Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Manchester City banned from the Champions League for 2 seasons.

12346»

Comments

  • WOW, THEY GOT OFF!!!!!
  • Great news.

    Leaves the way open for Nimer's boss to takeover Charlton as was always planned.

    Unfortunately, this case and Southall's greed put a temporary halt to that.

    Hence, I suspect, why Bob Munro was hearing positive things might happen this week IE after this decision.
  • I’m with Rothko 100% on this. A club should spend what it wants. Otherwise it’s the same old teams every season qualifying for the champions league. The only other way forward is a salary cap in which every team can’t exceed the set agreed team wages. 
    I can't speak for Rothko but I am not convinced that's what they meant - or at least, that's not what that statement exclusively means. 

    I don't think FFP was installed to protect the elite, rather, I think that's what it has inadvertently done. FFP in theory is required, IMO. Allowing clubs to spend what they want will lead to clubs going to the wall, or at least, going into administration. There are plenty of threads on this site demanding that the EFL do a better job of stopping that! FFP needs an overhaul, certainly. I just don't personally want to see Ridsdale or Mansour doing their thing.  


  • Money talks.
  • Couldn't give  a shit really. Prefer Man City to be in the Champions League than Sheff U though.

    I wonder whether the EFL were waiting on this decision before announcing their decision on Sheff Wed.
  • Now that's justice!
  • Weren't they paying a brexit lawyer £20k a day to sort this out? Not surprised they got off.
  • I'm sure I'm not alone in saying "a shit I couldn't give".
    I despise football for what it has become.
  • There is buckley's chance this is going to stick.
    In which universe will the corrupt lunatics at UEFA cobble together a legal case that, on the balance of probability, satisfies an independent arbiter (in this case the Court Of Arbitration For Sport) a rule or rules on funding were breached?
    It is just about conceivable that somebody within ManCity was complacent enough to funnel money directly in from the owners and just label it as sponsorship/commercial/whatever for the purposes of paying lipservice to UEFA's regulations.  Likely? No.
    Even if there were significant transgressions, UEFA vs the national financial might of Abu Dhabi & China is not a contest.  
    Just for once let me be the first to blow my own trumpet.

    Ner, ner, ne ner, ner - told you so 😛

    CAS said: "...most of the alleged breaches reported by the adjudicatory chamber of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred".
    UEFA acknowledged "...
    insufficient conclusive evidence to uphold all of the CFCB's conclusions...many of the alleged breaches were time-barred"

    In plain English "we proved nothing and took far too long trying to anyway."  Making no reference to having obtained some of their 'evidence' by dodgy if not outright illegal methods.

    UEFA v Man City has many parallels with EFL v Sheff Weds.
    There could have been some interpretative bookkeeping but the arbiter is even less clever or well prepared than the alleged transgressor - outcome: nuthin.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Couldn't give  a shit really. Prefer Man City to be in the Champions League than Sheff U though.

    I wonder whether the EFL were waiting on this decision before announcing their decision on Sheff Wed.
     :# Wash your mouth out, Sheff Utd have come good!
  • There was a great BBC article on all this back in February discussing the case of Omer Riza and his 10 year legal case against UEFA. The judge/jury/ executioner argument is what I assumed Man City would run with. And win with.

    Still a good read for anyone that missed it:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51528427
  • There is buckley's chance this is going to stick.
    In which universe will the corrupt lunatics at UEFA cobble together a legal case that, on the balance of probability, satisfies an independent arbiter (in this case the Court Of Arbitration For Sport) a rule or rules on funding were breached?
    It is just about conceivable that somebody within ManCity was complacent enough to funnel money directly in from the owners and just label it as sponsorship/commercial/whatever for the purposes of paying lipservice to UEFA's regulations.  Likely? No.
    Even if there were significant transgressions, UEFA vs the national financial might of Abu Dhabi & China is not a contest.  
    Just for once let me be the first to blow my own trumpet.

    Ner, ner, ne ner, ner - told you so 😛

    CAS said: "...most of the alleged breaches reported by the adjudicatory chamber of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred".
    UEFA acknowledged "...insufficient conclusive evidence to uphold all of the CFCB's conclusions...many of the alleged breaches were time-barred"

    In plain English "we proved nothing and took far too long trying to anyway."  Making no reference to having obtained some of their 'evidence' by dodgy if not outright illegal methods.

    UEFA v Man City has many parallels with EFL v Sheff Weds.
    There could have been some interpretative bookkeeping but the arbiter is even less clever or well prepared than the alleged transgressor - outcome: nuthin.
    First? I think you're the third person in this thread to make this unique prediction - then have your own mind blown by how accurate you were. 
  • So citeh done nothing wrong, really happy with the outcome. £8.9 million fine !! Losing interest in football
  • Lol, this is actually quite funny.

    What next? A World Cup in the middle of the desert anyone? Nah, that would be just silly!
  • Even sillier, hold it in November so it screws up all the European leagues. 
  • CAS Statement:

    "The panel is of the view that Uefa by no means filed frivolous charges against City but based on the evidence the panel cannot reach the conclusion that disguised funding was paid to City."

    It added: "City's failure to co-operate with the investigation is a severe breach and City are to be seriously reproached."

    In its report, Cas said Uefa maintained the club "on countless occasions refused to answer questions, refused to provide documents, refused to arrange for the attendance of requested persons and - ultimately - it even instructed its own expert witness not to answer specific questions".

    However, Cas said it only found two specific requests in which City failed to comply with its duty of co-operation.

    Cas concludes that "no adverse inferences can be drawn from City's failure to produce evidence" and crucially, finds "no evidence that agreements were backdated, or that City tried to cover up any alleged violations" with regards to their Etihad sponsorship.

  •  I have read the report, and you forgot to mention that many of the accusation could not be taken into account as the 5 year equivalent of a statute of limitations had passed, the decision basically gives carte-blanche to wealthy clubs to obfuscate and delay presenting evidence long enough to undermine the proceedings,
    Then appeal against the first judgement and have it  over turned and get a slap on the wrist fine for not cooperating. I wonder what Sheffield Wednesday are doing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!