Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Stopper

Man City banned from Europe !

Recommended Posts

On 17/02/2020 at 14:43, Shmokeee said:

The issues I have with Man City have been long standing and have been the point of discussion/debate/downright arguments, with a lifelong Man City fan, someone who really has been there during their darkest years.

 

People forget how and who supported FFP, which clubs were the first to call for it etc. 
Man City were absolutely for it, not only in support of it but planned for it.

When people talk about when it was that the tide turned for them, the signing of Robinho was seen as the ‘game changer’.

It was, but not in the sense they could finally sign top world class players, he was the first step they took to massively inflate their wage bill.

Every player after that regardless of initial fee paid was on wages that no other club in the world would pay them. Literally.

Once their wage bill was astronomical in terms of where it was pre-sheikh, it was they who were then all in favour of the rule that no team can increase their wage bill by 10% each season, in doing so creating a breakaway with the ‘top 5’ whose wage bill was comparable whilst ‘kneecapping’ the competition.(shithouses)

So even then they hadn’t broke any rules as such, but to try and prevent other teams of doing the same to close the gap, has never sat right with me.

That rule had nothing to do with safeguarding the financial stability of smaller clubs, a rule of only personal investment/no loans would and could easily be applied if that was the intent, but it wasn’t.

Fast forward a few years and they’ve constantly broke and bent the rules that they voted for.

Chelsea also stink the house out with immorality and hypocrisy, I remember when they were both shit.

Both all in favour of FFP to stop any clubs gaining massive investment and being able to compete.

FFP and VAR both belong in the bin.

As do acronyms... 👊🏻

Class post mate. I actually quite like Man City as a team but not at all as a club/business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2020 at 14:43, Shmokeee said:

The issues I have with Man City have been long standing and have been the point of discussion/debate/downright arguments, with a lifelong Man City fan, someone who really has been there during their darkest years.

 

People forget how and who supported FFP, which clubs were the first to call for it etc. 
Man City were absolutely for it, not only in support of it but planned for it.

When people talk about when it was that the tide turned for them, the signing of Robinho was seen as the ‘game changer’.

It was, but not in the sense they could finally sign top world class players, he was the first step they took to massively inflate their wage bill.

Every player after that regardless of initial fee paid was on wages that no other club in the world would pay them. Literally.

Once their wage bill was astronomical in terms of where it was pre-sheikh, it was they who were then all in favour of the rule that no team can increase their wage bill by 10% each season, in doing so creating a breakaway with the ‘top 5’ whose wage bill was comparable whilst ‘kneecapping’ the competition.(shithouses)

So even then they hadn’t broke any rules as such, but to try and prevent other teams of doing the same to close the gap, has never sat right with me.

That rule had nothing to do with safeguarding the financial stability of smaller clubs, a rule of only personal investment/no loans would and could easily be applied if that was the intent, but it wasn’t.

Fast forward a few years and they’ve constantly broke and bent the rules that they voted for.

Chelsea also stink the house out with immorality and hypocrisy, I remember when they were both shit.

Both all in favour of FFP to stop any clubs gaining massive investment and being able to compete.

FFP and VAR both belong in the bin.

As do acronyms... 👊🏻

This was called Short Term Cost Control (STCC), which ran from 2013 and ended last year. It was basically designed to stop clubs spending beyond their means on wages. The problem with that was that we accidentally won the league, but we still couldn't compete with the likes of the top 5 for player wages because that would have sent us way beyond the 10% of our wage bill from the previous season. And even though we won the league, we ended up with just the 5th highest prize money from 2015/16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

This was called Short Term Cost Control (STCC), which ran from 2013 and ended last year. It was basically designed to stop clubs spending beyond their means on wages. The problem with that was that we accidentally won the league, but we still couldn't compete with the likes of the top 5 for player wages because that would have sent us way beyond the 10% of our wage bill from the previous season. And even though we won the league, we ended up with just the 5th highest prize money from 2015/16.

has it been ended ?  i thought it was relaxed but not ended ????

 

i also believe we were given specific wriggle room after 15/16 as we argued we were a special case

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2020 at 14:43, Shmokeee said:

The issues I have with Man City have been long standing and have been the point of discussion/debate/downright arguments, with a lifelong Man City fan, someone who really has been there during their darkest years.

 

People forget how and who supported FFP, which clubs were the first to call for it etc. 
Man City were absolutely for it, not only in support of it but planned for it.

When people talk about when it was that the tide turned for them, the signing of Robinho was seen as the ‘game changer’.

It was, but not in the sense they could finally sign top world class players, he was the first step they took to massively inflate their wage bill.

Every player after that regardless of initial fee paid was on wages that no other club in the world would pay them. Literally.

Once their wage bill was astronomical in terms of where it was pre-sheikh, it was they who were then all in favour of the rule that no team can increase their wage bill by 10% each season, in doing so creating a breakaway with the ‘top 5’ whose wage bill was comparable whilst ‘kneecapping’ the competition.(shithouses)

So even then they hadn’t broke any rules as such, but to try and prevent other teams of doing the same to close the gap, has never sat right with me.

That rule had nothing to do with safeguarding the financial stability of smaller clubs, a rule of only personal investment/no loans would and could easily be applied if that was the intent, but it wasn’t.

Fast forward a few years and they’ve constantly broke and bent the rules that they voted for.

Chelsea also stink the house out with immorality and hypocrisy, I remember when they were both shit.

Both all in favour of FFP to stop any clubs gaining massive investment and being able to compete.

FFP and VAR both belong in the bin.

As do acronyms... 👊🏻

http://en.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/192114.html
Manchester City voted against ffp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the appeal fails then do the premier league then open an investigation? 

 

And if it wins, well that’s a big middle finger to FFP and teams will break the rules even more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man City shouldn't keep fighting this ban.

 

They should embrace their fate and welcome the extra opportunities that it offers to other top clubs such as Leicester and Sheffield Utd.

 

As "Blue Moon" has been their club song for decades, it could symbolise such a spirit of generosity if they were to retire that song and replace it with this one....

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the main issue people have with Man City’s spending is that it comes from their owners (Alledgedly) rather than their turnover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dahnsouff said:

So the main issue people have with Man City’s spending is that it comes from their owners (Alledgedly) rather than their turnover?

It's that they've been circumventing FFP laws that state their spending should not exceed their income by signing sponsorship deals with third parties where the majority of the money actually came from their owner, not the sponsor. That's financial doping.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, urban.spaceman said:

It's that they've been circumventing FFP laws that state their spending should not exceed their income by signing sponsorship deals with third parties where the majority of the money actually came from their owner, not the sponsor. That's financial doping.

I see the point, but circumventing of a system that is designed to prevent losses, also has the aim to proliferate the power of those who traditionally have larger revenues via historic global interest. There is no pathway from nowhere to the top 6 and only by artificially looking like a top 6 side can you create this larger revenue.

 

It may be that it is US who disprove my argument and I sincerely hope it is, because if it is, Man City will just look impatient and foolish rather than responsible for building of a new dynasty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I see the point, but circumventing of a system that is designed to prevent losses, also has the aim to proliferate the power of those who traditionally have larger revenues via historic global interest. There is no pathway from nowhere to the top 6 and only by artificially looking like a top 6 side can you create this larger revenue.

 

It may be that it is US who disprove my argument and I sincerely hope it is, because if it is, Man City will just look impatient and foolish rather than responsible for building of a new dynasty.

I think that will probably be Man City's defence when it comes to it, that there was no other way to join the elite and Chelsea done it before the laws came in to stop it. UEFA will just respond with "Look at Leicester City".

 

What's been really interesting in recent years is how clubs have fared when they've spent loads vs when they've spent very little; we won the league having spent £27m on players that season; Newcastle spent £80m and went down. Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool actually generate enough commercial income to be able to spend freely, but the results are mixed - only Liverpool have been spending it wisely in the last few years; they've gone from spaffing £35m each on Carroll and Benteke, to smarter scouting and spending the same on the likes of Salah and Mane, and spending their profits from Coutinho's sale on Alisson and VVD - positions they actually needed. Man Utd and Arsenal have lacked any sanity in the coaching and management staff and have just tried to spend their way out of trouble with no unified idea on what sort of team they want to build.

 

This has indeed allowed for smaller clubs to challenge for a place in Europe without spending that much - Spurs have mostly done well in the CL, we had a season there too, while Burnley, Wolves, Southampton and Everton have go into the Europe League through finishing higher in the PL. Sheffield Utd have had a great season and could well be in the CL next season if Man City's ban is upheld - and fingers crossed for that because Man City have been cheating the system for a very long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I think that will probably be Man City's defence when it comes to it, that there was no other way to join the elite and Chelsea done it before the laws came in to stop it. UEFA will just respond with "Look at Leicester City".

 

What's been really interesting in recent years is how clubs have fared when they've spent loads vs when they've spent very little; we won the league having spent £27m on players that season; Newcastle spent £80m and went down. Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool actually generate enough commercial income to be able to spend freely, but the results are mixed - only Liverpool have been spending it wisely in the last few years; they've gone from spaffing £35m each on Carroll and Benteke, to smarter scouting and spending the same on the likes of Salah and Mane, and spending their profits from Coutinho's sale on Alisson and VVD - positions they actually needed. Man Utd and Arsenal have lacked any sanity in the coaching and management staff and have just tried to spend their way out of trouble with no unified idea on what sort of team they want to build.

 

This has indeed allowed for smaller clubs to challenge for a place in Europe without spending that much - Spurs have mostly done well in the CL, we had a season there too, while Burnley, Wolves, Southampton and Everton have go into the Europe League through finishing higher in the PL. Sheffield Utd have had a great season and could well be in the CL next season if Man City's ban is upheld - and fingers crossed for that because Man City have been cheating the system for a very long time.

It is just a likely that Man City could use Leicester City as an example, along with Burnley, then Wolves, maybe Sheffield Utd next. The ability to surprise has never been a concern, whereas the ability to consistently challenge has developed into a concern.

They were too slow to shut the door on Chelsea, arguably the only other club to make strides into the elite group besides Man City, and Chelsea's ascent was built on cash.

Tottenham are a weird one, they are bigger than their past successes should allow, but....:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spurs stumbled into some success, they had a reasonable squad with some decent scouting but ended up with a world class striker and one of the better managers in the world at the same time. If one of those had missed the other they’d be finishing 5th-8th. Levy just isn’t arsed enough to make more of it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it’s designed to help those at the top stay at the top, I do actually agree with it. The less clubs become unsustainable play things for rich people the better. When teams comply it actually leads for more opportunities for fans to own clubs. As the club is living within its means. 

 

What happened with man city and Chelsea is wrong. I’m glad that our owners have taken a more business savvy approach to running the club. 

 

A cap system would obviously be best but that is never going to happen, so just be thankful there is some form or rule in place. Without the rules imagine what united would be willing to pay to get back to the top. It would make maguire look a snip.  

 

If the appeal is won, I dread to think what that means for the future. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lambert09 said:

Although it’s designed to help those at the top stay at the top, I do actually agree with it. The less clubs become unsustainable play things for rich people the better. When teams comply it actually leads for more opportunities for fans to own clubs. As the club is living within its means. 

 

What happened with man city and Chelsea is wrong. I’m glad that our owners have taken a more business savvy approach to running the club. 

 

A cap system would obviously be best but that is never going to happen, so just be thankful there is some form or rule in place. Without the rules imagine what united would be willing to pay to get back to the top. It would make maguire look a snip.  

 

If the appeal is won, I dread to think what that means for the future. 

Make no mistake, in broad terms I wholeheartedly agree! This the way it should be, should have been, but to a degree, the genie is out of the bottle since Chelsea, and putting it back in is preventing anyone, other than the usual suspect from dreaming for more than 5 minutes (a season or so) anyway :(

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dahnsouff said:

Make no mistake, in broad terms I wholeheartedly agree! This the way it should be, should have been, but to a degree, the genie is out of the bottle since Chelsea, and putting it back in is preventing anyone, other than the usual suspect from dreaming for more than 5 minutes (a season or so) anyway :(

 

I disagree. Dreaming should be based on having a superstar emerge from your acadamy, or taking a chance on a player that people didn’t notice. 

 

It shouldnt be about someone coming in and writing a big cheque. As Leicester fans we should know that better than anyone.

 

Would it be a dream if Leeds suddenly got a Saudi prince to buy them and bought their way back to the top? It’s just artificial inflation of teams and the less of it the better. It’s not like the clubs did anything to deserve that money. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Spurs stumbled into some success, they had a reasonable squad with some decent scouting but ended up with a world class striker and one of the better managers in the world at the same time. If one of those had missed the other they’d be finishing 5th-8th. Levy just isn’t arsed enough to make more of it 

What success would that be, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

I disagree. Dreaming should be based on having a superstar emerge from your acadamy, or taking a chance on a player that people didn’t notice. 

 

It shouldnt be about someone coming in and writing a big cheque. As Leicester fans we should know that better than anyone.

 

Would it be a dream if Leeds suddenly got a Saudi prince to buy them and bought their way back to the top? It’s just artificial inflation of teams and the less of it the better. It’s not like the clubs did anything to deserve that money. 

My turn to disagree. :thumbup: 

 

Every fan should be able to not just dream, but to also hope, and for more than today, for tomorrow, next week, next year and beyond. That can happen if this sport operated as true meritocracy, not one where merit were available via cash too the few. Worse, that despite your best efforts, you cannot join this group on a level playing field over an extended period of time.

 

And that kid from your Academy? He now plays for Manchester United for £250k a week. :mellow:

 

Christ, my world looks bleak in prose.....

Edited by Dahnsouff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

So the main issue people have with Man City’s spending is that it comes from their owners (Alledgedly) rather than their turnover?

I think the bigger issue for me is not so much the use of sponsor to ensure invested money. It’s the use of third parties to give extra money to the likes of Mancini. That’s wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Long Eaton Fox said:

Does anyone know that while the appeal is running does the ban still stay in place or is it delayed until after.

This all has to be resolved by July I believe, it won't drag on after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Long Eaton Fox said:

Does anyone know that while the appeal is running does the ban still stay in place or is it delayed until after.

CAS will hear the appeal before the Champions League starts.

 

When they did it with AC Milan, it was July I believe the verdict was given. The difficultly is that it means a couple of clubs will have to go in pre season training early in case of European qualifiers and it might be a waste of time. 
 

However there’s been signs that CAS will look to wrap it up by Early June 
 

 

Edited by Cardiff_Fox
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bert said:

If the appeal fails then do the premier league then open an investigation? 

 

And if it wins, well that’s a big middle finger to FFP and teams will break the rules even more. 

I don’t think PL will open an investigation as the fallout could rock the TV deal and subsequently affect all of the clubs. Realistically 14 teams would rather take the TV money as a Man City less PL will see them mid table or lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

So the main issue people have with Man City’s spending is that it comes from their owners (Alledgedly) rather than their turnover?

Thats the issue the big clubs have yes, they basically dont want outside investment coming into the game, as obviously it preserves the status quo if its all only based on revenues.

 

---

 

Also in regards to spending, havent spurs still spent more than clubs outside the top 6? their spending is low for a top 6 club,  which probably reflects in the fact they still have no EPL title, but still bigger spending than the 7th biggest club.  So that argument if UEFA make it is weak, especially as now spurs may not make CL this season, ourselves broke FFP to get promoted, although since promoted we have balanced the books very well.  So the argument for us is weak as well due to the promotion and the fact we not been able to sustain top4, plus remember this season is not yet over and our form is pretty bad right now.

 

However the argument isnt about if the FFP is right or wrong its about the FFP rule been breached, proving the FFP rule is unfair is probably not going to overturn the decision.  Although it could possibly lead to a future change of FFP rules.

Edited by Chrysalis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forbes article:

Leicester City Supporters Should Be Hoping Manchester City Take On And Beat UEFA

FBL-ENG-PR-MAN CITY-LEICESTER

Manchester City's Spanish manager Pep Guardiola (R) chats with Leicester City's Northern Irish ... [+]

AFP via Getty Images

Last Saturday’s early evening fixture may have pitted second against third in the Premier League but in so many fundamental ways a chasm exists between Manchester City and Leicester City.

The former have participated in the Champions League for nine years running and have lifted seven of the last eight domestic trophies. They may be newly established as part of football’s elite but established they are. Leicester’s solitary piece of silverware in recent times meanwhile came in 2016 with a league title so unexpected that it was globally celebrated as a fairy tale. 

It was telling too that during a lull in proceedings at the weekend Foxes fans sang in anticipation of going on a European tour next season; a likely event given their team’s present league standing. Understandably, it was a chant accompanied by a good deal of excitement at the prospect and perhaps that excitement has abated somewhat for their opposing fan-base in recent years, accustomed now with trips to Madrid et al. For them continental adventures are the norm while an absence from the prestigious tournament would be considered an anomalous disaster. 

This leads us neatly to the seismic announcement of Manchester City’s two-year ban from the competition that shocked one and all on Valentine’s Day. As has been comprehensively reported elsewhere the club was found by UEFA to have broken Financial Fair Play rules by manipulating sponsorship income with the resulting punishment being a Champions League ban along with a €30 million ($32.5 million) fine. 

Before we explore this however - and how the ramifications of the decision could yet benefit Leicester quite substantially - we must briefly stay with the gulf that currently exists between the clubs; a difference in rank that is extremely pertinent. Because for all of Manchester City’s sublime football and galaxy of stars the main reason they are able to stay ahead of so many of their Premier League peers is incontestable: it is money or, more accurately, their vastly superior resources.

Leicester City v Manchester City - Premier League

The King Power Stadium, home to Leicester City during the Premier League match between Leicester ... [+]

NurPhoto via Getty Images

This is true in every regard whether it be match-day income – the title-holder’s Etihad Stadium has a 42% larger capacity than Leicester’s King Power – or marketing muscle deriving from a far weightier global presence. Last May a football finance study undertaken by the University of Liverpool's Centre for Sports Business Group revealed that Manchester City are the most valuable Premier League club, valued at £2.364 billion ($3.063 billion). Leicester was ninth on the list, languishing behind the usual suspects but also Newcastle and even Burnley.

For further context when the two sides met in February 2016, with the Foxes on route to the title, Claudio Ranieri’s team cost £22.9 million ($29.6 million). Their opponents were assembled for £234.5 million ($303.9 million). 

Though there is a danger of over-simplifying matters when making this claim it is a disparity that is largely kept in place by Financial Fair Play regulations, that were implemented by UEFA in 2011 to prevent clubs from spending beyond their means and instead adhere to a budgetary framework. With the governing body growing increasingly concerned about what its president at the time Michael Platini described as ‘financial doping’ clubs are now required to balance out their expenditure and income, whether that be via television, match-day or commercial revenue. Any breaching of FFP’s strict criteria can result in fines and/or sanctions. 

When taken at face value the intentions behind FFP are wholly good, designed as it is to ensure that individuals in charge of clubs can no longer over-reach and put that club in jeopardy. Its one-size-fits-all mandate however also means that affluent backers can no longer invest in clubs to their heart’s content, elevating them in stature through expensive recruitment that exceeds their income.  

It is this that has led FFP’s many critics to call it a ‘protection racket’, the implication being that the privileged elite with their significant resources have found a way of maintaining a meaningful advantage over any Johnny-come-latelies blessed at being taken on by a rich benefactor. It has additionally been viewed in many quarters as a restriction of trade and investment that simply wouldn’t be tolerated in any other industry. 

FBL-ENG-PR-MAN CITY-WEST HAM

Manchester City fans display an anti-Uefa banner in the crowd ahead of the English Premier League ... [+]

AFP via Getty Images

These are the arguments that Manchester City – a club who made it inside the magical castle before the drawbridge was raised but whose ambitious project was nowhere near completed - will take to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) as they appeal their ban, along with an insistence that the process was ‘prejudicial’ and armed reportedly with evidence that shows they were hardly alone in erring. Should they fail in having their punishment over-turned or severely reduced they then have every intention of taking their case to the Swiss Federal Court and here the gloves are widely expected to come off. 

In the picturesque municipality of Lausanne it will not only be City’s assertion that they didn’t break any rules, but that the rules themselves should not exist. 

If the restraints of the divisive FFP come under serious threat that opens up all manner of fascinating possibilities for several clubs now and many more in the future. On Merseyside, the billionaire businessman Farhad Moshiri has a 77.2% stake in Everton but is currently restricted in how much he can further his club’s fortunes via his own. Similarly, Leicester are extremely wealthy on paper but hamstrung by their mid-table earnings. 

In February 2018 Leicester agreed to pay £3.1 million ($4 million) to the Football League for breaching FFP regulations in their promotion-winning season of 2013/14. That year, solely within the framework of the regulations, the Foxes made a loss of £21 million ($21.1 million) and this despite having an owner in the late Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha with an estimated net worth of $5.2 billion who willingly bankrolled his club to success. It is highly pertinent that in their prolonged legal battle with the Football League it was Leicester’s contention that FFP was ‘unlawful’, preceding Manchester City’s identical claim by two years.

Last summer they found themselves in the bizarre situation of being wealthy enough to turn down a bid of £75 million ($96.8 million) for Harry Maguire – eventually holding out for £80 million – yet were unable to spend in that sphere even though they had the funds to do so. That right there is Financial Fair Play’s Achilles’ heel. 

This summer they can again expect one of the traditional ‘bigger’ clubs to come knocking, most likely for James Maddison and this is a situation that manager Brendan Rodgers is acutely aware of. “We can be competitive but there’s no way we’ll be able to offer the salaries of teams at that level and that’s the reality of it,” he said recently. Once again for emphasis: Leicester’s owners are multi-billionaires who are more than willing to back their club to the hilt if allowed to. 

Right now there are presumably many Foxes supporters who find Manchester City’s alleged actions in circumnavigating FFP to be distasteful. That same number could well be hoping that their Premier League rival is ultimately punished accordingly. On the latter point they should not. For if events transpire as they conceivably might then Leicester City’s enormous wealth on paper can eventually transfer to a wealth of talent on the pitch. And fair play to them for that.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...