Jump to content

Man City (not now ) banned from all UEFA competitions for next two seasons


milky_26

Recommended Posts

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8008261/Man-Citys-financial-losses-100m-Europe-WRECK-books-CAS-uphold-UEFAs-ban.html

 

Manchester City face large financial losses if CAS uphold UEFA's two-year European ban and deprive them of Champions League income.

A financial squeeze would restrict their ability to buy and pay players, leading to an almost inevitable decline in the quality of their squad — and results.

This is just one ramification of the ban, with UEFA citing 'serious breaches' of Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules up to 2016 and City's failure to cooperate with an investigation.

City's most recent financial accounts, for the 2018-19 season, show revenue of £535million and a small profit of £10.1m. But those revenues included about £100m from the Champions League, comprised of £86m in prize cash from UEFA, plus match day and hospitality income from five home CL matches of more than £10m. Other commercial income related to Europe was also included.

Losing out on that £100m would have led to a £90m loss. The impact would be similar if a ban is in force for 2020-21, but intensify if a ban ran to two years.

City have also been handed a €30m (£25m) fine, which they will appeal.

If City post losses from next season, they could fall foul of FFP again – for spending more than they earn. The simplest remedy would be to sell players, which would raise income and cut a wage bill that stood at £315m last season.

A two-year ban would raise the prospect of manager Pep Guardiola leaving, while the club's best players might also consider their futures.

Whether some of City's major 'global partners', including Puma and Nissan, would seek to renegotiate terms is not known. 

For a club of their size, City earn an unusually high sum from commercial income: last season it was £229m — much higher than rivals Liverpool (£186m) and Chelsea (£185m), both 'bigger' clubs who have won the Champions League and have larger global fanbases.

City's commercial income is so large because £130m comes from sponsors based in the UAE, where club owner Sheikh Mansour has huge influence on City's partners. Etihad alone is believed to pay £80m a year to sponsor City's shirts and campus, while telecoms firm Etislat pay about £16.5m and Visit Abu Dhabi £19.75m.

The Korean tyre firm Nexen pay £10m a year to be City's sleeve sponsor, having entered into a 'strategic partnership' with the UAE's sovereign wealth fund Mubadala.

Documents published by German magazine Der Spiegel last year indicated that in 2015 Etihad was, in fact, only paying £8m towards a then £67.5m annual deal with City, while Mansour was topping up the other £59.5m himself. If confirmed as accurate, that would breach FFP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • milky_26

    8

  • The Real Maroonblood

    7

  • Mikey1874

    5

  • the general

    5

A big mess.

 

Manchester City sent eight lawyers to the CAS appeal, while UEFA sent two - sending a message. City referred to this operation as “CAS One”, which strongly suggests they always knew there would be a “CAS Two”

Manchester City have been keeping a studious eye on their European rivals’ financial activities since they have been under investigation. They have been taking notes on transfer expenditure, and clubs receiving extra funds from sponsors.Manchester City believes this is just a beginning. 

{The Athletic UK}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best part here for me is Steven Gerrard:

 

Steven Gerrard admits he is "really interested" to see if action is taken against Manchester City which could see them stripped of their Premier League title in 2014.

 

Oh the irony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
1 minute ago, Armageddon said:

The best part here for me is Steven Gerrard:

 

Steven Gerrard admits he is "really interested" to see if action is taken against Manchester City which could see them stripped of their Premier League title in 2014.

 

Oh the irony.

That’s a beauty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Chelsea take them to court and probably win with the backing of a Russian billionaire, followed by Man City backed by and entire country, that's how ridiculous this has all become.

 

PSG must be next in line and then we have the two Spanish giants. 

 

Just let them get on with it - its an absolute farce the champions league now, should rename it the super rich clubs cup! The UEFA cup has more value to it in terms of sporting achievement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

That’s a beauty.

Look at your employer's history slippy ya ****ing mug oh and pay the facepainter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
2 hours ago, Armageddon said:

The best part here for me is Steven Gerrard:

 

Steven Gerrard admits he is "really interested" to see if action is taken against Manchester City which could see them stripped of their Premier League title in 2014.

 

Oh the irony.

 

Perhaps but If I were him I wouldn't hold my breath on the EPL/FA doing anything. After all they did virtually nothing to West Ham after the Mascherano/Tevez scandal came to light. 

Edited by Seymour M Hersh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I disagree with this ruling, and the punishment is wholly disproportionate. I echo the points above about the punishment for racism being  an embarrassment. 

 

Manchester City played a clever game where the owner would pony up extra cash (his own cash) to allow them to spend more on players within the limits. That was not a crime. That's playing within the rules, but playing at the margin. They did it without tapping anyone else for money but the person who built the club. 

 

In rugby Richie McCaw was either the greatest player of all time, or the greatest cheat of all time. He was open about this - he played at the margins. That's sport - its competitive. Manchester City did the same. 

 

Happy to have a sensible debate about this but cannot be arsed with people piling in with GTF comments. 

 

Deodato 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dallas Green
1 hour ago, Deodato said:

I disagree with this ruling, and the punishment is wholly disproportionate. I echo the points above about the punishment for racism being  an embarrassment. 

 

Manchester City played a clever game where the owner would pony up extra cash (his own cash) to allow them to spend more on players within the limits. That was not a crime. That's playing within the rules, but playing at the margin. They did it without tapping anyone else for money but the person who built the club. 

 

In rugby Richie McCaw was either the greatest player of all time, or the greatest cheat of all time. He was open about this - he played at the margins. That's sport - its competitive. Manchester City did the same. 

 

Happy to have a sensible debate about this but cannot be arsed with people piling in with GTF comments. 

 

Deodato 

 

It isn't within the rules though. They said the money was from sponsorship but the vast majority of it was from the owners company that own City. They falsely reported where the money came from. That is the issue.

 

 

20200711_014813.jpg

20200711_014756.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Deodato said:

I disagree with this ruling, and the punishment is wholly disproportionate. I echo the points above about the punishment for racism being  an embarrassment. 

 

Manchester City played a clever game where the owner would pony up extra cash (his own cash) to allow them to spend more on players within the limits. That was not a crime. That's playing within the rules, but playing at the margin. They did it without tapping anyone else for money but the person who built the club. 

 

In rugby Richie McCaw was either the greatest player of all time, or the greatest cheat of all time. He was open about this - he played at the margins. That's sport - its competitive. Manchester City did the same. 

 

Happy to have a sensible debate about this but cannot be arsed with people piling in with GTF comments. 

 

Deodato 

I agree with what you are saying, they may have bent rules and not broken them, I feel that they may get an increased fine and a suspended ban to allow them to get their finances in order especially in the current climate. Much the same as Richie McCaw great player and great cheat?? he certainly knew how to bend the rules and was always pushing referees to see how much he could and what he could get away with during a game, always testing refs and when told next infringement would result in a penalty knew that he couldn’t  go past that point in that game with the ref. 

During the 90’s the English rugby coaches would watch videos of a referees last 5 games to see what rules he knew or what infringements he was looking for and what he wasn’t and played to this, I thought it was funny 2 seasons ago when the Italians spotted a weakness with England and played to it, the English players repeatedly giving away penalties and not understanding why and going to the ref asking him what the rules were and his reply “I am not your coach, go speak to your coach”.

Back to football perhaps we should spend time analysing refs before games, they all have different interpretations and weaknesses, areas of the park the they prefer to stand and watch, let’s find their blind spots and exploit them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heartsmad1874
1 hour ago, Jeff said:

PSG have done the exact same dodgy dealings but seem to go by unscathed


They spent around 400M on Neymar and Mbappe one summer think it was 2017 :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
On 14/02/2020 at 20:16, Mikey1874 said:

 

Lol

 

History suggests Liverpool might just lose form and be there for the taking as easily too. 

 

 

EbsdTBUXYAI2yQj.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
9 hours ago, Dallas Green said:

 

It isn't within the rules though. They said the money was from sponsorship but the vast majority of it was from the owners company that own City. They falsely reported where the money came from. That is the issue.

 

 

20200711_014813.jpg

20200711_014756.jpg

 


f6240060-0001-0004-0000-000001401567_w75


f149c479-0001-0004-0000-000001401563_w75


1f47a555-0001-0004-0000-000001401561_w76


3ab17ea4-0001-0004-0000-000001401559_w75


4db64e32-0001-0004-0000-000001401558_w75


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

buzzbomb1958
On 14/02/2020 at 23:12, luckydug said:

Only if we were gaining a sporting advantage many times over and above our earnings. 

Help towards building a new stand is hardly a sporting advantage in fact it will help the club to grow organicly. 

Which is what every club should be doing. 

In other words the cheating new entity would probably be a bottom six club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

colinmaroon

The whole set up is corrupt and yet there are still some doolies who think Scottish Football isn't. 

 

With recent events, however, there have been a lot of conversions. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pettigrewsstylist
On 16/02/2020 at 00:52, CJGJ said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8008261/Man-Citys-financial-losses-100m-Europe-WRECK-books-CAS-uphold-UEFAs-ban.html

 

Manchester City face large financial losses if CAS uphold UEFA's two-year European ban and deprive them of Champions League income.

A financial squeeze would restrict their ability to buy and pay players, leading to an almost inevitable decline in the quality of their squad — and results.

This is just one ramification of the ban, with UEFA citing 'serious breaches' of Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules up to 2016 and City's failure to cooperate with an investigation.

City's most recent financial accounts, for the 2018-19 season, show revenue of £535million and a small profit of £10.1m. But those revenues included about £100m from the Champions League, comprised of £86m in prize cash from UEFA, plus match day and hospitality income from five home CL matches of more than £10m. Other commercial income related to Europe was also included.

Losing out on that £100m would have led to a £90m loss. The impact would be similar if a ban is in force for 2020-21, but intensify if a ban ran to two years.

City have also been handed a €30m (£25m) fine, which they will appeal.

If City post losses from next season, they could fall foul of FFP again – for spending more than they earn. The simplest remedy would be to sell players, which would raise income and cut a wage bill that stood at £315m last season.

A two-year ban would raise the prospect of manager Pep Guardiola leaving, while the club's best players might also consider their futures.

Whether some of City's major 'global partners', including Puma and Nissan, would seek to renegotiate terms is not known. 

For a club of their size, City earn an unusually high sum from commercial income: last season it was £229m — much higher than rivals Liverpool (£186m) and Chelsea (£185m), both 'bigger' clubs who have won the Champions League and have larger global fanbases.

City's commercial income is so large because £130m comes from sponsors based in the UAE, where club owner Sheikh Mansour has huge influence on City's partners. Etihad alone is believed to pay £80m a year to sponsor City's shirts and campus, while telecoms firm Etislat pay about £16.5m and Visit Abu Dhabi £19.75m.

The Korean tyre firm Nexen pay £10m a year to be City's sleeve sponsor, having entered into a 'strategic partnership' with the UAE's sovereign wealth fund Mubadala.

Documents published by German magazine Der Spiegel last year indicated that in 2015 Etihad was, in fact, only paying £8m towards a then £67.5m annual deal with City, while Mansour was topping up the other £59.5m himself. If confirmed as accurate, that would breach FFP.

False economy, couldnt last forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dallas Green
20 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 


f6240060-0001-0004-0000-000001401567_w75


f149c479-0001-0004-0000-000001401563_w75


1f47a555-0001-0004-0000-000001401561_w76


3ab17ea4-0001-0004-0000-000001401559_w75


4db64e32-0001-0004-0000-000001401558_w75


 

 

I take it these are the leaked docs they are talking about in the article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
1 hour ago, Dallas Green said:

 

I take it these are the leaked docs they are talking about in the article?

 

I believe so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bazzas right boot

I'm not sure the principles of FFP make sense anymore either. 

 

Basically means if you don't have a big revenue system via TV, sponsorship or match day you can't make it up with being given money. 

 

But then, how do you break into that bracket with the other clubs getting all that in the first place? 

 

If you have it, you try and keep it Therefor the top table gets more difficult to break into, which means you need to spend more. 

 

Man city were in the 3rd teir 20 years ago, how were they ever going to break into the elite organically? never ofc, they need cash injections to compete with teams getting £200m or so from TV and ucl games alone. 

To get there you clearly need to spend money. 

 

A better way or start would be to spread out the TV money and prize money more throughout Europe. 

 

FFP now seems flawed, it was set up with good intentions but really doesn't work on the level it is meant to, if enforced all it will do is protect the current big teams even more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loose change to them that.

 

There must be money laundering going on in elite football and the mess of various sponsorship from all over the world makes it all the easier to hide.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, maintaining the status quo trumps any element of fairness in sport, the industry where fairness of competition is meant to be paramount...

 

This is why I think we will lose even though our case looks good. The complications brought about by us winning would be too great...

Edited by Spellczech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
3 minutes ago, frankblack said:

I think the decision came down to the following:

giphy.gif

Frank is that not you at the Bookies with your winnings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Frank is that not you at the Bookies with your winnings?

 

I wish.

 

If I went to a bookies I'd be as well handling over my money and telling the bookie to keep it! :rofl:

 

If you want a tip on gambling, find out what I've picked and choose something else...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo

So guilty, but fined the wages of one of their youth team players.

 

Fined £10 million, back into champions league next season with potential to make many multiples of that.

Carry on cheating then as it is genuinely worth it even if caught

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh the seethe.

Found not guilty,means they did not cheat.The 10 million fine is for not cooperating.

Do you think CAS would make a verdict up just for the sake of it if they found evidence of cheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the general
20 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

So guilty, but fined the wages of one of their youth team players.

 

Fined £10 million, back into champions league next season with potential to make many multiples of that.

Carry on cheating then as it is genuinely worth it even if caught

 

Not guilty mate

Have a wee read of the verdict

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SwindonJambo

Money talks. The game's a bogey. Destroyed by money, manipulation and vested interest. If it wasn't for Hearts, I'd probably be done with football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the general
28 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Once again, maintaining the status quo trumps any element of fairness in sport, the industry where fairness of competition is meant to be paramount...

 

This is why I think we will lose even though our case looks good. The complications brought about by us winning would be too great...

 

To be honest City are not part of the cartel so they were breaking or threatening the status quo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
25 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I wish.

 

If I went to a bookies I'd be as well handling over my money and telling the bookie to keep it! :rofl:

 

If you want a tip on gambling, find out what I've picked and choose something else...

Same here.

Gave up up the Bookies years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo
3 minutes ago, the general said:

 

To be honest City are not part of the cartel so they were breaking or threatening the status quo

Man city and thier owners not a cartel....... OK then.

Corrupt totalitarian regime with no respect for morals or fairness pouring untold billions into a nothing club unti they turn gold into silverware, stretching the "fair play" rules until they squeak.

A bigger example of buying success beyond its fanbase you couldnt find.

Should have called themselves RB Manchester

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the general
2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Man city and thier owners not a cartel....... OK then.

Corrupt totalitarian regime with no respect for morals or fairness pouring untold billions into a nothing club unti they turn gold into silverware, stretching the "fair play" rules until they squeak.

A bigger example of buying success beyond its fanbase you couldnt find.

Should have called themselves RB Manchester

 

😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Man city and thier owners not a cartel....... OK then.

Corrupt totalitarian regime with no respect for morals or fairness pouring untold billions into a nothing club unti they turn gold into silverware, stretching the "fair play" rules until they squeak.

A bigger example of buying success beyond its fanbase you couldnt find.

Should have called themselves RB Manchester

o1xx8j9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
41 minutes ago, benny said:

Oh the seethe.

Found not guilty,means they did not cheat.The 10 million fine is for not cooperating.

Do you think CAS would make a verdict up just for the sake of it if they found evidence of cheating.

Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malinga the Swinga
1 hour ago, benny said:

Oh the seethe.

Found not guilty,means they did not cheat.The 10 million fine is for not cooperating.

Do you think CAS would make a verdict up just for the sake of it if they found evidence of cheating.

Given the history of CAS, did anyone seriously believe Man City would be found anything other than innocent. A few envelopes passe round along with some 'gifts' will have smoothed way to verdict. 

 

They would be be as well scraping these rules as nobody pays a blind bit of notice anyway. Suppose if countries in Middle East or Far East want to conduct proxy wars on football pitch or through other sports such as Horse a Racing, then at least it stops them actuall killing people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

Man city and thier owners not a cartel....... OK then.

Corrupt totalitarian regime with no respect for morals or fairness pouring untold billions into a nothing club unti they turn gold into silverware, stretching the "fair play" rules until they squeak.

A bigger example of buying success beyond its fanbase you couldnt find.

Should have called themselves RB Manchester

 

I think you'll find their name is actually Abu Dhabi FC. 

 

I take it the main reason for it being overturned is weefa's own 5 year rule and most of the offences taking place outwith that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There a several different ways to look at this outcome and it can be spun to either way to suit.

 

Clubs are supposed to spend within there means and the income they generate, BUT, whilst everyone knows what this is supposed to mean there are ways around it.

 

For example advertising. My understanding is that Man City (or any club) sell pitch side electronic advertising and there is nothing stopping them selling an insignificant amount (say 3 mins) for a ridiculous money to their own owners. Way way over what would be considered the normal advertising fee. Its a "source of income" but artificially generated and a way of circumventing the rules.

 

Whilst it could be argued they are then acting not "in the spirit" of what was intended but that is completely different to doing something illegal.

 

On one hand some would say that whilst not found to be "actually" corrupt they could be considered "morally corrupt".

 

On the other hand others would say they have done nothing illegal and those who are generally "winners" are the ones who generally take advantage of ever little benefit they can.

 

As has been posted above FFP seemed like a morally good idea at the time but in practical terms all it does is keep the big rich clubs with already big incomes at a level above the rest and leaves little scope for the smaller clubs to get a cash injection to take them to the next level, unless of coarse they also "bend the rules". In which case, if its so easy to get round them, why bother at all.

 

I also think that where it struggles is that it relies on everyone taking it onboard not only by the rules but by the spirit it was intended as it probably cant be any more restrictive due to laws on restriction of trade. That makes it an uneven playing field as clubs have discretion on how to interpret it (and how far they want to bend it). 

 

What if when Vlad was here he had offered us say £10 million a year for a random small pitch side advertising board to just say "Vlad rules". Would we have taken it? 😊

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AndyMcI said:

 

What if when Vlad was here he had offered us say £10 million a year for a random small pitch side advertising board to just say "Vlad rules". Would we have taken it? 😊

 

 

 

These are all great points, and the debate being had here is refreshingly balanced. 

 

I am pleased with the outcome today. Who judges the judges is my gut reaction - the people in charge with setting the rules didn't do a good job and they got punished with the appeal. The end outcome will be better rules - something that wouldn't have happened without the appeal ruling. That, for me, is the way we get progress. We'll see similar progress with the use of VAR. 

 

On your last point about Vlad, would it be fair to say that he internalised the debt and in many ways did what Man City did only changing the rules of money owed as opposed to money spent. 

 

Let me know if I'm way off the mark there. 

 

WP 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Deodato said:

 

On your last point about Vlad, would it be fair to say that he internalised the debt and in many ways did what Man City did only changing the rules of money owed as opposed to money spent. 

 

Let me know if I'm way off the mark there. 

 

WP 

 

 

Thats my understanding. 

 

My example using Vlad probably wasn't great as it wasn't really "cash in the bank" that was really being provided. Mostly debt for equity (which to be fair I am sure he knew he would never see back again) and moving money between businesses. Pretty much just a paperwork exercise.

 

I used him as he was the only "rich" (had access to plenty money) owner we have had and who was loose with "his" money 😂

 

Maybe I should have said "when Bill Gates decides to buy us........if he offered us £100m a year for a 6ft advertising board would we say no?" 🤞🤞😂

Link to comment
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.

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.




×
×
  • Create New...