Man City banned from Europe for 2 seasons

MickyD":198pu0r1 said:

Lundan Cabbie":198pu0r1 said:

I am suspicious of UEFA. I'm suspicious that their FFP rules are not designed to protect smaller clubs but are to ensure that their elite clubs stay at the top of the tree. They simply don't want Man City upsetting the status quo of the apple cart and overtaking some of the big names that they sell the Champions League on.

Click to expand...

But genuine long-time Euro royalty AC Milan have also been hit hard by Uefa over FFP, so I'm not sure your argument holds. Who counts as elite if they don't?

Click to expand...

The difference being, I think, Milan 'volunteered' to take their hit now, so they only miss one season of Europa League, as opposed to potentially missing 2 or 3 seasons of Champions League in the future.
Anyway, they got stuffed 4-2 by Inter last weekend, after being 2 up at half time! :thumbup:

That's as may be but the fact remains that Milan were investigated, and punished. No offence to LC but I don't buy this conspiracy stuff.

So how come PSG remain uninvestigated?

Because LC they have already been investigated and successfully appealed against the re-opening of said investigations.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47632779

There is also one point, if the PL do decide to punish them. They could end up in L2.

Rangers got that punishment from the SPL so it’s not without precedent.

The rules are unfair and were put in place by the big 16 European clubs simply to protect their status. The Man City owners have been exemplary owners if you compare to others with what they have contributed to their local community. In comparison the Glazers over the other side of the city recently took out £18 million for their own pockets when United have all that debt, something City don't have.

Why is it wrong to put money into a club? Loans to their clubs of course would be wrong because eventually those loans have to be paid back. Look what happened at Portsmouth but If somebody wants to put money into their club with no legal claim to have it back then I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to.

The really big clubs don't want that competition though because they fear losing their status in the game.

How many of you have thought what they might do for Plymouth Argyle should you pick up one of those massive Euro-Millions Lottery jackpots? Would it be wrong to invest £50 million in YOUR club? Indeed, is it wrong that that Simon Hallett has recently pumped £6m or so into the club for the wonderful revamp of the Grandstand? Man City could argue that by converting that investment into shares was a mere way circumventing FFP rules similar to what they did, albeit on a far smaller scale.

I think you have an extremely rosy view of why the authoritarian, human rights-abusing state of Abu Dhabi bought Man City, and why the authoritarian, human rights-abusing state of Qatar bought PSG and the 2022 World Cup, and why they and various other authoritarian, human rights-abusing states in the Middle East and elsewhere buy sports clubs and host prestigious international sporting events. The real reason is simple: sportswashing on a massive scale, and that is fundamentally different from individuals or groups like the Glazers buying Man Utd, whatever we might think of them, or a lottery winner buying into their local club. (There's also the matter of money-laundering, especially Russian, and I would say that falls somewhere between the two.) At least the Glazers are "honest": they're rampant capitalists, pure and simple.

The sportswashers don't give a damn about FFP, or doping on an industrial scale, or migrant worker safety, or anything else. All they care about is making their states appear to the world as lovely, cuddly benefactors who are "making great strides" on those pesky human rights abuses - at least while the world is watching.

So no, I really don't care too much if Man City or PSG end up out of Europe and in their third divisions, regardless of any supposed conspiracy by the ancien régime.

I recommend listening to the Guardian Football Weekly podcast (Tuesday's) that cover this matter. A journalist who has followed the whole FFP matter was adamant the punishment UEFA handed out was NOT for City breaking FFP rules per se. It was because they lied thru' their teeth, they covered up and fabricated a false defence. He gave the analogy of being caught for speeding - you can just accept the due punishment, get points on your license and a fine.......or you can lie and claim someone else was driving - but if you're caught in that lie you should expect to get hammered, even with a prison sentence. The other point he made was the investigating commitee (IC) were not just a few UEFA suits with a vendetta. They were independent, well respected lawyers who forensically examined the evidence.

If that is the case (and I'm just repeating what the journo said) - then they are banged to rights and deserve everything they get. The conversation also touched on City's very aggressive belligerence to UEFA and that they were daring them to take action - threatening to sue UEFA and their commitee members personally. Apparently there is a power struggle with FIFA and talk about the mega-rich clubs like City, Real etc. breaking away, boycotting the Champs League (essential for UEFA) and hooking up with South American, Asian & US clubs to form a global competition under FIFA. This bit seems speculation - but a quite plausible backdrop and would explain City's attitude. A leaked reported in 'Der Speigal' reported that City's chief lawyer said “He would rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue [Uefa] for the next 10 years.” than accept sanction for breaking FFP. If that is true..........B0ll0x to 'em.