February 16, 20205 yr Why stop there? Send them back to Div 2 as well. [emoji4]I mean didnt that happen to rangers,juventus...see if english fa has the balls
February 16, 20205 yr 9 hours ago, Bone3421 said: 13 hours ago, LonghornJudas said: Why stop there? Send them back to Div 2 as well. I mean didnt that happen to rangers,juventus...see if english fa has the balls Yeah. Not only that, they made Juventus take a -30 point deduction to start that season, too. Lazio and Fiorentina also got sent down, with -7 and -12 point deduction.
February 16, 20205 yr City are reportedly going to use Juventus' and PSG' finances as evidence that they're being singled out. https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2020/02/16/manchester-city-champions-league-ban-uefa-psg-juventus-bayern-munich/
February 16, 20205 yr Author Hope they all get punished. Juventus’ Jeep sponsorship is a joke as is just about every sponsorship PSG/Qatar have.
February 17, 20205 yr So if the ban holds, and City: a) comes in 4th or higher, b) wins the FA Cup, and 3) wins the League Cup, does it look like this? 1. Champions League 2. Disqualified 3. Champions League 4. Champions League 5. Champions League 6. Europa League 7. Europa League 8. Europa League Edited February 17, 20205 yr by yoladu
February 19, 20205 yr Author https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/18/manchester-city-could-face-new-uefa-investigation-into-abu-dhabi-sponsors-football?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1582096045 Manchester City could face further investigations by Uefa’s financial fair play compliance body into the level of Abu Dhabi sponsorships they declared for the years since 2016, in light of the finding that they overstated their sponsorship for the four previous years from 2012. City were banned from competing in the Champions League for two years and fined €30m (£25m) last Friday for the “very serious breach” found by Uefa’s club financial control body (CFCB), of overstating the sponsorships, principally from the Abu Dhabi state airline Etihad. The investigation by the CFCB’s investigatory chamber (IC), followed by hearings and conclusions reached by the adjudicatory chamber were based on internal City emails published by the German magazine Der Spiegel, which only covered the 2012-16 period
February 19, 20205 yr Watching SkySports News and the NBCSN pregame show, I'm shocked at how much the English media seems to suck City's dick. They're acting like UEFA is treating poor little old City unfairly. Twats.
February 19, 20205 yr Author It’s like the celebrities endorsing Bloomberg. You should have to wear an outfit like a nascar driver that tells everyone who is writing the checks.
February 19, 20205 yr The rules are dumb but they're the rules. As long as everyone is treated the same I'm not gonna complain.
February 19, 20205 yr On 2/15/2020 at 6:04 PM, maninblack said: This would be unprecedented Liverpool can haz two EPL titles this spring?
February 19, 20205 yr Author 17 minutes ago, Huckleberry said: The rules are dumb but they're the rules. As long as everyone is treated the same I'm not gonna complain. Respect. You said this in the 18-19 thread and you’re saying it here. I do think PSG and Juve need to have a deep dive into their books. I also agree with FFP in principle. Everything is great when an oligarch is writing checks until they decide to walk away and the club goes down the shitter. https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2013/dec/11/anzhi-makhachkala-kerimov-dagestan-withdrew-funding-trophies
February 19, 20205 yr I can see that line of thought but when the oligarch walks away the new administration can sell off assets, including players, to reach financial stability. There's no guarantee that a great club will stay great forever, and that's what they seem to be trying to do. Well, other than the old guard protecting the old guard, of course.
February 19, 20205 yr 13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said: I can see that line of thought but when the oligarch walks away the new administration can sell off assets, including players, to reach financial stability. There's no guarantee that a great club will stay great forever, and that's what they seem to be trying to do. Well, other than the old guard protecting the old guard, of course. Leeds, Blackburn, Bolton, etc. Edited February 19, 20205 yr by Schulz2.0
February 19, 20205 yr Yes, and? Leeds took out loans they couldn't repay, so that's immediately irrelevant. I don't understand the Blackburn reference, I specifically stated that there shouldn't be any guarantee that good clubs stay good. Bolton also took out loans they couldn't repay.
February 19, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, Huckleberry said: Yes, and? Leeds took out loans they couldn't repay, so that's immediately irrelevant. I don't understand the Blackburn reference, I specifically stated that there shouldn't be any guarantee that good clubs stay good. Bolton also took out loans they couldn't repay. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47691385 So you don't think clubs like City or PSG significantly raising the costs of doing business has no effect on other clubs? Both cheated their asses off and should be punished. UEFA screwed the pooch by not punishing PSG when they were investigated which may let City off the hook. City winning their appeal to the CAS might be a win for City but it would be a massive loss to everyone else in the sport. Parity, or at least the appearance of parity, is important.
February 19, 20205 yr No it's not, that's just a ridiculous thing to say about club soccer in Europe. When has parity ever mattered? Each major league has been absolutely dominated by a small number of clubs in recent decades. That's just a really weird take. This isn't about parity in any way whatsoever. In fact, it's anti-parity. It actively prevents club owners from investing in their clubs to improve them ahead of revenue increases.
February 24, 20205 yr No it's not, that's just a ridiculous thing to say about club soccer in Europe. When has parity ever mattered? Each major league has been absolutely dominated by a small number of clubs in recent decades. That's just a really weird take. This isn't about parity in any way whatsoever. In fact, it's anti-parity. It actively prevents club owners from investing in their clubs to improve them ahead of revenue increases.Agree. If you want parity, institute a salary cap.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.