City Banned from CL for 2 years

As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
Post Reply
nut flush gooner
Posts: 3117
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:23 am

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by nut flush gooner »

augie wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:58 pm
nut flush gooner wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:53 pm
augie wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:26 pm
nut flush gooner wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:27 pm
This ban really fucks up City's business model tbh, they rely on sponsorship deals to cover their inflated expenses. And it's the creative accounting that has allowed them to carry on spending at an inordinate level.

Guardiola surely must see the writing on the wall now, when he wants to spend silly money in the future the board will quite often have to say no.

City and Chelski's market value have been inflated artificially imo, they don't have the fan base away from Manchester or West London that even Arsenal have around the country and overseas. This is a big problem for them going forward. I just hope that UEFA stick to their guns, there is a principle here that clubs shouldnt be allowed to spend a lot more than they earn in revenue. Now the PL have to follow suit and start docking points from clubs that take the piss.




Why shouldn't they ? If their owner puts in £500m out of his own pocket, why should it now be allowed ? Football has been largely dominated by the wealthy clubs for decades, so what is different now ? The difference now is that the richest clubs are no longer the traditional richest clubs, and their nose is out of joint cos they cannot compete :censored: If I own a car or house and want to spend money on it to be nicer than my neighbours, then I don't expect anyone else to be allowed interfere with that - citeeh's owners are not debt leveraging the club, are not signing illegal players, are not bribing anybody, so more luck to them if they want to spend money making their club one of the biggest in the world
Because a billionaire who really wants to could buy a lower league club for next to nothing pump billions in and buy any trophy he/she wants. The principle of financial fair play makes sense at all levels. City wern't a big club (nor where Chelski) when they were bought.

The whole idea of the big 5 or 6 clubs was not built on jumping the queue before Abramovich bowled up. It was built on years of success on the pitch rather than money being spent. Remember the old adage money doesn't buy success in football? Well it doesn't exist anymore.




Financial fair play ?? Where has there ever been a level playing field ? The richer clubs always tried to buy success and cherry picked the best players from the smaller clubs, and that was happening long before sky
And what got those clubs there in the first place? Prior to the 90s with the exception of Manure it was a success on the pitch (did Liverpool ever outspend them in the 70s/80s). Leveraging football clubs shouldn't be a short cut to the big time.

User avatar
herbert
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:25 am
Location: london

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by herbert »

nut flush gooner wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:36 am
No sympathy from me. From our perspective, it highlights how bad things are when we can't potentially take advantage of this situation.
No sympathy from me as well

Cant stand them since they became the Chavs of the north so anything that puts a spanner in the works is ok with me

User avatar
augie
Posts: 25539
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by augie »

nut flush gooner wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:20 pm
augie wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:58 pm
nut flush gooner wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:53 pm
augie wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:26 pm
nut flush gooner wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:27 pm
This ban really fucks up City's business model tbh, they rely on sponsorship deals to cover their inflated expenses. And it's the creative accounting that has allowed them to carry on spending at an inordinate level.

Guardiola surely must see the writing on the wall now, when he wants to spend silly money in the future the board will quite often have to say no.

City and Chelski's market value have been inflated artificially imo, they don't have the fan base away from Manchester or West London that even Arsenal have around the country and overseas. This is a big problem for them going forward. I just hope that UEFA stick to their guns, there is a principle here that clubs shouldnt be allowed to spend a lot more than they earn in revenue. Now the PL have to follow suit and start docking points from clubs that take the piss.




Why shouldn't they ? If their owner puts in £500m out of his own pocket, why should it now be allowed ? Football has been largely dominated by the wealthy clubs for decades, so what is different now ? The difference now is that the richest clubs are no longer the traditional richest clubs, and their nose is out of joint cos they cannot compete :censored: If I own a car or house and want to spend money on it to be nicer than my neighbours, then I don't expect anyone else to be allowed interfere with that - citeeh's owners are not debt leveraging the club, are not signing illegal players, are not bribing anybody, so more luck to them if they want to spend money making their club one of the biggest in the world
Because a billionaire who really wants to could buy a lower league club for next to nothing pump billions in and buy any trophy he/she wants. The principle of financial fair play makes sense at all levels. City wern't a big club (nor where Chelski) when they were bought.

The whole idea of the big 5 or 6 clubs was not built on jumping the queue before Abramovich bowled up. It was built on years of success on the pitch rather than money being spent. Remember the old adage money doesn't buy success in football? Well it doesn't exist anymore.




Financial fair play ?? Where has there ever been a level playing field ? The richer clubs always tried to buy success and cherry picked the best players from the smaller clubs, and that was happening long before sky
And what got those clubs there in the first place? Prior to the 90s with the exception of Manure it was a success on the pitch (did Liverpool ever outspend them in the 70s/80s). Leveraging football clubs shouldn't be a short cut to the big time.




Who is leveraged ? Not citeeh that's for sure. None of that wealth comes from borrowed money, and by definition leveraging is done on borrowed funds
Again I will make the point that if ethiad airlines want to give citeeh £500m through a sponsorship deal, then UEFA should not have the right to deem it as illegal

nut flush gooner
Posts: 3117
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:23 am

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by nut flush gooner »

augie wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:31 pm
nut flush gooner wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:20 pm
augie wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:58 pm
nut flush gooner wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:53 pm
augie wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:26 pm






Why shouldn't they ? If their owner puts in £500m out of his own pocket, why should it now be allowed ? Football has been largely dominated by the wealthy clubs for decades, so what is different now ? The difference now is that the richest clubs are no longer the traditional richest clubs, and their nose is out of joint cos they cannot compete :censored: If I own a car or house and want to spend money on it to be nicer than my neighbours, then I don't expect anyone else to be allowed interfere with that - citeeh's owners are not debt leveraging the club, are not signing illegal players, are not bribing anybody, so more luck to them if they want to spend money making their club one of the biggest in the world
Because a billionaire who really wants to could buy a lower league club for next to nothing pump billions in and buy any trophy he/she wants. The principle of financial fair play makes sense at all levels. City wern't a big club (nor where Chelski) when they were bought.

The whole idea of the big 5 or 6 clubs was not built on jumping the queue before Abramovich bowled up. It was built on years of success on the pitch rather than money being spent. Remember the old adage money doesn't buy success in football? Well it doesn't exist anymore.




Financial fair play ?? Where has there ever been a level playing field ? The richer clubs always tried to buy success and cherry picked the best players from the smaller clubs, and that was happening long before sky
And what got those clubs there in the first place? Prior to the 90s with the exception of Manure it was a success on the pitch (did Liverpool ever outspend them in the 70s/80s). Leveraging football clubs shouldn't be a short cut to the big time.




Who is leveraged ? Not citeeh that's for sure. None of that wealth comes from borrowed money, and by definition leveraging is done on borrowed funds
Again I will make the point that if ethiad airlines want to give citeeh £500m through a sponsorship deal, then UEFA should not have the right to deem it as illegal
Of course city are leveraged. They sustained cumulative losses of over £600m between 2007/13, where did the money come to plug that deficit? If the Sheikh put his hand in his pocket that is treated as a debt to the company, that's the way big corporations work.

You can dress it up as much as you like, it took money that City didn't have to get them where they are today.

User avatar
augie
Posts: 25539
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by augie »

I don't disagree with the last statement at all, but the first part is fundamentally false - The money came from monsour's pocket for sure, but doesn't make it a loan that the club has to pay back to him, and that is what leveraged means

nut flush gooner
Posts: 3117
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:23 am

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by nut flush gooner »

augie wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:14 pm
I don't disagree with the last statement at all, but the first part is fundamentally false - The money came from monsour's pocket for sure, but doesn't make it a loan that the club has to pay back to him, and that is what leveraged means
Companies have ways of massaging finances, that's how they keep their tax liabilities to a minimum. I have seen net debt at city quoted as 170m euros. Will need to speak to a mate whose an accountant to give a more detailed explanation, but that is my understanding.

Would city have come from a 2nd division club to winning the PL regularly without the Sheikh's money, hell no.

xisstential
Posts: 3915
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:33 am

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by xisstential »

nut flush gooner wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:33 pm
augie wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:31 pm
nut flush gooner wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:20 pm
augie wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:58 pm
nut flush gooner wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:53 pm


Because a billionaire who really wants to could buy a lower league club for next to nothing pump billions in and buy any trophy he/she wants. The principle of financial fair play makes sense at all levels. City wern't a big club (nor where Chelski) when they were bought.

The whole idea of the big 5 or 6 clubs was not built on jumping the queue before Abramovich bowled up. It was built on years of success on the pitch rather than money being spent. Remember the old adage money doesn't buy success in football? Well it doesn't exist anymore.




Financial fair play ?? Where has there ever been a level playing field ? The richer clubs always tried to buy success and cherry picked the best players from the smaller clubs, and that was happening long before sky
And what got those clubs there in the first place? Prior to the 90s with the exception of Manure it was a success on the pitch (did Liverpool ever outspend them in the 70s/80s). Leveraging football clubs shouldn't be a short cut to the big time.




Who is leveraged ? Not citeeh that's for sure. None of that wealth comes from borrowed money, and by definition leveraging is done on borrowed funds
Again I will make the point that if ethiad airlines want to give citeeh £500m through a sponsorship deal, then UEFA should not have the right to deem it as illegal
Of course city are leveraged. They sustained cumulative losses of over £600m between 2007/13, where did the money come to plug that deficit? If the Sheikh put his hand in his pocket that is treated as a debt to the company, that's the way big corporations work.

You can dress it up as much as you like, it took money that City didn't have to get them where they are today.
It takes EVERYBODY money to get to the top. This is an interesting article...make of it what you will. Football is just so unbelievably corrupt.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -City.html

User avatar
Midz
Posts: 2578
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 6:36 pm
Location: Gabba Gabba Hey!!

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by Midz »

Who cares.
As long as it causes them hassle that's fine with me.

User avatar
Perryashburtongroves
Posts: 7189
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: At the start of a glorious era.

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by Perryashburtongroves »

Football has been bent for years and we all know it. Italian clubs bribed refs and UEFA in the 1960s and 1970s, Anderlecht did it to knock out Forest in 1984, Marseilles bribed their way to a league title and European Cup in 1992 and everyone knew it but were allowed to keep their European title,Spanish clubs have been bent and bribing refs and UEFA for most of the last 20 years and nothing ever happened. PSG and Chelse are two of the most unethical and unsustainable clubs on the planet yet nothing has ever happened to them. UEFA have never given a shit before. Chelsea and Barcelona have basically been found guilty of child trafficking yet somehow allowed to carry on as normal in any European competition they've played in. City have been dealt a wholly hypocritical punishment but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. UEFA are corrupt rats and always will be. For them to ban City is just a them bowing pressure put on them by the two corrupt Spanish clubs who have basically controlled UEFA for 15-20 years. My guess is that they've had a little tantrum to their mates in UEFA and threatened to support or join a breakaway league unless they get what they want, which is any threats to their cartel and bribery dealt with.

Clash
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:46 pm

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by Clash »

Perryashburtongroves wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:32 pm
Football has been bent for years and we all know it. Italian clubs bribed refs and UEFA in the 1960s and 1970s, Anderlecht did it to knock out Forest in 1984, Marseilles bribed their way to a league title and European Cup in 1992 and everyone knew it but were allowed to keep their European title,Spanish clubs have been bent and bribing refs and UEFA for most of the last 20 years and nothing ever happened. PSG and Chelse are two of the most unethical and unsustainable clubs on the planet yet nothing has ever happened to them. UEFA have never given a shit before. Chelsea and Barcelona have basically been found guilty of child trafficking yet somehow allowed to carry on as normal in any European competition they've played in. City have been dealt a wholly hypocritical punishment but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. UEFA are corrupt rats and always will be. For them to ban City is just a them bowing pressure put on them by the two corrupt Spanish clubs who have basically controlled UEFA for 15-20 years. My guess is that they've had a little tantrum to their mates in UEFA and threatened to support or join a breakaway league unless they get what they want, which is any threats to their cartel and bribery dealt with.
Great post Perry.

Agree with a lot of what Augie says on this thread too. If football has allowed these sort of owners into the game, I do not see how they can then dictate how much they are willing to spend, without this being massively hypocritical with what they've ignored elsewhere.

I do not particularly respect the way Man City have become a force in the last decade or so but I have no hatred towards them. In a game that has been corrupt for years, I have quite enjoyed the way their successes has denied success to clubs I really do despise. Both in this country and abroad. Its does seem wrong to pick on one club here when the same punishment could surely be applied to many other clubs.

Of course Man City wouldnt be where they are if they could only use their own revenue ... but when was the last time football clubs relied on gate money, prize money, TV money and the revenue generated by their own commercialism?

There are numerous examples rich men using their own fortunes (i.e. money not organically earned by the club itself) to elevate their club to a higher status.

Aside from the most obvious (Abramovich at Chelsea) there was the Moores family (using Littlewoods Pools profits :roll: ) at Liverpool which almost certainly aided their success from the 60s to the early 90's. There was also Al Fayed at Fulham. Jack Walker buying players that helped Blackburn win the title. Jack Hayward and Wolves' revival. Sir John Hall at Newcastle in the Keegan era. Steve Gibson at Boro, Dave Whelan at Wigan. Even Leicester!

In Italy you have the media tycoon guy at Milan, Berlusconi (sp?). Then there is Fiat and the Agnelli family that have been funding Juventus for decades. And f-ck knows where PSG get the money to buy players like Neymar :roll:

Madrid and Barcelona are also two of the most vile clubs in the world and they are no doubt been very influential in all this as Perry suggests.

User avatar
sk-gtfo
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:59 pm
Location: Staying away

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by sk-gtfo »

Midz wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:23 pm
Who cares.
As long as it causes them hassle that's fine with me.
Maybe but why are the likes of P$G and Chavski allowed to get off scot-free?, and RM and Barca have basically been cooking the books for years as well, very selective of UEFA, FFP is fine if applied fairly across the board, this is not that.

Ban all the cheaty clubs and they will lose too many 'fashionable' name so lets tinker around the edges?, do me a favour.. I bet they are only targetting City because they are an English club (loosely speaking!) and because they are not yet as fashionable as RM or Barca, hopefully the UEFA logic follows through on this and bans Chavski next, that I will be all in favour of!, can't see it though, how lucky do those jumped up little c*nty club get...

On brink of doing a Leeds get bought out by a billionaire and bankrolled to 5 titles, 2 EL's and the flukiest ever CL win, but also time it so they don't get hit by FFP like City.. football minus Chelsea would be so much better.

:banghead:

User avatar
augie
Posts: 25539
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by augie »

I find it more than a little hypocritical that we (all of us) are frequently on here raging about the fact that wig b.astard has never put one penny of his own money into our club, but then some on here are also outraged at owners of other clubs doing that same thing :roll: I suspect that if wiggy was pumping loads of money into our club nobody would have a real issue with it, but because our owner doesnt do it, no other owner should be allowed to do it either

Btw, to follow on from clash's excellent post, havent fiat's owners been contributing financially to juve's last few BIG signings wages ? I seem to recall a story where fiat's workers were outraged having had pay cuts enforced on them, and then a few months later the Fiat company where paying money towards the wages of a big signing (I think that it was either for the portugese ladyboy or pogba). :rubchin:

User avatar
Bradywasking
Posts: 5676
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:14 am

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by Bradywasking »

Cannot see this ban actually happening. They rarely do and I imagine one line of City's defence will be precedent. Surely commonsense will say any highly successful club (which City haven't been in Europe) with massive wage bills are not going to the bank every Monday morning with the weekend's takings in carrier bags. If success was based on ticket sales and concession sales on matchdays why are Arsenal not challenging? After all we are told often enough that Arsenal is the most expensive club to watch .
PSG are a club that must raise eyebrows and if rumours are to be believed they actually played a part in another nouveau rich club injecting cash into themselves by pretending to pay an overly inflated fee for a defender they bought while infact paying one fifth of that amount while the selling club's owner pumped another £40m into his own club as part of the "transfer fee" but obviously it was declared as transfer income.
UEFA are inconsistent while dealing with their own rules, remember the Eduardo diving ban, apparently UEFA were tied up in knots at the appeal hearing, same will happen here. Token slap on the wrists fine and City will play Champions League next season..

nut flush gooner
Posts: 3117
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:23 am

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by nut flush gooner »

augie wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:23 pm
I find it more than a little hypocritical that we (all of us) are frequently on here raging about the fact that wig b.astard has never put one penny of his own money into our club, but then some on here are also outraged at owners of other clubs doing that same thing :roll: I suspect that if wiggy was pumping loads of money into our club nobody would have a real issue with it, but because our owner doesnt do it, no other owner should be allowed to do it either

Btw, to follow on from clash's excellent post, havent fiat's owners been contributing financially to juve's last few BIG signings wages ? I seem to recall a story where fiat's workers were outraged having had pay cuts enforced on them, and then a few months later the Fiat company where paying money towards the wages of a big signing (I think that it was either for the portugese ladyboy or pogba). :rubchin:
I would think most sensible Gooners wouldn't want us to blow £600m in pursuit of PL/CL titles. Especially if that threatened the long term integrity of the business. But by the same token, Kroenke has made a substantial return on his investment, so I really don't see the problem in making sensible injections of cash into Arsenal. This is with a view to growing brand Arsenal like any other business.

City have done it the other way round pumped billions into a shell of a football club. Sorry it's not even close to being the same thing.

Edit: Just as important is the mismanagement of budgets on contracts and transfers. We need to up our game at all levels. Wiggy is married into one of the most successful businesses in the world, he should transfer that knowledge into the running of our club.

User avatar
Perryashburtongroves
Posts: 7189
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: At the start of a glorious era.

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by Perryashburtongroves »

Clash wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:21 pm
Perryashburtongroves wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:32 pm
Football has been bent for years and we all know it. Italian clubs bribed refs and UEFA in the 1960s and 1970s, Anderlecht did it to knock out Forest in 1984, Marseilles bribed their way to a league title and European Cup in 1992 and everyone knew it but were allowed to keep their European title,Spanish clubs have been bent and bribing refs and UEFA for most of the last 20 years and nothing ever happened. PSG and Chelse are two of the most unethical and unsustainable clubs on the planet yet nothing has ever happened to them. UEFA have never given a shit before. Chelsea and Barcelona have basically been found guilty of child trafficking yet somehow allowed to carry on as normal in any European competition they've played in. City have been dealt a wholly hypocritical punishment but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. UEFA are corrupt rats and always will be. For them to ban City is just a them bowing pressure put on them by the two corrupt Spanish clubs who have basically controlled UEFA for 15-20 years. My guess is that they've had a little tantrum to their mates in UEFA and threatened to support or join a breakaway league unless they get what they want, which is any threats to their cartel and bribery dealt with.
Great post Perry.

Agree with a lot of what Augie says on this thread too. If football has allowed these sort of owners into the game, I do not see how they can then dictate how much they are willing to spend, without this being massively hypocritical with what they've ignored elsewhere.

I do not particularly respect the way Man City have become a force in the last decade or so but I have no hatred towards them. In a game that has been corrupt for years, I have quite enjoyed the way their successes has denied success to clubs I really do despise. Both in this country and abroad. Its does seem wrong to pick on one club here when the same punishment could surely be applied to many other clubs.

Of course Man City wouldnt be where they are if they could only use their own revenue ... but when was the last time football clubs relied on gate money, prize money, TV money and the revenue generated by their own commercialism?

There are numerous examples rich men using their own fortunes (i.e. money not organically earned by the club itself) to elevate their club to a higher status.

Aside from the most obvious (Abramovich at Chelsea) there was the Moores family (using Littlewoods Pools profits :roll: ) at Liverpool which almost certainly aided their success from the 60s to the early 90's. There was also Al Fayed at Fulham. Jack Walker buying players that helped Blackburn win the title. Jack Hayward and Wolves' revival. Sir John Hall at Newcastle in the Keegan era. Steve Gibson at Boro, Dave Whelan at Wigan. Even Leicester!

In Italy you have the media tycoon guy at Milan, Berlusconi (sp?). Then there is Fiat and the Agnelli family that have been funding Juventus for decades. And f-ck knows where PSG get the money to buy players like Neymar :roll:

Madrid and Barcelona are also two of the most vile clubs in the world and they are no doubt been very influential in all this as Perry suggests.
Good points, mate. I absolutely agree with you about how City have stopped some horrible clubs winning things and that has made me smile. Once again we've got a situation with football where the sheer hypocrisy of the whole game screams at you. I'd be interested in hearing what Man City have done that hasn't been done before by other clubs funded by individuals or businesses over the last 30-40 years or longer. There is no way that PSG and the Chavs haven't broken the rules, no way that Real Madrid and Barcelona and Red Bull Leipzig or Monaco or many, many more, haven't fraudulently funded their teams or cheated the toothless financial fair play rules. The very same rules that they admitted were not legally binding and just a threat about five years ago. The whole thing just shows how dirty, corrupt and inconsistent UEFA really are.

Post Reply