Man City Escape Ban From Champions League

[MUFC]

Tottenham manager Jose Mourinho has now speaking to the media and has also been asked about Manchester City's European ban being overturned.

"It's a disgraceful decision because if City are not guilty of it then you are not punished with 10 million (euros)," he said.

"If you're not guilty you shouldn't have a fine. If they are guilty the decision is also a disgrace and you should be banned from the competition.

"I don't know if Manchester City are guilty or not but either way it's a disgraceful decision."

[Happy Blue]

4 minutes ago, MUFC said:

Tottenham manager Jose Mourinho has now speaking to the media and has also been asked about Manchester City's European ban being overturned.

"It's a disgraceful decision because if City are not guilty of it then you are not punished with 10 million (euros)," he said.

"If you're not guilty you shouldn't have a fine. If they are guilty the decision is also a disgrace and you should be banned from the competition.

"I don't know if Manchester City are guilty or not but either way it's a disgraceful decision."

The fine was for telling them to get fucked and not cooperating with them, the court ruled we did not break any FFP rules

[DeadLinesman]

19 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

Wasn't any evidence that would of stood up anyway only "planted" emails by UEFA that they then paid someone to hack   

And that’s why you refused to co-operate.......

[DeadLinesman]

8 hours ago, Amehh said:

I don't even know why I bothered to read this thread because I knew all I would find is a load of vitirol and personal insults directed towards City fans as opposed to balanced arguments. Comparing this to a rape trial is a personal favourite of mine (prior to reading this thread the front runner was Ewan MacKenna comparing the case to that of the OJ Simpson murder trial). 

Let's get a few things clear. Contrary to what most of you want to believe, many of the alleged FFP breaches were actually found to be 'not established'. We'll have more information of course when the full report is released.

People are right to comment on the fact that some of the allegations were also 'time-barred'. Again, I am presuming we will have more of the particulars when the full report is released. But I'd like to know why no one is asking why UEFA - who SET the rules and therefore should have a thorough understanding of the time limitations on cases - continued to pursue the matter? As the rule-creators surely they were aware that the issues/evidence they were perusing were time-barred, yet proceeded to ban us from the Champions League? To me it reeks of either ineptitude or a bit of a witch-hunt (that they thought they would get away with). Probably a mix of both. As Graeme Souness quite rightly pointed out a few months back, UEFA aren't exactly a beacon of morality and good practice.

It should also be clarified that, while the report states that we  'contravened article 56 of club licensing and financial fair play regulations', this does not actually mean that we broke FFP regulations. If you do a bit of research you will find that this section of the article refers to the requirement to cooperate with UEFA in the event of an investigation regarding FFP. I feel that the way it has been worded has mis-lead people into believing it is an admission of breaking FFP rules, it is not. While I do not dispute there are a number of potential reasons we did not cooperate with the investigation, it's very feasible that we told UEFA to get lost because they had already decided we were guilty.

What has surprised me most about this entire case is the response from other fans who a) foolishly believe that their own clubs have not, at some point, broken FFP rules and b) were thrilled to have City investigated by an independent sport regulatory body, yet have thrown their toys out of the pram because they haven't got the result they wanted. 

As it stands, football is one of the only businesses in the world where investors cannot invest their own money to build their business. It is a crazy concept to me given that the 'European Giants' are all founded on strong financial backings that have allowed them to attract the best (most expensive) players, build the biggest stadiums, fund the best marketing strategies etc..

Personally, I'd be over the moon if every football club in the league had strong investors like us. Imagine the competition. We really did hit the jackpot that day 12 years ago, and I have enjoyed every minute since. But I really am getting fed up with the nastiness directed at us personally, as fans, for enjoying the successes of our football club. 

The rape trial is pure banter between me and @Happy Blue with regards to evidence and a ‘statute of limitations’ approach. It really shouldn’t be taken seriously. You’re also one of the extreme few Manchester City fans that can be taken seriously. Just look at some the shite the new lad posts and you’ll instantly see what I mean.  
 

My biggest bugbear is that as a club, you’ve genuinely become what you always professed to hate. The amount of vitriol that was always pointed to United for being rich and successful, and yet it was instantly forgotten 12 years ago. Surely you can see that? Again, social media is the dangerous tipping point when it comes to all these points of view. You get the extremes on both sides.

[Burning Gold]

Think I've said it before, but I'm not that upset about the FFP thing. I probably should be, but I'm not. Football's been imbalanced by money for years. From a Liverpool perspective, it makes our lives harder, but we haven't dined at the very top table for decades and yet we are where we are.

What I find incredibly disturbing is the way people are willing to talk about Manchester City as if they're just another football club, as if breaking FFP rules (allegedly) is their biggest sin. The only reason they exist in their current guise is because some a brutal dictatorship decided they needed better PR in the west to "sportswash" their rampant human rights abuses. Every penny they have spent at Man City has been with that goal in mind. Everything - from the stylish, successful football to the impressive facilities and investment in both the men's and women's side - comes directly from that. It's absolutely fucking revolting and it has zero to do with FFP

[Cicero]

Every club is guilty in tampering the market. Be it first hand or second hand. It's football and there is so much money in it now. 

PSG buy Neymar for nearly 200 million. 

Barca buy Coutinho for 130 million. 

Liverpool then in turn buy VVD for 75 million, now setting the standard of what an elite CB costs now. 

[DeadLinesman]

Just now, Cicero said:

Every club is guilty in tampering the market. Be it first hand or second hand. It's football and there is so much money in it now. 

PSG buy Neymar for nearly 200 million. 

Barca buy Coutinho for 130 million. 

Liverpool then in turn buy VVD for 75 million, now setting the standard of what an elite CB costs nowadays. 

Then we bought Maguire for £80+

Fuck you PSG. You caused this.

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

The fine was for telling them to get fucked and not cooperating with them, the court ruled we did not break any FFP rules

How can the court say you didn't break FFP rules if you didn't cooperate with the investigation?

[Mel81x+]

City's escape from FFP was always going to be the case that UEFA had to try it because who wants to lose face when you've already sanctioned other teams and can you imagine the number of lawsuits they'd have to incur had they turned a blind eye? Its not like any of the teams they did sanction couldn't take them to court but this little loophole of 'time-based' now saves their skin and lets Man City go free with a 10m slap on the wrist. As if one of the most corrupt bodies in sport doesn't have the best lawyers to give them all this information and not seek council with CAS about the impending disaster of letting the case drag on. 

[Happy Blue]

2 hours ago, DeadLinesman said:

And that’s why you refused to co-operate.......

If someone was trying to fuck you in the arse would you bend over for them? ..infact, don't answer that 

[Happy Blue]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

How can the court say you didn't break FFP rules if you didn't cooperate with the investigation?

On the evidence the court would expect, that was the ruling  ..we didn't hire the best legal team for nothing ..if we did or didn't doesnt matter, like I said from the start they won't be able to prove anything in a court of law 

[DeadLinesman]

4 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

If someone was trying to fuck you in the arse would you bend over for them? ..infact, don't answer that 

Well...............

[Dr. Gonzo]

Klopp on City's CL ban being lifted: "I am happy that City can play Champions League next year, if they had 10 or 12 less games to play next season I wouldn't see any chance for anyone else in the league." 

10-12 games... is CL quarter-finals or semis. Subtle talking shite right there from Kloppo 

[Happy Blue]

22 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Klopp on City's CL ban being lifted: "I am happy that City can play Champions League next year, if they had 10 or 12 less games to play next season I wouldn't see any chance for anyone else in the league." 

10-12 games... is CL quarter-finals or semis. Subtle talking shite right there from Kloppo 

He just cant count bless him

[MUFC]

16 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

If someone was trying to fuck you in the arse would you bend over for them? ..infact, don't answer that 

[Stan]

I know UEFA didn't object but this doesn't look dodgy at all

Quote

 

The Cas judgment also contains the extraordinary revelation that the panel’s chairman, Rui Botica Santos, a Portuguese lawyer, was recommended by City. Cas rules for appeals state that each party chooses one arbitrator, then the chairman is selected by the chairman of Cas’s own appeals arbitration division. No explanation has yet been given for why City suggested the chairman for this case, although the judgment notes that Uefa did not object.

Some European sports lawyers, speaking to the Guardian, have questioned the independence of the panel member nominated by City, Andrew McDougall QC, a partner in the international law firm White and Case. McDougall was chair of his firm’s operations council for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, from 2016-2018, which includes an office in Abu Dhabi. That office lists Etisalat as a client, and the Abu Dhabi airline Etihad, whose sponsorships were also central to the case, as well as several Abu Dhabi state enterprises.

The Cas rules state that “arbitrators must be independent, [having] no particular connection with any of the parties”. There is no suggestion of actual bias on the part of either of City’s nominated arbitrators.

City’s position is understood to be that McDougall himself has not acted for those Abu Dhabi companies although his firm has, and that the club’s hierarchy recommended him because of his strong reputation as a lawyer. Uefa did not respond to a question about whether it raised any objection to McDougall’s appointment. McDougall declined to respond to questions from the Guardian about whether he had an apparent conflict of interest in sitting on the case

 

 

[The Liquidator]

Well fancy that... New Manchester City emails released by Spiegel. Some are saying these prove City, Simon Pearce, someone CAS said was a reliable witness, actually lied to CAS.

https://t.co/yWlsK9dGKg?amp=1

Who knows... With the 5 year rule these emails have matured far too quickly.