to win 5 more titles after that, including after City started getting it's billions in 2008.

[Bigpokey24]

EPL will be deducting points from City. I wonder how many points will be deducted

[txj]

A consultants’ report written for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi stated that the Abu Dhabi government, not Etihad airlines, was “covering” the sponsorship of Manchester City in 2010, according to a 2015 US aviation industry document.

Uefa’s financial fair play compliance body, the CFCB, banned City from the Champions League for two seasons on Friday and fined the club €30m, having concluded the club was not being truthful in its submissions from 2012-16 that Etihad wholly funded its annual £67.5m sponsorship.

The CFCB investigation and findings followed the publication of internal City emails by the German magazine Der Spiegel in November 2018, which suggested Etihad was not funding the bulk of the sponsorship and that most of the money was being provided by City’s owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Crown Prince’s brother. In one of the emails, City’s then chief financial officer, Jorge Chumillas, had sent two invoices internally for the £67.5m 2015‑16 sponsorship, stating that “£8m should be funded directly by Etihad and £59.5 [sic] by ADUG” – Mansour’s company vehicle.

City have furiously rejected the conclusion and suggestion that Etihad did not wholly fund the sponsorship, claiming that the CFCB’s two “chambers” were biased, “flawed,” had prejudged the outcome and had ignored “irrefutable evidence”.

The US aviation industry document was produced in 2015 by the “Partnership for Open and Fair Skies”, an alliance of three major US airlines and aviation staff unions. They were arguing to the US departments of commerce, transportation and state that Etihad was receiving enormous subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, which, they claimed, distorted fair competition. The document refers to an internal report on Etihad prepared for the Crown Prince, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, by consultants in 2010, which was leaked in 2014 to the Australian Financial Review. The consultants noted, in reference to a list of Etihad’s sponsorships: “Executive Council covers Man City”.

The executive council is in effect the Abu Dhabi governing body, and is chaired by the Crown Prince, who is widely considered the most powerful member of the ruling family. The senior business executive and political figure who was appointed to be City’s chairman after Mansour’s 2008 takeover, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, is a member of the Executive Council. He also chairs the Executive Affairs Authority, which advises on Abu Dhabi’s strategy and image, and works principally for the Crown Prince.

Referring to the Etihad sponsorship, the US airlines’ document said: “While Etihad asserts that it funded the $640m [total] cost of the sponsorship of Manchester City ‘from its own liquidity,’ it provides no such evidence and fails to address the contrary evidence that the US airlines submitted on this point: an internal study that [the consultants] prepared for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, which states that the Executive Council of Abu Dhabi – not Etihad – covers the cost. As an internal document that was not intended for public release, [the consultants’] study is particularly probative of the funding’s true source.”

Etihad denied that absolutely in their response to the US airlines’ allegations, submitted to the US departments in May 2015. The Abu Dhabi airline rejected the claim that its huge funding from the Abu Dhabi government represented subsidies and said of the City deal: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011, Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”

Last season’s Champions League quarter-final. Photograph: Matt McNulty - Manchester City/Manchester City FC via Getty Images
Etihad did not refer in that response to the consultants’ review or explain why the consultants had said “Executive Council covers Man City”.

Following the publication of the internal City emails suggesting Mansour’s own company was heavily subsidising the sponsorship, Etihad responded by saying: “Etihad Airways is proud to have been Manchester City FC’s main club partner since May 2009. The airline’s financial obligations, associated with the partnership of the club and the broader City Football Group, have always been, and remain, the sole liability and responsibility of Etihad Airways. This is reflected in the airline’s audited accounts.”


Sign up to The Recap, our weekly email of editors’ picks.
The airline’s audited accounts are not published, but the US document published an apparent copy of the 2013-14 accounts that showed Etihad had accumulated losses of $3.8bn and had drawn down $5bn of loans from the Abu Dhabi government, which had also contributed a further $2.5bn in share capital. The accounts stated Etihad had spent a total of $150m during the year on advertising and promotion, although that was not itemised and the City sponsorship was not specifically referred to.

City have denied throughout that Etihad’s sponsorship is subsidised and said they are to appeal against the Uefa CFCB conclusion and penalty to the court of arbitration for sport.


https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... not-etihad