Jump to content
chubbs

Man City given 2yr CL ban

Recommended Posts

Just now, Guff92 said:

So like last season, when 4 British clubs made up the CL and Europa league final? Like that do you mean?

A one season blip. A statistical anomaly. It would be like me claiming the Spanish league is better than the English one because the third best team in Spain knocked the English champions out of Europe or that Man City are better than Liverpool because they’re still in Europe. It’s a ridiculous argument to make. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Zorro said:

Great article. Sums it up nicely. It’s clear to any unbiased football fan that Rick Parry went out of his way to facilitate Liverpool finally winning the English Premier by distracting Man City. Liverpool’s title is tainted by his interference. 

You mean the Rick Parry who used to be CEO of...... Ahem Liverpool, no link there of course......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Beaker71 said:

You mean the Rick Parry who used to be CEO of...... Ahem Liverpool, no link there of course......

And David Gill who was the chief exec of United? Yeah, nice theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

You mean the Rick Parry who used to be CEO of...... Ahem Liverpool, no link there of course......

There can’t be many instances of UEFA board members actively working against the interests of clubs from their own nation and trying to get them banned. Can you think of any others?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zorro said:

A one season blip. A statistical anomaly. It would be like me claiming the Spanish league is better than the English one because the third best team in Spain knocked the English champions out of Europe or that Man City are better than Liverpool because they’re still in Europe. It’s a ridiculous argument to make. 

Why don’t you just admit Liverpool are good ?

97 points last season and took the best city team ever to the last day. 

Currently have 93 points this season. Only lost 3 league games in two seasons. 

Net spend of 40 million in 4 years.

Champions of Europe, the world and now England.

It won’t hurt and nobody will think any less of you just to admit it. 
 

Stop being salty. 
 

 

BB6A57B0-7C49-4538-8DEF-7DA99CFF0B96.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Guff92 said:

Why don’t you just admit Liverpool are good ?

97 points last season and took the best city team ever to the last day. 

Currently have 93 points this season. Only lost 3 league games in two seasons. 

Net spend of 40 million in 4 years.

Champions of Europe, the world and now England.

It won’t hurt and nobody will think any less of you just to admit it. 
 

Stop being salty. 
 

 

BB6A57B0-7C49-4538-8DEF-7DA99CFF0B96.gif

Lost four league games in two seasons. Sorry for having to correct you again. I will say last season’s Liverpool were better than this one. Liverpool look like a team on a downward slide now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zorro said:

Lost four league games in two seasons. Sorry for having to correct you again. I will say last season’s Liverpool were better than this one. Liverpool look like a team on a downward slide now. 

Downward slide xD

Don’t worry we will be fine I’m sure.

Three* city and Watford this season.

Last season it was only city.

 

You’re correcting nobody.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

Downward slide xD

Don’t worry we will be fine I’m sure.

Three* city and Watford this season.

Last season it was only city.

 

You’re correcting nobody.

I’m flabbergasted you’re actually right for once. Well done you. 

However, unless you consider the English premier more prestigious than the champions league and world club championship, it’s undeniable that Liverpool have went backwards. 
 

Edited by Zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

They did not waste time, the cartel. Within hours of the Court of Arbitration announcement, there was a remote scrambling of Manchester City's elite rivals and a discussion about the next plan of action.

This is not over. There is still a Premier League investigation into City ongoing. 

There is still the chance to pressure and influence those proceedings, as was attempted with UEFA's case, when nine leading Premier League clubs — Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham, Chelsea, Leicester, Wolves, Newcastle and Burnley — wrote to CAS on March 9 to argue City should be excluded from Europe while their appeal was heard. They hadn't a clue.

They thought City were stalling, when they were actually pushing to get the appeal completed — the club couldn't move forward until it was — but the remnants of that group remain, as angry and desperate to protect their turf as ever.

UEFA are reluctant to appeal against CAS's verdict in the Swiss courts, where they have a dismal record but the Hateful Eight — as they are now known within the walls of the Etihad, because Wolves are believed to have pulled out — may join forces with the elites of Europe in an attempt to persuade them otherwise. 

There was certainly talk of taking further legal advice, of poring over the longer CAS explanation of the verdict when it is published this week, seeking flaws that could be challenged or exploited. 

Perhaps they will engage the same law company who wrote the legal letter to CAS the last time, Russells.

So that was stage one of the resistance. Stage two came when the managers sat in front of the cameras on Tuesday and toed the party line.

Mikel Arteta was off-message — due only to his connections with Manchester City and Pep Guardiola, because Arsenal are certainly part of this, perhaps even its greatest driving force — but Jurgen Klopp and Jose Mourinho did their duty. 

'A bad day for football… disgraceful… FFP is a good idea…'

The irony of Mourinho, who benefited hugely from owner investment during his first spell at Chelsea under Roman Abramovich, advocating financial regulation now he is with frugal Tottenham is almost too ripe for comment.

Chelsea did everything that Manchester City have subsequently, and then worked to change the rules from the inside so that their path to the top could not be travelled again. 

Yet, leaving even that gross hypocrisy aside, Mourinho's commentary was flawed. He argued that as City were fined £9million, they were guilty, so their ban should not have been lifted. It's a little more complicated than that. 

The fine was for refusing to comply with UEFA's initial investigation — the ban was for falsifying accounts. It's like being charged with murder, and also resisting arrest. A person could be found not guilty of murder, but guilty of resisting arrest.

He wouldn't, however, then get a murderer's sentence. And even City's fine was reduced by two-thirds. Mourinho tried to be outraged but his heart didn't seem in it. Even he must be aware how straightforwardly logical CAS's decision was.

Klopp was different. Klopp imagined a dangerous world of super leagues and super clubs, crushing those below with untrammelled wealth. 

'If the richest people or countries can do what they want in football, then that could make the competition really difficult,' he said. 

'I think that would lead automatically to a kind of world super league with, like, 10 clubs.'

What — the sort of league that Liverpool keep talking about, in those secret meetings with other elite members like Arsenal and Manchester United, that always end up being uncovered and reported in the media?

Meetings with foreign power-brokers, often American, who want to create a closed shop Champions League, composed of the established elite?

As for making competition difficult, Klopp went on to espouse the German vision of club ownership, a system so competitive it has resulted in Bayern Munich winning the Bundesliga title for the last eight seasons — when no club in the history of German football stretching back to 1903 had previously won more than three on the spin. 

Owner investment does not kill competition: it creates more. The penny is beginning to drop over what is being attempted here.

Wolves, having signed the original letter to CAS, are understood not to have been part of Monday's group call. Everton and Sheffield United were always outside the conversation. Why would they lobby to wrap ambitious clubs in red tape, stunting their growth and leaving them at the mercy of predators?

The big lie of FFP is that clubs should grow organically. Yet how is that possible if a middling organisation cannot invest further to compete, while its best players are poached? Leicester won the League and lost N'Golo Kante to Chelsea that summer. Ben Chilwell is likely to travel the same route this year.

Southampton could have been an outstanding team across the last decade, maybe another Leicester, but were denuded by Liverpool and others. FFP kills challengers.

There is no other industry that does not allow competition from companies injecting capital to improve performance and output.

If Saudi Arabian investment now makes Newcastle a force, how is that bad for the game? Don't Newcastle fans deserve that? Isn't the city worthy?

We all know the majority of the 10 super clubs that Klopp is talking about, and Manchester City aren't even part of the group, no matter their wealth. 

Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Juventus, Bayern Munich, AC Milan — there won't be room for too many others after that lot grab their share. Paris Saint-Germain might get a pass but only because Qatar, through beIN Sports, own the game.

Newcastle, Wolves, Tottenham, Everton, Leicester, Leeds, Sunderland, Aston Villa — there is no room for them at this table. And the fact one or more might even hope or begin to emulate City is what terrifies the cabal.

Arsenal, with all their advantages, are ninth, Manchester United still outside the top four. If they do not qualify for the Champions League next season £25m of their deal with adidas is lost.

Damn right they have a vested interest in finding ways to bar City, or any new challenger. The richest clubs are operating, ever more nakedly, as a protectionist cartel. And that's what is bad for football.

 

 
 
For anyone interested. Samuel has followed up last nights article with this second piece. He doesn't hold back and certainly isn't toeing the party line like most of the media. He's very well researched on the subject at hand and has been since FFP was initially introduced. Sorry for linking the mail, its a shame that's who he works for. 
Link to post
Share on other sites

FFP should be used to stop teams spending money they don’t have. They shouldn’t be allowed to build up millions in debt to invest in their squad. Owners shouldn’t be able to loan their own club hundreds of millions to boost their ego. If you want to invest, invest. Real money, no smoke and mirrors. If you want to spend hundreds of millions on players, the wages should be ring fenced so clubs aren’t going bust left, right and centre. Uefa should be there to protect the clubs for the fans, not to pander to a small group of elite clubs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Zorro said:

FFP should be used to stop teams spending money they don’t have. They shouldn’t be allowed to build up millions in debt to invest in their squad. Owners shouldn’t be able to loan their own club hundreds of millions to boost their ego. If you want to invest, invest. Real money, no smoke and mirrors. If you want to spend hundreds of millions on players, the wages should be ring fenced so clubs aren’t going bust left, right and centre. Uefa should be there to protect the clubs for the fans, not to pander to a small group of elite clubs. 

Even Madrid were at it a few years ago, spending money they didn't have, racking up debts of just under 400million, and they then mysteriously sold some land for...... 400 million to... the then long of Spain who was.... an avid real Madrid fan.

FFP can never work unless its unilaterally applied accross all leagues and nations, and comes through FIFA.  That burden would probably make it too expensive to run.

It would also prevent someone like Jack Walker, or Dave Whelan investing in their home town clubs when they've made their money and want to build something Iver time, but need that huge injection of cash up front to get the boost the long term plan needs to kick-start it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Beaker71 said:

Even Madrid were at it a few years ago, spending money they didn't have, racking up debts of just under 400million, and they then mysteriously sold some land for...... 400 million to... the then long of Spain who was.... an avid real Madrid fan.

FFP can never work unless its unilaterally applied accross all leagues and nations, and comes through FIFA.  That burden would probably make it too expensive to run.

It would also prevent someone like Jack Walker, or Dave Whelan investing in their home town clubs when they've made their money and want to build something Iver time, but need that huge injection of cash up front to get the boost the long term plan needs to kick-start it.

Like I said in my post, I’ve no problem with someone injecting real money. My issue is with loans and unsustainable debt or racking up a wage bill you can’t cover.  If you’ve made your billions and want to spend them winning the champions league, great. It’s when teams like Gretna or rangers spend money they didn’t have, chasing a dream. If Dave or Miles bankrupt themselves, I have no issue with it, but no fan should face losing their club* because someone’s ego got out of control. 
 

 

* Special dispensation should be allowed for rangers because that was funny as f**k. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I agree with Zorro. We've seen Bury go out of business, the same thing almost happening to Bolton and other clubs and FFP has done nothing to prevent it from happening. Instead it's used to chase down owners who invest heavily in not just a club but the city as a whole, the infrastructure, the youth and women's side of the game and the rest of it. 

The only thing which City are guilty of is their softly softly approach with the media which have allowed lies and myths to be peddelled for a number of years, leading to no marks like Dave Kitson telling downright lies about how it was Man City who dragged their heels in a deliberate attempt to get a number of issues time barred. Very quick research tells him City had asked to get the case moved forward as quick as possible because they wanted to clear their name and get on with other issues at hand. But it brainwashes the public as its the popular narrative, and very few people have the balls to back down on their original stance or see it for what it is. It's too easy. 

I'm sure FFP will serve some sort of benefits to the game. But the entire investigation and charges from UEFA were nothing more than a witch hunt midst pressure from a whole host of clubs. 

I don't know where the end game is in all this. Reputational damage to Man City's name is probably just as big a success to UEFA and the cartel as anything else. Continually pressuring the authorities to tie them up in legal battles where they have to constantly defend themselves even though all parties involved know/suspect their innocence still isn't a good look for City - and I suspect they know what they're doing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zorro said:

Like I said in my post, I’ve no problem with someone injecting real money. My issue is with loans and unsustainable debt or racking up a wage bill you can’t cover.  If you’ve made your billions and want to spend them winning the champions league, great. It’s when teams like Gretna or rangers spend money they didn’t have, chasing a dream. If Dave or Miles bankrupt themselves, I have no issue with it, but no fan should face losing their club* because someone’s ego got out of control. 
 

 

* Special dispensation should be allowed for rangers because that was funny as f**k. 

Yes id agree, my point on the nadrid one, was that the whole thing stank of.."oh s**t weve run out of cash, and are in hock to the point we could lose the stadium, where can we get a spare half a billion from...."

There's no way the land was worth what was paid for it,  and it was no different from the city thing in reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man City currently have an average of £400 million sitting on the bench. 
 

The FA have confirmed 5 subs will be used next season. So if you are one of the bottom sides holding onto a 1-0 lead.... good luck. 

Of course, this won’t help citeh at all and I’m just paranoid, eh? Corrupt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

Man City currently have an average of £400 million sitting on the bench. 
 

The FA have confirmed 5 subs will be used next season. So if you are one of the bottom sides holding onto a 1-0 lead.... good luck. 

Of course, this won’t help citeh at all and I’m just paranoid, eh? Corrupt.

You’re gonna have to explain your logic here. Anyone who understands football and is familiar with City’s style of play would conclude five subs disadvantages teams like City. Defending against teams who enjoy a high percentage of possession is physically and mentally draining. Tired players make mistakes and teams like City capitalise on this.  However if you can replace half your tired outfield players, a lot of this advantage can be negated.
 

City will still win the league though. Liverpool are in decline. It’ll be between Liverpool and Arsenal for that fourth Champions league place for 21/22 season. That’s why they’re both so keen to get City banned. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Beaker71 said:

Yes id agree, my point on the nadrid one, was that the whole thing stank of.."oh s**t weve run out of cash, and are in hock to the point we could lose the stadium, where can we get a spare half a billion from...."

There's no way the land was worth what was paid for it,  and it was no different from the city thing in reality.

Madrid training complex that was sold was in a green belt area that couldn’t be developed but the council/government changed the rules to suit the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zorro said:

You’re gonna have to explain your logic here. Anyone who understands football and is familiar with City’s style of play would conclude five subs disadvantages teams like City. Defending against teams who enjoy a high percentage of possession is physically and mentally draining. Tired players make mistakes and teams like City capitalise on this.  However if you can replace half your tired outfield players, a lot of this advantage can be negated.
 

City will still win the league though. Liverpool are in decline. It’ll be between Liverpool and Arsenal for that fourth Champions league place for 21/22 season. That’s why they’re both so keen to get City banned. 

Explain how Liverpool are in decline after winning the league? 
 

You really are a troll of the highest order. 
 

Can’t even be arsed arguing with you anymore. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guff92 said:

Man City currently have an average of £400 million sitting on the bench. 
 

The FA have confirmed 5 subs will be used next season. So if you are one of the bottom sides holding onto a 1-0 lead.... good luck. 

Of course, this won’t help citeh at all and I’m just paranoid, eh? Corrupt.

What on God's earth are you actually on about? The FA have done all this just to help Man City? You're not being paranoid, you're being an idiot.

What happens if one of the bottom 5 teams are holding on to a lead vs Liverpool? Are Liverpool not allowed to make 5 subs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dieter's Heeder said:

What on God's earth are you actually on about? The FA have done all this just to help Man City? You're not being paranoid, you're being an idiot.

What happens if one of the bottom 5 teams are holding on to a lead vs Liverpool? Are Liverpool not allowed to make 5 subs?

Sorry, should have made it more clear. It benefits all the elite clubs, but mostly Man City. 
 

It was partially a joke but with some truth. Apologies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dieter's Heeder said:

And apologies for biting...

General consensus amongst the ex pros is this is a bad move.  
 

City/Liverpool argument aside I’m with them on this one. As much as it pained me watching Watford hammer us 3-0, those sort of results probably won’t happen with this new setup. I agree with zorro that it gives the lesser teams the chance to bring 5 sets of fresh legs to chase down the high intensity of the top two sides but I still think it’s a bad idea. Why change it now? They should be busy trying to train the refs on how to use VAR properly. More subs are the least of their worries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

Explain how Liverpool are in decline after winning the league? 

 

One trophy (especially the least prestigious) is less than two. Do you see how that works?

50 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

You really are a troll of the highest order. 
 

Can’t even be arsed arguing with you anymore. 

I’ve been discussing Liverpool’s snidyness and highlighting their hypocrisy. I didn’t realise you thought you were arguing. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zorro said:

One trophy (especially the least prestigious) is less than two. Do you see how that works?

I’ve been discussing Liverpool’s snidyness and highlighting their hypocrisy. I didn’t realise you thought you were arguing. 
 

 

Less prestigious? 
 

Your trying to tell me that the current world/European/England champions are in decline. Average age of the starting 11 is 26. Sorry, but I can’t argue, I mean discuss with someone so fickle. Especially considering you said you don’t even follow English football. Weird.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Guff92 said:

Less prestigious? 
 

Your trying to tell me that the current world/European/England champions are in decline. Average age of the starting 11 is 26. Sorry, but I can’t argue, I mean discuss with someone so fickle. Especially considering you said you don’t even follow English football. Weird.

No I’m telling you that because you can’t win the Champions league or World club championship this season and had to settle for the lesser English league title, Liverpool are in decline. They remind me of Man Utd in Fergie’s last season. 

Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.



×