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
User avatar
OneBardGooner
Posts: 28633
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:41 am
Location: Dark Side Of The Mood

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by OneBardGooner »

SteveO 35 wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:17 pm
More chance of plaiting fog than this ban being enforced

Orrrrrr!

Ice Cream Vans selling Coal. :typing:

User avatar
OneBardGooner
Posts: 28633
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:41 am
Location: Dark Side Of The Mood

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by OneBardGooner »

augie wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:27 pm
Another long, but really excellent article

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

Of course ultimately it will be pointless article :banghead:
You mean like this thread? :D

nut flush gooner
Posts: 3179
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:23 am

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by nut flush gooner »

OneBardGooner wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:03 pm
augie wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:27 pm
Another long, but really excellent article

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

Of course ultimately it will be pointless article :banghead:
You mean like this thread? :D
If someone had the balls to govern football properly, then this thread would be totally relevant. Saracens have been taken to task over financial issues, so should City be.

User avatar
DB10GOONER
Posts: 47761
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland.
Contact:

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by DB10GOONER »

I'll say it again. The court for Arbitration will knock it back to one season or suspend it altogether. :roll:

Still it was good to hear from Wenger on this. :lol:

:suicide:

User avatar
Herd
Posts: 6199
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:00 am

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by Herd »

nut flush gooner wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:57 pm
OneBardGooner wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:03 pm
augie wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:27 pm
Another long, but really excellent article

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

Of course ultimately it will be pointless article :banghead:
You mean like this thread? :D
If someone had the balls to govern football properly, then this thread would be totally relevant. Saracens have been taken to task over financial issues, so should City be.
Rugby is less corrupt than football at the moment and the other clubs have been at the league for a while to reel Saracens in .
Spending caps ,ffp whatever is against basic EU rules of free trade ,not to mention against the very way the world works in practice ,its naïve for anyone to think otherwise .
City have been tried and convicted on emails illegally hacked in a court of law they would be inadmissible ,Citys owners have enough money to blast UEFA out of the water,and maybe dig up more skeletons in the UEFA closet in the process ,I cant see it sticking !
Wengers bosses wont be happy he's waded in to this one ,they only hired him cos most people think he's honest or at least more honest than them !

User avatar
northbank123
Posts: 12210
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:05 am
Location: Newcastle

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by northbank123 »

Couldn’t give a shit really. They have won loads of trophies that would otherwise have been won by the likes of Liverpool, United or Chelsea. I have absolutely zero jealousy when they win anything.

Personally I don’t think FFP is necessary. New clubs come in and spend loads of money to compete, so what. I will have a pop about no history as much as anybody else; but ultimately it keeps football competitive.

Otherwise, the commercial side of football these days is so powerful that it would be a closed shop otherwise - gone are the days of solid mid-table clubs expecting to compete for titles every decade or two, or clubs getting promoted and then looking to challenge for the title.

It’s telling that the biggest proponents of FFP are the likes of Chelsea. They want to slam the door shut behind them.

User avatar
northbank123
Posts: 12210
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:05 am
Location: Newcastle

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by northbank123 »

Also Saracens and City are completely different.

The rugby salary cap was brought in because it is a completely financially unsustainable sport where all clubs make losses. The salary cap was designed to stop it from being run into oblivion.

FFP were arbitrary rules which were brought in by those trying to protect their privileged position (RM, Barca, United) and the nouveau riche (Chelsea) solely to feather their own nests. The rules were ridiculous - only transfer and wages expenditure counted, so a club could be compliant whilst running at a loss of £100m if that loss was caused by tax, spending on training facilities / youth team and exorbitant interest on loans. UEFA never really had any intention of seriously enforcing it until their hatred of English football got too much.

User avatar
northbank123
Posts: 12210
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:05 am
Location: Newcastle

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by northbank123 »

Hacked/leaked emails would be admissible in the vast majority of civil courts as long as they are relevant. I’d expect that the ban will get reduced to 1 year by CAS - generally the way these things unfold.

Salary cap isn’t against EU law (to the extent that’s still relevant) as long as it doesn’t discriminate against non-UK nationals.

nut flush gooner
Posts: 3179
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:23 am

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by nut flush gooner »

northbank123 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:01 pm
Also Saracens and City are completely different.

The rugby salary cap was brought in because it is a completely financially unsustainable sport where all clubs make losses. The salary cap was designed to stop it from being run into oblivion.

FFP were arbitrary rules which were brought in by those trying to protect their privileged position (RM, Barca, United) and the nouveau riche (Chelsea) solely to feather their own nests. The rules were ridiculous - only transfer and wages expenditure counted, so a club could be compliant whilst running at a loss of £100m if that loss was caused by tax, spending on training facilities / youth team and exorbitant interest on loans. UEFA never really had any intention of seriously enforcing it until their hatred of English football got too much.
My comparison between footballs FFP rules and Rugby's salary cap weren't intended to be looked at on a money level. It's more how the authorities have enforced the letter of the law and how everyone expects UEFA to capitulate here. Plus the lack of noise coming out from the UK footballing authorities is not missed on me.

You can look at the principle of FFP in many ways, the way it has been implemented it is a way of footballs elite stopping outsiders from gatecrashing the party. But regardless of this, and I made this point earlier in this thread no billionaire should be allowed to turn a football club from an uncompetitive shell into a team of world-beaters purely by throwing money at them without there being some organic growth. City took a short cut, and now they have to face the consequences.

The same applies to Chelski who went through this process before FFP started to bite. The authorities allowed the benefactor of a state-run oil business (Abramovich) to plough his billions into a UK football club and property to as far as I am concerned launder money at a state level.

Clash
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:46 pm

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by Clash »

nut flush gooner wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:25 am
northbank123 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:01 pm
Also Saracens and City are completely different.

The rugby salary cap was brought in because it is a completely financially unsustainable sport where all clubs make losses. The salary cap was designed to stop it from being run into oblivion.

FFP were arbitrary rules which were brought in by those trying to protect their privileged position (RM, Barca, United) and the nouveau riche (Chelsea) solely to feather their own nests. The rules were ridiculous - only transfer and wages expenditure counted, so a club could be compliant whilst running at a loss of £100m if that loss was caused by tax, spending on training facilities / youth team and exorbitant interest on loans. UEFA never really had any intention of seriously enforcing it until their hatred of English football got too much.
My comparison between footballs FFP rules and Rugby's salary cap weren't intended to be looked at on a money level. It's more how the authorities have enforced the letter of the law and how everyone expects UEFA to capitulate here. Plus the lack of noise coming out from the UK footballing authorities is not missed on me.

You can look at the principle of FFP in many ways, the way it has been implemented it is a way of footballs elite stopping outsiders from gatecrashing the party. But regardless of this, and I made this point earlier in this thread no billionaire should be allowed to turn a football club from an uncompetitive shell into a team of world-beaters purely by throwing money at them without there being some organic growth. City took a short cut, and now they have to face the consequences.

The same applies to Chelski who went through this process before FFP started to bite. The authorities allowed the benefactor of a state-run oil business (Abramovich) to plough his billions into a UK football club and property to as far as I am concerned launder money at a state level.
Can I ask why you think that mate?

I accept its not ideal and not something any of us can have a lot of respect for when its done that way ... but why should it not be allowed? Once a club is owned, why should there be restrictions on how much the owners can spend or how quickly they can spend it?

I would prefer a system where Billionaire owners or organisations were not able to own football clubs ... but unfortunately its too late for that.

And sadly the organic method of building your reputation and growing its fanbase through success on the pitch is no longer an option like it once was.

The game is far too elitist and competitions like the CL are vile because it makes the gap wider by favouring the elite clubs and excluding the rest.

If any team outside the elite did start to emerge, the big clubs would soon be circling like vultures waiting to use their wealth and their name to entice the best players away.

For me Man City have been a breath of fresh air in many ways and denied more success to teams I detest. Arsenal gave up even trying to compete in the last decade so they haven't denied us anything. Wenger was the one who did that. If anything City overpaid us for some of the players we sold to them. Of course ever the hypocrite, Wenger complained that they were distorting the market. Why not say no to the sales then? :roll:

Anyway, stealing, cheating, bribing opponents and officials or any form of corruption should be punished ... but spending money isn't a crime. And if bending the rules is a crime .... does anyone seriously think Man City are the only ones who have bent the rules?

PSG currently have the two most expensive players in the world in their team. An average club from a shithole like Paris playing in a shite league. How is that possible within the restrictions of FFP?

nut flush gooner
Posts: 3179
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:23 am

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by nut flush gooner »

Clash wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:00 am
nut flush gooner wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:25 am
northbank123 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:01 pm
Also Saracens and City are completely different.

The rugby salary cap was brought in because it is a completely financially unsustainable sport where all clubs make losses. The salary cap was designed to stop it from being run into oblivion.

FFP were arbitrary rules which were brought in by those trying to protect their privileged position (RM, Barca, United) and the nouveau riche (Chelsea) solely to feather their own nests. The rules were ridiculous - only transfer and wages expenditure counted, so a club could be compliant whilst running at a loss of £100m if that loss was caused by tax, spending on training facilities / youth team and exorbitant interest on loans. UEFA never really had any intention of seriously enforcing it until their hatred of English football got too much.
My comparison between footballs FFP rules and Rugby's salary cap weren't intended to be looked at on a money level. It's more how the authorities have enforced the letter of the law and how everyone expects UEFA to capitulate here. Plus the lack of noise coming out from the UK footballing authorities is not missed on me.

You can look at the principle of FFP in many ways, the way it has been implemented it is a way of footballs elite stopping outsiders from gatecrashing the party. But regardless of this, and I made this point earlier in this thread no billionaire should be allowed to turn a football club from an uncompetitive shell into a team of world-beaters purely by throwing money at them without there being some organic growth. City took a short cut, and now they have to face the consequences.

The same applies to Chelski who went through this process before FFP started to bite. The authorities allowed the benefactor of a state-run oil business (Abramovich) to plough his billions into a UK football club and property to as far as I am concerned launder money at a state level.
Can I ask why you think that mate?

I accept its not ideal and not something any of us can have a lot of respect for when its done that way ... but why should it not be allowed? Once a club is owned, why should there be restrictions on how much the owners can spend or how quickly they can spend it?

I would prefer a system where Billionaire owners or organisations were not able to own football clubs ... but unfortunately its too late for that.

And sadly the organic method of building your reputation and growing its fanbase through success on the pitch is no longer an option like it once was.

The game is far too elitist and competitions like the CL are vile because it makes the gap wider by favouring the elite clubs and excluding the rest.

If any team outside the elite did start to emerge, the big clubs would soon be circling like vultures waiting to use their wealth and their name to entice the best players away.

For me Man City have been a breath of fresh air in many ways and denied more success to teams I detest. Arsenal gave up even trying to compete in the last decade so they haven't denied us anything. Wenger was the one who did that. If anything City overpaid us for some of the players we sold to them. Of course ever the hypocrite, Wenger complained that they were distorting the market. Why not say no to the sales then? :roll:

Anyway, stealing, cheating, bribing opponents and officials or any form of corruption should be punished ... but spending money isn't a crime. And if bending the rules is a crime .... does anyone seriously think Man City are the only ones who have bent the rules?

PSG currently have the two most expensive players in the world in their team. An average club from a shithole like Paris playing in a shite league. How is that possible within the restrictions of FFP?
The reason I think that is because it makes a mockery of the game. If you let it go unchecked it will just be a case of billionaires trying to outspend each other and ultimately the ones with the deepest pockets prevailing. That in its own right creates an elite set of clubs.

Honestly, what is more of an achievement buying Vieira and Petit on a shoestring and turning them into world-beaters or spending hundreds of millions of pounds to bring the title back to Chelski for the first time in 50 years?

Clash
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:46 pm

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by Clash »

nut flush gooner wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:12 am
Clash wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:00 am
nut flush gooner wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:25 am
northbank123 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:01 pm
Also Saracens and City are completely different.

The rugby salary cap was brought in because it is a completely financially unsustainable sport where all clubs make losses. The salary cap was designed to stop it from being run into oblivion.

FFP were arbitrary rules which were brought in by those trying to protect their privileged position (RM, Barca, United) and the nouveau riche (Chelsea) solely to feather their own nests. The rules were ridiculous - only transfer and wages expenditure counted, so a club could be compliant whilst running at a loss of £100m if that loss was caused by tax, spending on training facilities / youth team and exorbitant interest on loans. UEFA never really had any intention of seriously enforcing it until their hatred of English football got too much.
My comparison between footballs FFP rules and Rugby's salary cap weren't intended to be looked at on a money level. It's more how the authorities have enforced the letter of the law and how everyone expects UEFA to capitulate here. Plus the lack of noise coming out from the UK footballing authorities is not missed on me.

You can look at the principle of FFP in many ways, the way it has been implemented it is a way of footballs elite stopping outsiders from gatecrashing the party. But regardless of this, and I made this point earlier in this thread no billionaire should be allowed to turn a football club from an uncompetitive shell into a team of world-beaters purely by throwing money at them without there being some organic growth. City took a short cut, and now they have to face the consequences.

The same applies to Chelski who went through this process before FFP started to bite. The authorities allowed the benefactor of a state-run oil business (Abramovich) to plough his billions into a UK football club and property to as far as I am concerned launder money at a state level.
Can I ask why you think that mate?

I accept its not ideal and not something any of us can have a lot of respect for when its done that way ... but why should it not be allowed? Once a club is owned, why should there be restrictions on how much the owners can spend or how quickly they can spend it?

I would prefer a system where Billionaire owners or organisations were not able to own football clubs ... but unfortunately its too late for that.

And sadly the organic method of building your reputation and growing its fanbase through success on the pitch is no longer an option like it once was.

The game is far too elitist and competitions like the CL are vile because it makes the gap wider by favouring the elite clubs and excluding the rest.

If any team outside the elite did start to emerge, the big clubs would soon be circling like vultures waiting to use their wealth and their name to entice the best players away.

For me Man City have been a breath of fresh air in many ways and denied more success to teams I detest. Arsenal gave up even trying to compete in the last decade so they haven't denied us anything. Wenger was the one who did that. If anything City overpaid us for some of the players we sold to them. Of course ever the hypocrite, Wenger complained that they were distorting the market. Why not say no to the sales then? :roll:

Anyway, stealing, cheating, bribing opponents and officials or any form of corruption should be punished ... but spending money isn't a crime. And if bending the rules is a crime .... does anyone seriously think Man City are the only ones who have bent the rules?

PSG currently have the two most expensive players in the world in their team. An average club from a shithole like Paris playing in a shite league. How is that possible within the restrictions of FFP?
The reason I think that is because it makes a mockery of the game. If you let it go unchecked it will just be a case of billionaires trying to outspend each other and ultimately the ones with the deepest pockets prevailing. That in its own right creates an elite set of clubs.

Honestly, what is more of an achievement buying Vieira and Petit on a shoestring and turning them into world-beaters or spending hundreds of millions of pounds to bring the title back to Chelski for the first time in 50 years?
I don't disagree at all with it making a mockery of the game ... but I think we were already at that stage to a large extent with CL and PL, the TV money and all the revenue from the Asian market that clubs like Liverpool and Man United exploit.

At least City's wealth dilutes the way certain other clubs were dominating and suffocating the game, even though that is what they then go and do themselves. As I've said before, I do not particularly respect the way Man City have achieved their recent success but this whole FFP thing does stink of the long established elite preventing outsiders gatecrashing their party - as you rightly suggested yourself.

I completely get what you mean though. I do not want to sound like I'm advocating some form of doping which in athletics could be the equivalent of letting laboratories compete to win gold. Take me back to 70s & 80s football any day where everything was so much simpler.

My overall view is that the game was already fucked up and banning punishing City is selective and hypocritical and its come far too late to save football and allow the old methods to work again.

User avatar
augie
Posts: 25755
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by augie »

Stop with the "making a mockery of the game" crap - football isn't a game or a sport ……. it is a business and has been a business for a long time. Business is all about being successful, and if I can spend lavish amounts of money making my business successful, then I don't think that I should be stopped from doing so because my rivals cant match me. This nostalgic view of football is great, but it is outdated - the days of a team winning a champs league with all players being born within 20 miles of the ground (as Celtic did) is long gone - that era finished in the 70s, and I'm sure that people bemoaned the change in football when it happened. The Arsenal ideology which you seem to be clinging to is also a myth - this is a club that changed from its much loved crest to a cartoon crest purely for financial reasons, and also sued a lady that owned a hat shop in spain because she used the name Arsenal in her business (one of the most shameful acts in the history of our club imo).

User avatar
augie
Posts: 25755
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by augie »

I should also say that the thought process behind the chavs and citeeh's strategy isn't a bad one - spend massively on players for a few years and turn the club into a very successful club with worldwide appeal to fans and players. When that happens sales of merchandise will go through the roof, and the revenue from sponsorship deals will increase massively - this will then make their business's/clubs more self-sustainable, and no longer require the sugar daddy investment thus making them ffp compliant

Of course the problem for some football fans (like nut flush) is that it does require those clubs bending and breaking those ffp rules until they reach that level.

Clash
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:46 pm

Re: City Banned from CL for 2 years

Post by Clash »

Good points there Augie.

Interesting 2011 quote from Tony Adams:
"I think that a significant factor, 90 per cent, in why we achieved so much is that Danny Fiszman invested £50m in the club and we were able to go to the next level," he said. "I got my first decent contract at the club, so did David Seaman, we were able to bring in Dennis Bergkamp – and that was before Arsène arrived – David Platt, Patrick Vieira, Nicolas Anelka, and were able to pay them – top players from around the world.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... r3z-addoor

So does this mean our best ever player was not bought with funds the club grew organically but instead with the fortune of a diamond dealer?

Post Reply