Euro: UEFA bans Man City for 2 CL seasons

[HoseEmDown]

No one will go with no CL though.

They brought in Tevez, Toure, Silva, Dzeko and Balotelli when they didn't have Champions league. Havertz has played 5 champions league games in his career so far, it's not like he's been doing it for years and going deep in the competition. I'm not a City fan so I don't care if they do well but I can't see them being down for too long. As long as the owner sticks around the money is there, the premier league is pretty open for the last 3 champions league places and they will make a ton in sales if they decide to go that route.

I can also see them getting a champions league ban for two years but just one for Europe. So year two as long as they qualify they may be in Europa. So players will see it's not completely dire for years, just a small bump and then back to challenging.

 

[Live in the Now]

They brought in Tevez, Toure, Silva, Dzeko and Balotelli when they didn't have Champions league. Havertz has played 5 champions league games in his career so far, it's not like he's been doing it for years and going deep in the competition. I'm not a City fan so I don't care if they do well but I can't see them being down for too long. As long as the owner sticks around the money is there, the premier league is pretty open for the last 3 champions league places and they will make a ton in sales if they decide to go that route.

That was back when they were allowed to offer the most wages in Europe though. Now they have to balance their books by severely hacking down their wage bill. And it has to stay that way until they can increase legitimate commercial revenue.

 

[HoseEmDown]

That was back when they were allowed to offer the most wages in Europe though. Now they have to balance their books by severely hacking down their wage bill. And it has to stay that way until they can increase legitimate commercial revenue.

I would let Silva and Bravo walk, replace with cheaper options, that frees up some wages. Look to move one of Stones and Otamendi while finding a cheap 4th CB for cheap, like Liverpool did with Klaven a few years ago for like 2M. Move out one of Sterling or Sane. If Madrid offer 180M you have to take that and try to get Sane to sign an extension. Just those few moves opens up a lot of wages so you can keep most of the squad if they want to stay. Then you have Fernandinho and Aguero with just a year left on their deals, Fernandinho has to be gone and with Aguero maybe he wants to stay and will take a pay cut since he'll be 32. None of this matters if Pep can't show he can trust young players and he can build a squad on a tight budget. He's never been restricted in the transfer market before so we don't know if he knows how to find those diamonds in the rough instead of the big name players.

 

[phisherman]

There's a bunch of other tweets about the situation from Man City's perspective.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

There's a bunch of other tweets about the situation from Man City's perspective.

I think it would be hilarious if they just decide to bring the entire tent crashing down in a misguided attempt to save themselves. If other clubs are violated to whatever extent, hope they get flogged too.

 

[Cassano]

There's a bunch of other tweets about the situation from Man City's perspective.

Those teams won't get punished for obvious reasons by UEFA.

 

[Blender]

There's a bunch of other tweets about the situation from Man City's perspective.

A whataboutism is not a defense, and if their complaints are about the value of those sponsorship contracts they are way off base since the value of their Etihad deal isn't why they were punished. The Bayern Munich one seems laughable, and if there is any violations with the Fiat deal with Juventus, they should also be punished accordingly.

 

[Blender]

It's a minute, arbitrary issue compared to what's been going on for the past 15 yrs. We all know UEFA's intentions with superteams with their proposed Champions Cup or w/e they proposed the past year.

It's not a minute issue, Manchester City were fraudulently inflating their revenues by having their owner pay most of the money through a fake sponsorship agreement with Etihad. I think it's clear that UEFA is fine with any kind of accounting trickery or super team spending as long as they can follow the letter of the rules. They have punished every team that has been caught violating them, and a court handed down this punishment for Manchester City for their blatant violation which is consistent with previous similar violations.

 

[Cassano]

It's not a minute issue, Manchester City were fraudulently inflating their revenues by having their owner pay most of the money through a fake sponsorship agreement with Etihad. I think it's clear that UEFA is fine with any kind of accounting trickery or super team spending as long as they can follow the letter of the rules. They have punished every team that has been caught violating them, and a court handed down this punishment for Manchester City for their blatant violation which is consistent with previous similar violations.

Do you feel that PSG spending 400m in one transfer window was done through balancing sponsorship agreements?

 

[hatterson]

Not only did they inflate their revenue, they also hid costs by paying coaches off the books and fraudulently shifting image rights payments to a third party.

This wasn't just a case of "they could only get a real sponsorship of 30m, but they wanted more so their owner chipped in 60m and they called it a sponsorship." It goes significantly above and beyond that.

 

[Havre]

Maybe it doesn't help City directly, but fair enough wanting to be evaluated by the same standards as everybody else.

Obviously I don't think that will get them anywhere other than upsetting those other teams. Can't be helpful when they are to interact with those teams in the future.

Right now I think City are doing it all wrong. Stating that UEFA were after City and if I could use a popular word when it comes to these kind of things - calling it a witch hunt cannot make it easier for them longer term with UEFA. Even if they are right openly questioning UEFAs credibility is just tactically foolish.

 

[hatterson]

Do you feel that PSG spending 400m in one transfer window was done through balancing sponsorship agreements?

PSG sold 100m worth of players the year they bought Neymar and 125m of players the year the Mbappe deal hit the books. They've sold another 100m worth of players this year too because they need to make sure they stay balanced.

 

[Havre]

Still doesn't add up that PSG got higher commercial income than Man Utd and RM.

They have been smarter about it than City I guess.

 

[Jussi]

Ramifications of City's two-year ban may be seismic – not least for Uefa

What seemed most striking about hacked emails published by Der Spiegel in November 2018 was the contempt with which various City executives spoke of Uefa: the joking comment allegedly made by City’s lawyer, Simon Cliff, when a member of Uefa’s investigatory chamber died, “one down, six to go”, and the claim the club chairman, Khaldoon al-Mubarak, had told the Fifa president, Gianni Infantino, that City would rather “sue for the next 10 years” than pay another fine. City have neither denied the veracity of the emails nor apologised for them, preferring to point out they were illegally obtained.

 

[Blender]

Still doesn't add up that PSG got higher commercial income than Man Utd and RM.

They have been smarter about it than City I guess.

Their largest sponsors are Nike and Accor. They have Qatari sponsors but they don't make up the majority of their commercial revenue. UEFA also forced PSG to sell payers for FFP reasons, they gave them financial targets and they sold enough players to hit them.

I don't think the wealthiest and one of the most successful clubs in France which is based in Paris, a world renowned city, having high revenue after a decade of their owners pouring money into the club, signing starts, and advertising them heavily is some shocking position. Manchester City has also seen a meteoric rise in revenue and success over a similar time period, the difference of course being that Manchester City has spent even more on players than PSG has.

 

[Machinehead]

This is horse**** by UEFA. For years, they kept a blind eye to football oligarchs and now are selecting non-traditional teams to pick on.

Actually, I agree with this.

Am I still enjoying it? You bet.

 

[hatterson]

Their largest sponsors are Nike and Accor. They have Qatari sponsors but they don't make up the majority of their commercial revenue. UEFA also forced PSG to sell payers for FFP reasons, they gave them financial targets and they sold enough players to hit them.

I don't think the wealthiest and one of the most successful clubs in France which is based in Paris, a world renowned city, having high revenue after a decade of their owners pouring money into the club, signing starts, and advertising them heavily is some shocking position. Manchester City has also seen a meteoric rise in revenue and success over a similar time period, the difference of course being that Manchester City has spent even more on players than PSG has.

About the only place they could cheat on a significant scale would be match day revenue, but that would require the owner pumping tens of millions into luxury boxes and such, which is really hard to cover up.

PSG enjoys the advantage of being the only major club in the country which helps them a lot. They’ve also focused heavily on actually increasing commercial revenue, while City seemed more focused on producing fraudulent documents.

 

[Havre]

Their largest sponsors are Nike and Accor. They have Qatari sponsors but they don't make up the majority of their commercial revenue. UEFA also forced PSG to sell payers for FFP reasons, they gave them financial targets and they sold enough players to hit them.

I don't think the wealthiest and one of the most successful clubs in France which is based in Paris, a world renowned city, having high revenue after a decade of their owners pouring money into the club, signing starts, and advertising them heavily is some shocking position. Manchester City has also seen a meteoric rise in revenue and success over a similar time period, the difference of course being that Manchester City has spent even more on players than PSG has.

I used to live in France 10+ years ago. No one cared about PSG - other than the rest of the country "hating" anything coming out of Paris.

Go back to that time and PSG didn't even match teams like Glasgow Rangers in terms of revenue.

I'm not saying they will return to being like Rangers again if they lose their oil money, I think you are right that they have built some lasting "commercial value" by spending like they have, but no way is it close to being like it is today if that money had been "real".

 

[Havre]

About the only place they could cheat on a significant scale would be match day revenue, but that would require the owner pumping tens of millions into luxury boxes and such, which is really hard to cover up.

PSG enjoys the advantage of being the only major club in the country which helps them a lot. They’ve also focused heavily on actually increasing commercial revenue, while City seemed more focused on producing fraudulent documents.

That I don't believe is true. I'm not an expert on French football, but having lived there my feeling was that Marseille is the big team in France in terms of general support.

Some French posters might very well tell me I'm wrong there.

 

[hatterson]

That I don't believe is true. I'm not an expert on French football, but having lived there my feeling was that Marseille is the big team in France in terms of general support.

Some French posters might very well tell me I'm wrong there.

I meant in terms of recent domination as opposed to historically.

Their dramatic rise in revenue is pretty well corresponded with their recent domination of French football.

With the exception of the run by Monaco a couple years back that was immediately followed by a mass sell off, no one has really been relevant beyond PSG.

 

[Blender]

I meant in terms of recent domination as opposed to historically.

Their dramatic rise in revenue is pretty well corresponded with their recent domination of French football.

With the exception of the run by Monaco a couple years back that was immediately followed by a mass sell off, no one has really been relevant beyond PSG.

Yup, PSG has completely dominated under their current owners. They are the clear top team in France over the last decade. Manchester City has broken into the top tier in England, but they aren't clearly above the others. Their current owner bought Manchester City in 2008 and they have 4 titles in 11 years (going to be 12 soon), and no Champions League wins or final appearances. Manchester United and Chelsea both have 3 EPL titles over that same time and Chelsea and Liverpool have CL wins. Manchester United has 2 CL finals appearances, Liverpool has 2, and Tottenham and Chelsea have 1 each. PSG has won 6 of 8 L1 titles since their owners bought the team, and no team in France has made a CL final over the time period.

 

[Chimaera]

PSG accounts should most certainly draw some suspicion. They do not have the revenues of EPL tv deals, or the long standing marketing success other major global clubs have. Sure, the Nike deal they have now is extremely lucrative, but that’s really a recent situation.

That said, they do have a base in Paris that City just don’t. However, from what I gather, City have been much more blatant and even when caught, have proceeded to try an cheat, going as far as falsifying documents instead of getting right with FFP. PSG have at least attempted to play by the rules, even if some of their spending and revenues deserve scrutiny.

But admittedly, I think most major clubs should be open to scrutiny, and I do think many of them definitely have operated in degrees of grey instead of completely following the rules. Take LFC, they’re one of the clubs who pushed for FFP, but I wouldn’t put it past them to look for any loophole or advantage. But I also think they wouldn’t flaunt the rules and then falsify documents.

 

[Havre]

Being the best in France doesn't mean you automatically become a commercial superpower.

 

[Cassano]

Actually, I agree with this.

Am I still enjoying it? You bet.

Don't get me wrong, I also am enjoying it because it benefits my club, but I still can't agree that it is fair.

 

[hatterson]

Being the best in France doesn't mean you automatically become a commercial superpower.

No, but when developing commercial partnerships it helps that you’re the only team from your country regularly competing on a global stage.

PSG also has a fan base that City simply doesn’t.