Euro: UEFA bans Man City for 2 CL seasons

[John Price]

Manchester City are free to play Champions League football next season after the Court of Arbitration for Sport on Monday lifted a two-season ban from European competitions imposed by UEFA.

 

[Incubajerks]

Manchester City are free to play Champions League football next season after the Court of Arbitration for Sport on Monday lifted a two-season ban from European competitions imposed by UEFA.

there was no doubt about it, the sheikhs ruined football.

 

[Chimaera]

What a joke. Good lawyers >>> FFP

 

[SSF]

haha you guys were blinded by "hate" and thought this was going to be upheld.

 

[AB13]

there was no doubt about it, the sheikhs ruined football.

In a way, but Chelsea and Roman Abramovich were the ones that started absolutely destroying the transfer market. Chelsea deserve to be despised for that.

 

[Incubajerks]

In a way, but Chelsea and Roman Abramovich were the ones that started absolutely destroying the transfer market. Chelsea deserve to be despised for that.

It is a little different, I understand what you mean but it is absolutely not comparable to the sciecchi, who have behind them interests that have little to do with football.

 

[AB13]

It is a little different, I understand what you mean but it is absolutely not comparable to the sciecchi, who have behind them interests that have little to do with football.

Both Chelsea and City were basically a toy for the owners who wanted to buy some titles for a football team. Both had similar amounts of footballing interests but Chelsea spent a lot more and did it earlier, Abramovich laid the foundation for every blood money owner after him.

Anyway, it sucks seeing teams go from irrelevant to title contenders due to blood money owners that buy them titles, while historic, storied clubs fall behind, but it will continue to happen because FFP basically does not exist. It is not fair and hurts many fans but it is what it is.

 

[YNWA14]

I don’t think that teams should be limited in their spending as long as the club is not going into debt to do it. I don’t see why historically successful teams should be the only ones who can spend big.

That said the ethical side of things and ownership of teams is another issue, and it shouldn’t just be a monetary check.

 

[SSF]

yea, saying fans get hurt by this is being a little overdramatic.; fans have always been hurt by relegations, etc.
FFP was only put in to keep a Leicester from happening again and I am not sad that it may have been rendered toothless for now; however, i would be interested to see what happened if a Norwich were in City' shoes.

 

[Juve]

There goes my dream of Pep and De Bruyne joining Juve......

 

[bleedblue1223]

1. We all knew this was going to happen.

2. It's a bit rich when fans of clubs like Arsenal, United, Liverpool, Bayern, Real, Barca, etc. talk about FFP and clubs like City, Chelsea, and PSG ruining the sport. Do we really want a sport where a select handful of clubs can actually spend money and dominate? Our current situation is far from ideal IMO, but it's better than the alternative of only the big money clubs from traditional means are allowed to spend.

3. FFP was always dumb, it was meant to keep clubs within their revenue lane, making it very difficult to move up, and it does nothing to actually bridge the gap between the have's and the have not's. The only way something like this works is with a hard cap of sorts. That's going to be difficult to do when you have domestic leagues and Euro competitions, but that's the only way to actually bring the balance, besides that, people are just going to have to embrace billionaire takeovers as the only way to bring more competition at the top.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I don’t think that teams should be limited in their spending as long as the club is not going into debt to do it. I don’t see why historically successful teams should be the only ones who can spend big.

That said the ethical side of things and ownership of teams is another issue, and it shouldn’t just be a monetary check.

Debt isn't necessarily bad, it's how almost all things in business are financed. It's unreasonable to expect clubs to cash-flow everything. Problems is when things get financed on hopes and dreams. This is the downside of a pro/rel system though. Owners become desperate to either reach the next level and survive the current level and they take on too much risk on the business side.

 

[Juve]

 

[robertmac43]

 

[Savant]

1. We all knew this was going to happen.

2. It's a bit rich when fans of clubs like Arsenal, United, Liverpool, Bayern, Real, Barca, etc. talk about FFP and clubs like City, Chelsea, and PSG ruining the sport. Do we really want a sport where a select handful of clubs can actually spend money and dominate? Our current situation is far from ideal IMO, but it's better than the alternative of only the big money clubs from traditional means are allowed to spend.

Liverpool is not even in the top ten richest clubs in the Premier League from an ownership standpoint. Mansour is valued at 20b. FSG is valued at 2.7b. Clubs like Aston Villa, Crystal Palace and Newcastle (with Mike Ashley) have more money than Liverpool.

The succeed(ed) by leveraging FFP well. FFP was not dumb, it was poorly enforced. There is a difference.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Liverpool is not even in the top ten richest clubs in the Premier League from an ownership standpoint. Mansour is valued at 20b. FSG is valued at 2.7b. Clubs like Aston Villa, Crystal Palace and Newcastle (with Mike Ashley) have more money than Liverpool.

The succeed(ed) by leveraging FFP well. FFP was not dumb, it was poorly enforced. There is a difference.

Club worth is different from worth of the owner. FFP was meant to prevent the wealth of the ownership from overtaking the club worth. Maybe you can argue that the Liverpool's owners are worth less, but Liverpool's football revenue streams are significantly higher, that's why they can operate at a much higher level, and why FFP is an idiotic idea. It keeps you in whatever football revenue lane you are in. The punishment for breaking those rules is also a joke.

Either institute revenue sharing and a salary cap or just embrace the free-market system. This half-assed approach that they took is just silly.

 

[East Coast Bias]

You wanna argue that FFP is bullshit? That's fine. But don't tell me City is the 3rd/4th most marketable franchise in the wolrd. It's laughable. Liverpool could have gone 100 years without winning and still would be most famous, more popular, more marketable.

City was very clearly inflating revenue. They went from making mid table money off of Thomas Cook sponsorship to a massive bidding war won by........Etihad Airways? Not only that, Etihad is very generous in their stadium rights naming too! Coincidentally owned by the same group?

If Etihad wants to sponsor them, fine. You have a 3rd party manage the bidding process - if Etihad bids above that, ok. Then at least you know what % they bid up market value. if you're going to claim it's the ruling law, which UEFA even came out AFTER this result and said FFP still rules this doesn't change it, then you've just signaled that its all bullshit.

 

[Blender]

Outrageous really. FFP is already pretty generous with a club's ability to increase spending over time without having to cheat to do it.

 

[bleedblue1223]

What does marketability have to do with anything? People also fail to understand how these brands have gone global at the right time. City blew up at the perfect time when the EPL was taping into newer markets, so their fanbase went up significantly. Between competition success, sponsorship, and new markets, City built a high revenue stream. Same as Chelsea. They were able to build that in the years before FFP.

You either have to artificially bulk up the revenues of the smaller clubs, artificially limit the spending of the big clubs, or argue for a system where only the big revenue clubs from traditional methods can be successful. People like to make fun of MLS not have pro/rel, but the financial side of things on the other side of the pond is even more bonkers. I've always found it interesting that the US is known for being more of a free market and Europe has more of a social safety net, but in their sports worlds, it's completely flipped. NA sports are essentially socialized, and Europe is survival of the fittest.

 

[bleedblue1223]

And as a Chelsea fan, I understand in an ideal world we would not be able to spend our way out of mistakes. That should be the point. We'd be more or less stuck with Kepa until we developed a replacement.

 

[Blender]

And as a Chelsea fan, I understand in an ideal world we would not be able to spend our way out of mistakes. That should be the point. We'd be more or less stuck with Kepa until we developed a replacement.

As far as I know Chelsea has never inflated their revenue by funneling money through fake sponsor contracts so that they can greatly exceed their permitted spending.

 

[Incubajerks]

What has to make us think is that everything is reduced to a 10M fine which for them is like buying a package of peanuts.

 

[The Abusement Park]

What’s the point of FFP? Either actually enforce you’re rules or dint have them. Granted FFP is already pretty stupid as it is, but I don’t get the point of having it if you won’t use it for what it’s for.

 

[bleedblue1223]

As far as I know Chelsea has never inflated their revenue by funneling money through fake sponsor contracts so that they can greatly exceed their permitted spending.

I'm talking about an ideal system, one that would be similar to NHL and NFL, a hard min/max spending cap. We'd be stuck with Kepa like the Blues were stuck with Allen. What I think would be ideal would prevent teams from spending their way out of mistakes, they would have to find alternate means and let the mistakes ride themselves out.

 

[The Abusement Park]

What has to make us think is that everything is reduced to a 10M fine which for them is like buying a package of peanuts.

Yeah they’ll make that back in 3 minutes.