Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Man City - the new bitters?


Naz17
 Share

Recommended Posts

Manchester City will not be banned from European competition when the decision on the club’s highly contentious Financial Fair Play case is announced next month.

 

Many in the game have been expecting City to be barred from Europe next season after a series of revelations about their finances were published by German magazine Der Spiegel last year but The Athletic understands the club will only receive a fine.

 

The decision by the adjudicatory chamber of UEFA’s Club Financial Control Board will almost certainly lead to calls for UEFA to admit the FFP system, which was first agreed in 2009, is finished in its current guise.

 

It has simply become impossible to police, but some clubs may try to appeal against the expected decision for being too lenient.

City’s case was referred to the adjudicatory chamber by the CFCB’s investigatory arm in May and it is widely believed that the latter’s boss, former Belgium prime minister Yves Leterme, recommended a season-long ban for the Premier League champions.

 

The rationale was that the allegations, which were based on hacked emails between senior figures within City’s ownership group, implied the club had made a cynical and concerted attempt to deceive European football’s financial watchdog.

 

According to Der Spiegel, City had lied about the true source of millions of pounds’ worth of sponsorship income and hidden various costs that should have been factored into their FFP calculation.

 

Under UEFA rules, clubs are meant to spend only as much on players and wages as they earn, and there are limits on the amount of additional revenue a club’s owner can put in from their own pocket.

 

In City’s case, it is alleged that £51.5 million of the sponsorship money they were meant to receive from United Arab Emirates-based airline Etihad came from Abu Dhabi United Group, the holding company controlled by City’s stated owner, the deputy prime minister of the UAE and member of the Abu Dhabi ruling family, Sheikh Mansour.

 

Furthermore, the emails suggest the club got more than £30 million in costs off the books by paying former manager Roberto Mancini large consultancy fees via Al Jazira, Sheikh Mansour’s team in Abu Dhabi, and setting up an elaborate scheme to shift the players’ image-rights payments to a third party, which was then secretly reimbursed.

 

Given the fact that City have already been sanctioned for FFP breaches in 2014, when they were fined £49 million, it seemed UEFA had little choice but to throw the book at them this time.

 

But, as the leaked emails explain, City have never really accepted the premise of FFP, which they believe was an attempt by Europe’s more established elite clubs to ringfence their positions by capping the amount rich owners, such as theirs, could spend on bridging the gap.

 

City have never denied the authenticity of these emails, which were handed to Der Spiegel by the “Football Leaks” whistle-blower platform, but the English champions have claimed they have been taken out of context to paint the most negative picture possible.

 

In a statement released in May, City said the decision to refer their case contained “mistakes, misinterpretations and confusions fundamentally borne out of a basic lack of due process” and accused the independent panel of running a “wholly unsatisfactory, curtailed and hostile process”.

 

The club added it was “disappointed but regrettably not surprised” by Leterme’s move, attacked him for leaks to the media, and said he had ignored “irrefutable evidence” they had given to the investigatory chamber.

 

A month later, City signalled just how aggressive their defence would be by trying to circumvent the adjudicatory chamber by going straight to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the Lausanne-based body that usually only hears appeals in sporting cases.

 

CAS has not made a ruling on that pre-emptive appeal and neither City nor UEFA has chosen to comment on what the investigatory chamber is doing.

 

But The Athletic understands that senior figures within European football’s governing body are worried that going after City will lead to years of expensive arguments, which will be hard to justify when it is clear City are not the only side looking for FFP loopholes.

 

Since the landmark rulings against City and fellow “nouveau-riche” club Paris Saint-Germain in 2014, UEFA has found it increasingly difficult to prosecute clubs for breaking the spending rules. The governing body has also admitted the regulations have achieved their original stated objective of reducing the levels of debt within the game.

 

Those excuses, however, are unlikely to placate the likes of La Liga boss Javier Tebas, who has repeatedly urged UEFA to come down hard on FFP breaches, or the fans of City’s rivals.

 

UEFA may also end up in a legal row with City anyway, as the club is understood to believe it has done nothing wrong and should not even be fined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, niallers said:

In other words, city threatened prolonged and pain staking litigation for years, knowing that UEFA didn't or wouldn't have the time or money to fight their case. That along with a lot of greased palms has led to this. It's absolute bollix. Oil cheating, corrupt cunts


This is actually in one of the earlier email releases. 
 

The time they were fined 49m(?) and the email states that he, Sheik Bin Maktoum, was prepared to bankrupt Uefa with litigation.

 

I know none of the owners In top tier football are particularly celebratory, but I hope we beat the cheating, parochial, soft power enabling, human rights abusing, plastic cunts! 
 

I genuinely would consider it the greatest achievement, in a very storied history of achievement, because of the almost blatant disregard these have gone about taking a shit yo-yo team who only 25,000 people from Stockport cared about to a team that 20,000 people from Stockport care about in to the most ridiculous, pathetic, ersatz  simulation of Football Manager made flesh. Plastic. I almost feel sorry for the old miserable fucks who used to stand on the Kipax dreaming they’d not get humiliated of a Saturday, almost.
 

Fuck ‘em.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke

Fuck them. I can't wait until the bald Fraud fucks off and leaves the next manager a shit load of midfielders and a shit defence. Unless they find a like for like manager as far as tippy tappy shit goes (few and far between) they'll be in trouble, although they'll just spend another billion and claim any financial irregularities are just down to UEFA/FIFA being picky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Red74 said:

Swear down the resident nutcase posters on GOT are posting on here. we get a mention on every thread that’s near enough identical to their imaginary outrage

 

https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forums/bluemoon-forum.1/

 

 

It’s much, much worse on BlueMoon. It’s every single thread. On their City forum as well as the general football one. They’re obsessed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Red74 said:

Swear down the resident nutcase posters on GOT are posting on here. we get a mention on every thread that’s near enough identical to their imaginary outrage

 

https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forums/bluemoon-forum.1/

 

I was having a little read of their forum after the game and I swear I thought to myself they’re worse than Everton fans. So demented and irrational it’s actually funny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Sugar Ape said:

Manchester City will not be banned from European competition when the decision on the club’s highly contentious Financial Fair Play case is announced next month.

 

Many in the game have been expecting City to be barred from Europe next season after a series of revelations about their finances were published by German magazine Der Spiegel last year but The Athletic understands the club will only receive a fine.

 

The decision by the adjudicatory chamber of UEFA’s Club Financial Control Board will almost certainly lead to calls for UEFA to admit the FFP system, which was first agreed in 2009, is finished in its current guise.

 

It has simply become impossible to police, but some clubs may try to appeal against the expected decision for being too lenient.

City’s case was referred to the adjudicatory chamber by the CFCB’s investigatory arm in May and it is widely believed that the latter’s boss, former Belgium prime minister Yves Leterme, recommended a season-long ban for the Premier League champions.

 

The rationale was that the allegations, which were based on hacked emails between senior figures within City’s ownership group, implied the club had made a cynical and concerted attempt to deceive European football’s financial watchdog.

 

According to Der Spiegel, City had lied about the true source of millions of pounds’ worth of sponsorship income and hidden various costs that should have been factored into their FFP calculation.

 

Under UEFA rules, clubs are meant to spend only as much on players and wages as they earn, and there are limits on the amount of additional revenue a club’s owner can put in from their own pocket.

 

In City’s case, it is alleged that £51.5 million of the sponsorship money they were meant to receive from United Arab Emirates-based airline Etihad came from Abu Dhabi United Group, the holding company controlled by City’s stated owner, the deputy prime minister of the UAE and member of the Abu Dhabi ruling family, Sheikh Mansour.

 

Furthermore, the emails suggest the club got more than £30 million in costs off the books by paying former manager Roberto Mancini large consultancy fees via Al Jazira, Sheikh Mansour’s team in Abu Dhabi, and setting up an elaborate scheme to shift the players’ image-rights payments to a third party, which was then secretly reimbursed.

 

Given the fact that City have already been sanctioned for FFP breaches in 2014, when they were fined £49 million, it seemed UEFA had little choice but to throw the book at them this time.

 

But, as the leaked emails explain, City have never really accepted the premise of FFP, which they believe was an attempt by Europe’s more established elite clubs to ringfence their positions by capping the amount rich owners, such as theirs, could spend on bridging the gap.

 

City have never denied the authenticity of these emails, which were handed to Der Spiegel by the “Football Leaks” whistle-blower platform, but the English champions have claimed they have been taken out of context to paint the most negative picture possible.

 

In a statement released in May, City said the decision to refer their case contained “mistakes, misinterpretations and confusions fundamentally borne out of a basic lack of due process” and accused the independent panel of running a “wholly unsatisfactory, curtailed and hostile process”.

 

The club added it was “disappointed but regrettably not surprised” by Leterme’s move, attacked him for leaks to the media, and said he had ignored “irrefutable evidence” they had given to the investigatory chamber.

 

A month later, City signalled just how aggressive their defence would be by trying to circumvent the adjudicatory chamber by going straight to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the Lausanne-based body that usually only hears appeals in sporting cases.

 

CAS has not made a ruling on that pre-emptive appeal and neither City nor UEFA has chosen to comment on what the investigatory chamber is doing.

 

But The Athletic understands that senior figures within European football’s governing body are worried that going after City will lead to years of expensive arguments, which will be hard to justify when it is clear City are not the only side looking for FFP loopholes.

 

Since the landmark rulings against City and fellow “nouveau-riche” club Paris Saint-Germain in 2014, UEFA has found it increasingly difficult to prosecute clubs for breaking the spending rules. The governing body has also admitted the regulations have achieved their original stated objective of reducing the levels of debt within the game.

 

Those excuses, however, are unlikely to placate the likes of La Liga boss Javier Tebas, who has repeatedly urged UEFA to come down hard on FFP breaches, or the fans of City’s rivals.

 

UEFA may also end up in a legal row with City anyway, as the club is understood to believe it has done nothing wrong and should not even be fined.

One has to wonder whether city briefed 'The Athletic' this line because they were so confident they were off the metaphorical hook. But, the announcement that CAS has actually rejected city's appeal throws that whole Athletic article up in the air.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If CAS have dropped this now, and UEFA are the governing body, then their deliberations would surely be final?

So if they said (as the FA did over Suarez) there is evidence “beyond reasonable doubt”, that Club A have breached FFP rules so they are suspended from CL competition for one season, how can that be argued against, especially if they say the decision is final?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, coachpotato said:

If CAS have dropped this now, and UEFA are the governing body, then their deliberations would surely be final?

So if they said (as the FA did over Suarez) there is evidence “beyond reasonable doubt”, that Club A have breached FFP rules so they are suspended from CL competition for one season, how can that be argued against, especially if they say the decision is final?

 

'Balance of probability' was the standard used there, not 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Even then, they tied themselves in knots trying to make the evidence fit the crime.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, coachpotato said:

If CAS have dropped this now, and UEFA are the governing body, then their deliberations would surely be final?

So if they said (as the FA did over Suarez) there is evidence “beyond reasonable doubt”, that Club A have breached FFP rules so they are suspended from CL competition for one season, how can that be argued against, especially if they say the decision is final?

 

I think it's important to draw the distinction that CAS hasnt dropped the case and in fact has done the opposite. If the most recent reports are correct, CAS has decided against city's claim they've done nothing wrong and UEFA are perfectly in order to determine a punishment.

 

Would city's owner then try and bankrupt UEFA which is in itself, a collection of football associations, including the FA? Who knows but surely if they do, it's akin to chopping your own leg off. They truely will become the pariah of European football and indeed English football if they go down that root.

 

True, UEFA and the FA may be despised by a lot of fans but it's strange how a particular cause or opponent brings people together in opposition to the litigant.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

One has to wonder whether city briefed 'The Athletic' this line because they were so confident they were off the metaphorical hook. But, the announcement that CAS has actually rejected city's appeal throws that whole Athletic article up in the air.

 

 

Hearing it was Citileaks 

  • Upvote 1
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...