Manchester City banned from Champions/Europa League

[AndyT]

Does this mean 5th place will get into the Champions League?

Yep, that is my understanding which suddenly makes the season a bit more interesting with the likes of Sheffield United and Wolves in the shake-up.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Please don't think I am in sympathy with City, they have used financial steroids; as have Chelski, Manure, PSG, Barca, Real, Juve and likely others.
I do think it queer that a corrupt organisation is saying "do as I say not as I do" and that they aren't initiating similar against those mentioned too.
Maybe City weren't sending enough or fat enough envelopes their way?
And the fine should be distributed to EFL clubs who have suffered by the "bow wave" surge as City bought their way to successes.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Yep, that is my understanding which suddenly makes the season a bit more interesting with the likes of Sheffield United and Wolves in the shake-up.

Watch Wolves tear Espanyol apart on Thursday.

 

[kaymac]

Barca and Real have followed a line of financial corruptness for many years yet still remain firm favourites of UEFA. The bulk of PSG's income is sponsorship from their Qatari owners else they couldn't have afforded the likes of Mbappe and Neymar. Juve and the more noted Italian clubs look like paupers by comparison. So far it's only been Chelsea and now Man City under the cosh.....

 

[AndyT]

Watch Wolves tear Espanyol apart on Thursday.

They don't seem to be having a good season. Any reasons @Tangled up in Blue ?

 

[Ricky Otto]

I don't hold any great affection for Man City but I do like the fact that a team that was not particularly successful in my lifetime up until their investment could topple the traditional powers. In 1998 they were in Div 2/ League 1 and were only a bottom half prem club by the time of the takeover. If you don't allow "financial doping" then surely you are just allowing a few clubs in Europe dominate for the foreseeable future? If you can only spend within a clubs revenue and outside investment is not allowed then surely the clubs with big stadiums and big sponsorship deals will have a monopoly? A big investor has always been the dream of smaller clubs, it is the only way you get winners outside of the traditional super powers.

Chelsea- won the top flight once in the 50s but would never have competed again in the modern era without Abramovich's money and have won it 5 times since 2005.

Man City- won the top flight once in the 30's and once in the 60's but again would never have competed in the modern era without the Abu Dhabi money.

Blackburn - won the top flight a couple of times pre WW1 but would never have competed again without Jack Walker spending what was fortunes back then.

Leicester - massive underdogs who didn't buy on the scale of the other clubs mentioned but still received significant investment from the King power group.

With strict spend within your revenue rules none of these successes could have happened. The new technique of overinflated sponsorships seems to be a non starter now as well if this Man City saga is anything to go by. The traditional superpowers are showing their influence here.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

They don't seem to be having a good season. Any reasons @Tangled up in Blue ?

Main reason I'd say was they got rid of their main striker (and also the then magager) to Betis over the summer.Didn't address the striker issue until the December window when they got Raul in for big money.Ditto didn't really sort the manager issue until they appointed Ablelardo in the break.Bit like Southend really only with a lot more money.Think they'll stay up now but they can kiss the Europa league goodbye ever since the draw was made.

 

[londonblue]

I don't hold any great affection for Man City but I do like the fact that a team that was not particularly successful in my lifetime up until their investment could topple the traditional powers. In 1998 they were in Div 2/ League 1 and were only a bottom half prem club by the time of the takeover. If you don't allow "financial doping" then surely you are just allowing a few clubs in Europe dominate for the foreseeable future? If you can only spend within a clubs revenue and outside investment is not allowed then surely the clubs with big stadiums and big sponsorship deals will have a monopoly? A big investor has always been the dream of smaller clubs, it is the only way you get winners outside of the traditional super powers.

Chelsea- won the top flight once in the 50s but would never have competed again in the modern era without Abramovich's money and have won it 5 times since 2005.

Man City- won the top flight once in the 30's and once in the 60's but again would never have competed in the modern era without the Abu Dhabi money.

Blackburn - won the top flight a couple of times pre WW1 but would never have competed again without Jack Walker spending what was fortunes back then.

Leicester - massive underdogs who didn't buy on the scale of the other clubs mentioned but still received significant investment from the King power group.

With strict spend within your revenue rules none of these successes could have happened. The new technique of overinflated sponsorships seems to be a non starter now as well if this Man City saga is anything to go by. The traditional superpowers are showing their influence here.

And those are exactly the reason the rules (that all clubs agreed to) were brought in. They are trying to ensure that clubs can't buy success and have to earn it.

These clubs are living beyond their means and that shouldn't be allowed. IMO it doesn't turn the league into a closed shop because no-one is suggesting that investment isn't allowed. Indeed, spending on stadiums, academies etc is not included in the FFP rules. Pretending a sponsorship deal is worth hundreds of millions when it is really only worth tens of millions is clearly trying to circumvent the rules the clubs themselves agreed to. If you agree the rules then you must abide by them. It's unfair to expect everyone else to and then not yourself. That gives you an unfair advantage. If other clubs are breaking the rules then they should also be punished, it's not a reason to let them off.

 

[Ricky Otto]

And those are exactly the reason the rules (that all clubs agreed to) were brought in. They are trying to ensure that clubs can't buy success and have to earn it.

These clubs are living beyond their means and that shouldn't be allowed. IMO it doesn't turn the league into a closed shop because no-one is suggesting that investment isn't allowed. Indeed, spending on stadiums, academies etc is not included in the FFP rules. Pretending a sponsorship deal is worth hundreds of millions when it is really only worth tens of millions is clearly trying to circumvent the rules the clubs themselves agreed to. If you agree the rules then you must abide by them. It's unfair to expect everyone else to and then not yourself. That gives you an unfair advantage. If other clubs are breaking the rules then they should also be punished, it's not a reason to let them off.

Are they living beyond their means though? Man city are not going to go bust are they.

I disagree with you. How is a club that is not a traditional power with revenue streams that are under half of a top club ever supposed to compete? Answer is that they won't and we have a monopoly. Gone are the days when a good manager can come in and do a Cloughie, the money and wages needed to attract the calibre of players to win things is out of reach unless you have high revenue streams or a rich investor (which is considered financial doping now).

You may know better than me but I haven't seen anything to suggest that an investor is allowed to invest and the money be used for player transfers and wages? Surely that is the purpose of the inflated sponsorship deals?

 

[londonblue]

Are they living beyond their means though? Man city are not going to go bust are they.

I disagree with you. How is a club that is not a traditional power with revenue streams that are under half of a top club ever supposed to compete? Answer is that they won't and we have a monopoly. Gone are the days when a good manager can come in and do a Cloughie, the money and wages needed to attract the calibre of players to win things is out of reach unless you have high revenue streams or a rich investor (which is considered financial doping now).

You may know better than me but I haven't seen anything to suggest that an investor is allowed to invest and the money be used for player transfers and wages? Surely that is the purpose of the inflated sponsorship deals?

Firstly, all clubs that live beyond their means risk going bust once the person that owns them loses interest and asks for his/her money back.

Secondly, the rules are there to give smaller clubs a level playing field that isn't determined on the whim of one person deciding which club to plough all their money in to. The rules don't stop people buying clubs and investing in them, they are designed to stop excessive investment that skews the competition. For example, infrastructure projects are excluded.

If the clubs don't like the rules they signed up to then more fool them for signing up to them. If you expect everyone else who signed up to adhere to them then you should too. Man City and all the clubs that break the rules they agreed to should be punished.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

This reads odd even as I type it BUT I agree with most of the posts from Ricky and also London.
I think my annoyance with it is in the seemingly very selective way that the rules are being used and the specially selected targeting.
Slightly off topic but I also suspect the EFL, in their own "big" team bias are much less positive towards the plight of teams like us, and Maccs, Bury than they are to the likes of Bolton, Sunderland, Ipswich.
it is a tad Animal Farm Orwellian imo.

 

[kaymac]

Plenty to agree with in both opinions, RO and LB. Thing is though, why do UEFA avoid taking action against the likes of Barca, Real, PSG, and certain Italian and German clubs? What Man City are (or are not) doing is certainly not new.

 

[Shrimpersfan]

Always thinks he will get his own way and in decisions from refs and thinks his owed something in life, he should appreciate exactly what he has in life, got to big for his boots last few years, good player, I’ll give him that but ain’t the finished article by a long way.

Care to elaborate? I'm the opposite. I've got a lot of time for any player who works to improve themselves both on and off the pitch despite constant abuse, the majority of it racist.

 

[tottenham541]

Care to elaborate? I'm the opposite. I've got a lot of time for any player who works to improve themselves both on and off the pitch despite constant abuse, the majority of it racist.

His only done it or doing what he is doing now because he knows a lot of people and fans in general don’t like him, he now does stuff for charity etc to get on the right side of people, why didn’t he do this stuff from the start instead of being do you know who I am ? I like this guy when he sticks to the football the proper way just don’t like all the I’m owed this and that and all the diving that goes with it, some might say it’s cheating, I say it’s not mostly the players fault it’s the coaches that coach the player to go over in the box at the slightest little touch, they even teach some youngsters to do it at a very young age, it’s not right in my book, good player on his day and needs to improve his finishing instead of whinging most of the time

 

[londonblue]

His only done it or doing what he is doing now because he knows a lot of people and fans in general don’t like him, he now does stuff for charity etc to get on the right side of people, why didn’t he do this stuff from the start instead of being do you know who I am ? I like this guy when he sticks to the football the proper way just don’t like all the I’m owed this and that and all the diving that goes with it, some might say it’s cheating, I say it’s not mostly the players fault it’s the coaches that coach the player to go over in the box at the slightest little touch, they even teach some youngsters to do it at a very young age, it’s not right in my book, good player on his day and needs to improve his finishing instead of whinging most of the time

Or maybe it's because he's now in a position where he's financially able to, but wasn't before? Or maybe he always did, but he didn't publicise it? Or maybe it's because he's matured into a decent person who has realised he has the profile to make a difference?

Of course, if you don't like someone you'll see everything they do in a negative way...

 

[tottenham541]

Or maybe it's because he's now in a position where he's financially able to, but wasn't before? Or maybe he always did, but he didn't publicise it? Or maybe it's because he's matured into a decent person who has realised he has the profile to make a difference?

Of course, if you don't like someone you'll see everything they do in a negative way...

Exactly, some like him and some don’t

 

[Ricey]

And the ban has been lifted!

 

[londonblue]

And the ban has been lifted!

What reason did they give?

Edit: they haven't given their full reason yet, but from what I read on the BBC website it seems that most of the breaches were either not established or time barred.

What it doesn't say is if the breaches that were time barred were the more serious ones and whether Man City's refusal to co-operate led to those breaches being time barred. I would like to think that that isn't the case because if it is then the CAS has been very lenient.

 

[Crawliano]

Wonder if City's mate Bill visited CAS?

 

[kaymac]

Maybe that classy rag Bild would now like to do a full investigation into Bayern Munich's sponsorship arrangements with Allianz plus the state aid amply provided to other German clubs, not forgetting Santander's dubious overseeing of Real Madrid's finances, the Qatari ongoing investments into PSG and those how lovely UAE folk back Barcelona........but of course it's never going to happen.