Man City 2 Year UEFA Competition ban

[TigerTedd]

40 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I don't like this.

It has all come about as a result of a German Magazine obtaining hacked emails and publishing a story.

I hope the magazine has been punished for their part in this, if there was wrong doing on Man City's part it should not have taken the actions of a third party (publishing a story obtained as a result of an illegal act) to bring it to light, a bit like our situation which is clearly as a result of Gibson making a complaint.

You have the likes of Platini moaning about clubs gaining a competitive advantage from having rich owners, when what he really means is 'we dont like other clubs coming along and threatening the 'elite' clubs'

Its all about attempting to maintain the status quo.

I do like the fact that Sheff Utd could benefit, its sort of good karma after the debacle with West Ham, but I hope Man City appeal and win the appeal.

Surely the appeal has to happen soon though, they can't do it once the season is over as thats not fair on other clubs.

 

 

How would they win the appeal though. No matter how the evidence was gained, the fact is it’s out there now, and they don’t really have a defence for it, so they. It’s Footballs version of saracens. 

[Sith Happens]

13 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

How would they win the appeal though. No matter how the evidence was gained, the fact is it’s out there now, and they don’t really have a defence for it, so they. It’s Footballs version of saracens. 

Yeah you have a good point.

My hope would be the case is thrown out because of the process involved in obtaining evidence. It wont be you are right, but both UEFA and the Premier League need to take a good look at themselves in this and decide if their processes are robust enough if it relies on someone committing an illegal act to bring it to light.

My view is they, a bit like the EFL with us, should have took it on the chin and said its our mistake, we have signed off on these accounts without making the appropriate checks to ensure their authenticity or accuracy.

By taking the action they have they are essentially condoning acts such as hacking into people private data. What else are they prepared to endorse?

I suppose some of it with me is also that I totally disagree with FFP. Fine to have a system which prevents situations like Portsmouth, Leicester, Rangers and so on, but if a rich owner has to bend the rules so that he can pump in his own money without the expectation of repayment then something is very wrong...my opinion of course.

None of it makes sense, they haven't a clue what they are doing. If its severe enough to ban them from European competition it should start immediately, how is it right that City could easily win the Champions League this season in these circumstances. All they are doing by issuing a ban is trying to appease clubs like Real Madrid.

How can it be right that the likes of Real Madrid received illegal state funding not so many years ago with no such punishment?

 

 

[Mucker1884]

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

I don't like this.

It has all come about as a result of a German Magazine obtaining hacked emails and publishing a story.

I hope the magazine has been punished for their part in this, if there was wrong doing on Man City's part it should not have taken the actions of a third party (publishing a story obtained as a result of an illegal act) to bring it to light, a bit like our situation which is clearly as a result of Gibson making a complaint.

You have the likes of Platini moaning about clubs gaining a competitive advantage from having rich owners, when what he really means is 'we dont like other clubs coming along and threatening the 'elite' clubs'

Its all about attempting to maintain the status quo.

I do like the fact that Sheff Utd could benefit, its sort of good karma after the debacle with West Ham, but I hope Man City appeal and win the appeal.

Surely the appeal has to happen soon though, they can't do it once the season is over as thats not fair on other clubs.

 

 

You know that bit (highlighted) is not true. 

Gibson has effectively gone to The EFL and asked them to look into the matter, and subsequently act on their findings.  There is no evidence to suggest he has fired a load of private (and illegally obtained) DCFC Emails over to them, and said "Look what I've found"!

I'm surprised at you, @Paul71.  Not your usual standard!  I will put you on ignore for a full 20 mins, as a sign of my disappointment in you.  

[RadioactiveWaste]

54 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

How would they win the appeal though. No matter how the evidence was gained, the fact is it’s out there now, and they don’t really have a defence for it, so they. It’s Footballs version of saracens. 

I think in legal terms it's "The fruit of the poisoned tree" - although that's based on my watching tv not on my actually knowing! No idea if that's a thing in this context.

 

[Sith Happens]

14 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

You know that bit (highlighted) is not true. 

Gibson has effectively gone to The EFL and asked them to look into the matter, and subsequently act on their findings.  There is no evidence to suggest he has fired a load of private (and illegally obtained) DCFC Emails over to them, and said "Look what I've found"!

I'm surprised at you, @Paul71.  Not your usual standard!  I will put you on ignore for a full 20 mins, as a sign of my disappointment in you.  

Not suggesting that is what he has done, merely that it took the action of a third party, in our case Gibson, to force the EFL's hand.

[Mucker1884]

7 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Not suggesting that is what he has done, merely that it took the action of a third party, in our case Gibson, to force the EFL's hand.

Reading back, your mention of illegal acts is bracketed, and your Gibson comment refers to the wording prior to the brackets.

I can only offer my sincere apology for my lack of concentration and subsequent misunderstanding of your comments.
I will also beg you forgiveness for erroneously (and regretfully) putting you on ignore for 20 minutes.

I have also instructed my solicitors to cancel my earlier request for libel proceedings to begin.  No doubt I'll still get a bill for that!

 

So... mate... how we doing?  Had a good week?  Family ok?  We really must get together some time.  My round... etc, etc...

 

 

[Sith Happens]

5 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Reading back, your mention of illegal acts is bracketed, and your Gibson comment refers to the wording prior to the brackets.

I can only offer my sincere apology for my lack of concentration and subsequent misunderstanding of your comments.
I will also beg you forgiveness for erroneously (and regretfully) putting you on ignore for 20 minutes.

I have also instructed my solicitors to cancel my earlier request for libel proceedings to begin.  No doubt I'll still get a bill for that!

 

So... mate... how we doing?  Had a good week?  Family ok?  We really must get together some time.  My round... etc, etc...

 

 

To be honest what i should have done is left it, and only responded in 2025 when someone belatedly reviewing posts on here pointed out your mistake ?

 

[Mucker1884]

4 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

To be honest what i should have done is left it, and only responded in 2025 when someone belatedly reviewing posts on here pointed out your mistake ?

 

Well, it would most certainly have been a rare find!  My last mistake was in 1982... but thankfully I more than amended for that, when choosing my second wife!  ?? 

[Sith Happens]

Just now, Mucker1884 said:

Well, it would most certainly have been a rare find!  My last mistake was in 1982... but thankfully I more than amended for that, when choosing my second wife!  ?? 

My last mistake was last night when after 6 weeks alcohol free i thought it was a good idea to take the wife into revolution after our valentines meal for extra drinks......sore heads all round.

[Tyler Durden]

5 hours ago, Paul71 said:

I don't like this.

It has all come about as a result of a German Magazine obtaining hacked emails and publishing a story.

I hope the magazine has been punished for their part in this, if there was wrong doing on Man City's part it should not have taken the actions of a third party (publishing a story obtained as a result of an illegal act) to bring it to light, a bit like our situation which is clearly as a result of Gibson making a complaint.

You have the likes of Platini moaning about clubs gaining a competitive advantage from having rich owners, when what he really means is 'we dont like other clubs coming along and threatening the 'elite' clubs'

Its all about attempting to maintain the status quo.

I do like the fact that Sheff Utd could benefit, its sort of good karma after the debacle with West Ham, but I hope Man City appeal and win the appeal.

Surely the appeal has to happen soon though, they can't do it once the season is over as thats not fair on other clubs.

 

 

Yes but if the information garnered isn't deemed inadmissible as evidence then it's therefore an irrelevance how it was gained. If the ends are lawful then the means are also lawful. 

If they did wrong then they deserve all the punishment that comes their way 

I also have read interesting articles debating on the posthumous viewing of the Premiership league titles that they have "won" if they are found guilty of cheating 

[CWC1983]

We used to have a thread about City didnt we? 

If I remember correctly, the start of the investigation and the Spiegel leaks was talked about on there.

If you read some journalists today then they have all said that this was coming and City havnt helped their own case at all during the investigation. 

I think Milan are currently serving a similar ban from European competition. 

[Ambitious]

In my opinion, UEFA simply don't want smaller teams upsetting the applecart and getting in the way of their earning potential. Historically good teams have amassed huge fan bases throughout the world, Man City are a medium sized club from the UK wanted to mix it with the big boys and spent the money to do so. 

FFP was bought in to protect owners running up huge debts and leaving the club in the mire? Man City's owners have invested in that club to ensure that the infrastructure would support a long-lasting successful club at the very elite level. They've been exemplary owners. 

This punishment serves to punish the very thing FFP is meant to protect - the fans. If you look at the likely scenario: The players/management leave to join these 'historically' big clubs that earn UEFA the most money. They aren't punished. The owners are hog-tied from making any real difference, perhaps lose sight and look to sell the club on the cheap? I doubt that would be a quick process so ultimately the funds dry up in the meantime. The club is much better placed than when they took over, but the constant red tape underlines that the governing body of football see a hierarchy. 

The best and fairest way of financial fair play is a wage cap - it doesn't take a genius to work out why they will never put one in place, instead opting for a structure that benefits the historically big clubs. 

[Tyler Durden]

It's obvious that Man City will just use deliberate stalling tactics to appeal the decision which will then take years and years of wrangling with lawyers in the probability that at some point UEFA will become inclined to water down the original judgement.

I'd be amazed if City weren't playing in Europe next season or the year after assuming that they finish in a Top 4 spot each year. 

[ramsbottom]

On 15/02/2020 at 14:31, CWC1983 said:

 

If you read some journalists today then they have all said that this was coming and City havnt helped their own case at all during the investigation. 

I think Milan are currently serving a similar ban from European competition. 

I've read a couple of stories saying the same.  They think they're untouchable, which will probably stoke UEFA's fire even more.

On 17/02/2020 at 08:13, Ambitious said:

In my opinion, UEFA simply don't want smaller teams upsetting the applecart and getting in the way of their earning potential. Historically good teams have amassed huge fan bases throughout the world, Man City are a medium sized club from the UK wanted to mix it with the big boys and spent the money to do so. 

FFP was bought in to protect owners running up huge debts and leaving the club in the mire? Man City's owners have invested in that club to ensure that the infrastructure would support a long-lasting successful club at the very elite level. They've been exemplary owners. 

This punishment serves to punish the very thing FFP is meant to protect - the fans. If you look at the likely scenario: The players/management leave to join these 'historically' big clubs that earn UEFA the most money. They aren't punished. The owners are hog-tied from making any real difference, perhaps lose sight and look to sell the club on the cheap? I doubt that would be a quick process so ultimately the funds dry up in the meantime. The club is much better placed than when they took over, but the constant red tape underlines that the governing body of football see a hierarchy. 

The best and fairest way of financial fair play is a wage cap - it doesn't take a genius to work out why they will never put one in place, instead opting for a structure that benefits the historically big clubs. 

I don't get this theory.  More popular teams means more viewers, means more sponsorship, means more money for UEFA.  If the Etihad sponsorship deal had actually been payed for by Etihad, they'd be no problem.  But they cheated, and tried to hide it, therefore they must be punished.

Technically speaking, shouldn't the Premier League be looking into this as well, considering that their practices have more than likely breached their FFP rules as well??

[Sith Happens]

4 hours ago, ramsbottom said:

I've read a couple of stories saying the same.  They think they're untouchable, which will probably stoke UEFA's fire even more.

I don't get this theory.  More popular teams means more viewers, means more sponsorship, means more money for UEFA.  If the Etihad sponsorship deal had actually been payed for by Etihad, they'd be no problem.  But they cheated, and tried to hide it, therefore they must be punished.

Technically speaking, shouldn't the Premier League be looking into this as well, considering that their practices have more than likely breached their FFP rules as well??

You are right of course if the current rules have been broken then they should be punished. 

A lot of peoples issue is the fact that clubs are having to break/bend rules to stay within FFP. 

[Sith Happens]

On 15/02/2020 at 13:14, Tyler Durden said:

Yes but if the information garnered isn't deemed inadmissible as evidence then it's therefore an irrelevance how it was gained. If the ends are lawful then the means are also lawful. 

If they did wrong then they deserve all the punishment that comes their way 

I also have read interesting articles debating on the posthumous viewing of the Premiership league titles that they have "won" if they are found guilty of cheating 

You are right i am sure, but it doesn't sit well with me when one of the largest organisations in the world condones criminal activities, which they are doing by accepting evidence gained this way.

 

[MuespachRam]

They won’t get the 2 year ban. 
the best thing that could happen would be that they do get the ban, win the Champions league this season, then refuse to collect the trophy..

oh and to make It even more perfect, take the titles off them too, so the victims win It under Brendan Rogers..! Ha ha 

 

[Tyler Durden]

5 hours ago, Paul71 said:

You are right i am sure, but it doesn't sit well with me when one of the largest organisations in the world condones criminal activities, which they are doing by accepting evidence gained this way.

 

I don't think they are condoning it as that would imply they were complicit with the leaking of the information.

Now that the information is in the public domain then UEFA needs to progress it's content. Manchester City are responsible for progressing an investigation to ascertain how the information came to be leaked if they so wish, not UEFA

[AndyinLiverpool]

On 15/02/2020 at 07:55, Paul71 said:

I don't like this.

It has all come about as a result of a German Magazine obtaining hacked emails and publishing a story.

I hope the magazine has been punished for their part in this, if there was wrong doing on Man City's part it should not have taken the actions of a third party (publishing a story obtained as a result of an illegal act) to bring it to light, a bit like our situation which is clearly as a result of Gibson making a complaint.

You have the likes of Platini moaning about clubs gaining a competitive advantage from having rich owners, when what he really means is 'we dont like other clubs coming along and threatening the 'elite' clubs'

Its all about attempting to maintain the status quo.

I do like the fact that Sheff Utd could benefit, its sort of good karma after the debacle with West Ham, but I hope Man City appeal and win the appeal.

Surely the appeal has to happen soon though, they can't do it once the season is over as thats not fair on other clubs.

 

 

Why should the magazine be punished? If wrongdoing can be uncovered, should it not be?

If it takes an illegal act to collect evidence, so be it. The editorial team have to weigh up the benefits and costs of such an action. 

We can't ignore a situation because it was uncovered illegally. Incompetent or complicit authorities are no reason to keep things quiet. Should they have just let Richard Nixon carry on as president? Just ignore the Panama papers?

[Gaspode]

Ban overturned - replaced with a fine....not sure where that leaves FFP for the bigger clubs or whether UEFA have simply made a bigs ear of things in this case....