They would just pay them their CL bonuses and everyone will be happy.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
They would just pay them their CL bonuses and everyone will be happy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not really, some players actually want a shot at the big one, being denied 2 years of a short career i think some will want out.
Problem with City is that the squad is getting on a bit.
KDB is obvious. End of last season Bernado was the one who looked a player but this season I think he has struggled playing with KDB.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
They would just pay them their CL bonuses and everyone will be happy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not really, some players actually want a shot at the big one, being denied 2 years of a short career i think some will want out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that were true they wouldn’t have joined City in the first place.
comment by *(K̇ash) I'm the Mané - 6 Times Baby (U1108)
posted 14 minutes ago
Problem with City is that the squad is getting on a bit.
KDB is obvious. End of last season Bernado was the one who looked a player but this season I think he has struggled playing with KDB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He started off fine, his drop off coincided with the Mendy tweet storm and I think that took him a while mentally to deal with. It's that coupled with a some tactical tweaks that haven't quite worked for him yet.
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by *(K̇ash) I'm the Mané - 6 Times Baby (U1108)
posted 14 minutes ago
Problem with City is that the squad is getting on a bit.
KDB is obvious. End of last season Bernado was the one who looked a player but this season I think he has struggled playing with KDB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He started off fine, his drop off coincided with the Mendy tweet storm and I think that took him a while mentally to deal with. It's that coupled with a some tactical tweaks that haven't quite worked for him yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Mahrez’s form has been much better this season, so it’s been harder to get that spot on the right.
the reality for city if this were to occur is not that bad.
Nobody can really afford the players after the Co-vid stuff.
aka Real, Barca, juve.
KDb would be horrendously expensive to anyone even on a loan.
Aguero wouldn't be a problem imo. he would be as well staying.
nobody would want sterling at the top clubs imo.
Jesus would just want a transfer.
Mahrez could go to PSG.
After that you start to really struggle for city players to be in demand.
I personally think B.Silva is top top player.
If you look at city's best 11 today:
Ederson
walker fernandinho laporte zinchenko
B.Silva Rodri KBD
Mahrez Aguero Sterling
Theres only really 3 players there that clubs would queue up for now KBD, B.Silva and Laporte. The rest are very good players but clubs in the CL already have people like sterling who can miss the target, or like rodri who falters to deceive
CIty have a great team and while its a bit unbalanced this season its nothing that 500mil is spending won't fix... again.
"Could you imagine the balls he’d slip in for Sadio and Mo!"
I overlooked the word "for" in that sentence. Was about to ask what you were suggesting.
Also, if the banis upheld then there is a fair chance that the premier league will also find them guilty of breaching their financial regulations between 2013 and 2016.
We might see the 2014 PL with an asterix wind up in our cabinet with the 2020 PL with an asterix. Would be fun.
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But arent they saying you cant declare it as its basically a very large brown paper bag from your owner?
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But arent they saying you cant declare it as its basically a very large brown paper bag from your owner?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is where it gets a bit messy!
The accusation is around misleading UEFA because the money didn't directly come from Etihad (in the 2013-14 season). Uefa have assessed the deal for market value so the amount is fine, it's where it came from that's the issue.
There is no accusation that it happened in any other season or that it can't be declared.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But arent they saying you cant declare it as its basically a very large brown paper bag from your owner?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is where it gets a bit messy!
The accusation is around misleading UEFA because the money didn't directly come from Etihad (in the 2013-14 season). Uefa have assessed the deal for market value so the amount is fine, it's where it came from that's the issue.
There is no accusation that it happened in any other season or that it can't be declared.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so where did the money come from?
Allegedly, directly from Mansours private equity company rather than from Etihad.
It is worth saying Etihad have denied that too btw.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 25 seconds ago
Allegedly, directly from Mansours private equity company rather than from Etihad.
It is worth saying Etihad have denied that too btw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said a big brown envelope
As a Chelsea supporter if seen UEFA try and stitch up us over the Kakuta situation and CAS found us not guilty and then FIFA tried it over the signing over minors, again CAS came to our rescue. I do wonder if they would of overturned both transfer window bans if we hadnt already served the 1st one.
I dont believe anything UEFA say but to me it looks like a 2 year ban on the basis they always knew it would be reduced to one.
I wasn’t questioning that bit though, I was questing it not being able to be declared, particularly now.
On the outcome, I really have no idea. There’s not enough in the public domain to really know and I don’t have full trust in either!
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But arent they saying you cant declare it as its basically a very large brown paper bag from your owner?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is where it gets a bit messy!
The accusation is around misleading UEFA because the money didn't directly come from Etihad (in the 2013-14 season). Uefa have assessed the deal for market value so the amount is fine, it's where it came from that's the issue.
There is no accusation that it happened in any other season or that it can't be declared.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so where did the money come from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The money came from Etihad. Unless it was omitted from their annual accounts.
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But arent they saying you cant declare it as its basically a very large brown paper bag from your owner?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is where it gets a bit messy!
The accusation is around misleading UEFA because the money didn't directly come from Etihad (in the 2013-14 season). Uefa have assessed the deal for market value so the amount is fine, it's where it came from that's the issue.
There is no accusation that it happened in any other season or that it can't be declared.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so where did the money come from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The money came from Etihad. Unless it was omitted from their annual accounts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on make your minds up
Melton just said it didnt come from Eithad.
This is part of the problem there is an accusation but City have not responded apart from saying we are not guilty (nothing wrong with that, dont show your hand until its time) so its all speculation.
Suppose we will find out shortly, supposed to be heard soon isnt it?
No, I said the accusation was that it didn't come from Etihad, I also said that they have denied it.
I don't know if it's true or not.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
No, I said the accusation was that it didn't come from Etihad, I also said that they have denied it.
I don't know if it's true or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still think it was a longer ban because UEFA know it will be reduced.
Are you worried that if found guilty the PL will look into your FFP compliance?
Very hypothetical!
If we are banned next season then the Prem will be the clubs main target. I’m not sure loaning KDB to Liverpool would be a smart move with that in mind...
Couldn’t begrudge any of the players looking for a move if the ban is upheld, there are some I would be more gutted to see leave than others though. Kev being one, he should be competing for Ballon d’ors in the post Messi/ Ronaldo world, as should Leroy. The rest, bar Laporte, are a bit more replaceable.
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
No, I said the accusation was that it didn't come from Etihad, I also said that they have denied it.
I don't know if it's true or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still think it was a longer ban because UEFA know it will be reduced.
Are you worried that if found guilty the PL will look into your FFP compliance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, no. It's past the five year limit to investigate, they'd be on very shaky ground if they did. I think that will be part of our defence against Uefa too tbh.
Hopefully not the only defence though!
Agreeing to have the appeal heard behind closed doors means it's unlikely the public will find out what's in 'The Dossiers' City have on other clubs which presumably would reveal far greater transgressions of UEFA's rules that have gone unpunished.
City could have insisted on an open hearing so I guess some compromise has been struck.
Aleksander Čeferin recently said the case was nothing to do with him and the lawyers would deal with it.
Maybe justice (of a sort) will prevail.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Man City Ban Game
Page 1 of 3
posted on 2/6/20
They would just pay them their CL bonuses and everyone will be happy.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
They would just pay them their CL bonuses and everyone will be happy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not really, some players actually want a shot at the big one, being denied 2 years of a short career i think some will want out.
posted on 2/6/20
Problem with City is that the squad is getting on a bit.
KDB is obvious. End of last season Bernado was the one who looked a player but this season I think he has struggled playing with KDB.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
They would just pay them their CL bonuses and everyone will be happy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not really, some players actually want a shot at the big one, being denied 2 years of a short career i think some will want out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that were true they wouldn’t have joined City in the first place.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by *(K̇ash) I'm the Mané - 6 Times Baby (U1108)
posted 14 minutes ago
Problem with City is that the squad is getting on a bit.
KDB is obvious. End of last season Bernado was the one who looked a player but this season I think he has struggled playing with KDB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He started off fine, his drop off coincided with the Mendy tweet storm and I think that took him a while mentally to deal with. It's that coupled with a some tactical tweaks that haven't quite worked for him yet.
posted on 2/6/20
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
posted on 2/6/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by *(K̇ash) I'm the Mané - 6 Times Baby (U1108)
posted 14 minutes ago
Problem with City is that the squad is getting on a bit.
KDB is obvious. End of last season Bernado was the one who looked a player but this season I think he has struggled playing with KDB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He started off fine, his drop off coincided with the Mendy tweet storm and I think that took him a while mentally to deal with. It's that coupled with a some tactical tweaks that haven't quite worked for him yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Mahrez’s form has been much better this season, so it’s been harder to get that spot on the right.
posted on 2/6/20
the reality for city if this were to occur is not that bad.
Nobody can really afford the players after the Co-vid stuff.
aka Real, Barca, juve.
KDb would be horrendously expensive to anyone even on a loan.
Aguero wouldn't be a problem imo. he would be as well staying.
nobody would want sterling at the top clubs imo.
Jesus would just want a transfer.
Mahrez could go to PSG.
After that you start to really struggle for city players to be in demand.
I personally think B.Silva is top top player.
If you look at city's best 11 today:
Ederson
walker fernandinho laporte zinchenko
B.Silva Rodri KBD
Mahrez Aguero Sterling
Theres only really 3 players there that clubs would queue up for now KBD, B.Silva and Laporte. The rest are very good players but clubs in the CL already have people like sterling who can miss the target, or like rodri who falters to deceive
CIty have a great team and while its a bit unbalanced this season its nothing that 500mil is spending won't fix... again.
posted on 2/6/20
"Could you imagine the balls he’d slip in for Sadio and Mo!"
I overlooked the word "for" in that sentence. Was about to ask what you were suggesting.
posted on 2/6/20
Also, if the banis upheld then there is a fair chance that the premier league will also find them guilty of breaching their financial regulations between 2013 and 2016.
We might see the 2014 PL with an asterix wind up in our cabinet with the 2020 PL with an asterix. Would be fun.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But arent they saying you cant declare it as its basically a very large brown paper bag from your owner?
posted on 2/6/20
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But arent they saying you cant declare it as its basically a very large brown paper bag from your owner?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is where it gets a bit messy!
The accusation is around misleading UEFA because the money didn't directly come from Etihad (in the 2013-14 season). Uefa have assessed the deal for market value so the amount is fine, it's where it came from that's the issue.
There is no accusation that it happened in any other season or that it can't be declared.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But arent they saying you cant declare it as its basically a very large brown paper bag from your owner?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is where it gets a bit messy!
The accusation is around misleading UEFA because the money didn't directly come from Etihad (in the 2013-14 season). Uefa have assessed the deal for market value so the amount is fine, it's where it came from that's the issue.
There is no accusation that it happened in any other season or that it can't be declared.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so where did the money come from?
posted on 2/6/20
Allegedly, directly from Mansours private equity company rather than from Etihad.
It is worth saying Etihad have denied that too btw.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 25 seconds ago
Allegedly, directly from Mansours private equity company rather than from Etihad.
It is worth saying Etihad have denied that too btw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said a big brown envelope
As a Chelsea supporter if seen UEFA try and stitch up us over the Kakuta situation and CAS found us not guilty and then FIFA tried it over the signing over minors, again CAS came to our rescue. I do wonder if they would of overturned both transfer window bans if we hadnt already served the 1st one.
I dont believe anything UEFA say but to me it looks like a 2 year ban on the basis they always knew it would be reduced to one.
posted on 2/6/20
I wasn’t questioning that bit though, I was questing it not being able to be declared, particularly now.
On the outcome, I really have no idea. There’s not enough in the public domain to really know and I don’t have full trust in either!
posted on 2/6/20
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But arent they saying you cant declare it as its basically a very large brown paper bag from your owner?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is where it gets a bit messy!
The accusation is around misleading UEFA because the money didn't directly come from Etihad (in the 2013-14 season). Uefa have assessed the deal for market value so the amount is fine, it's where it came from that's the issue.
There is no accusation that it happened in any other season or that it can't be declared.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so where did the money come from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The money came from Etihad. Unless it was omitted from their annual accounts.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But arent they saying you cant declare it as its basically a very large brown paper bag from your owner?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is where it gets a bit messy!
The accusation is around misleading UEFA because the money didn't directly come from Etihad (in the 2013-14 season). Uefa have assessed the deal for market value so the amount is fine, it's where it came from that's the issue.
There is no accusation that it happened in any other season or that it can't be declared.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so where did the money come from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The money came from Etihad. Unless it was omitted from their annual accounts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on make your minds up
Melton just said it didnt come from Eithad.
This is part of the problem there is an accusation but City have not responded apart from saying we are not guilty (nothing wrong with that, dont show your hand until its time) so its all speculation.
Suppose we will find out shortly, supposed to be heard soon isnt it?
posted on 2/6/20
No, I said the accusation was that it didn't come from Etihad, I also said that they have denied it.
I don't know if it's true or not.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
No, I said the accusation was that it didn't come from Etihad, I also said that they have denied it.
I don't know if it's true or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still think it was a longer ban because UEFA know it will be reduced.
Are you worried that if found guilty the PL will look into your FFP compliance?
posted on 2/6/20
Very hypothetical!
If we are banned next season then the Prem will be the clubs main target. I’m not sure loaning KDB to Liverpool would be a smart move with that in mind...
Couldn’t begrudge any of the players looking for a move if the ban is upheld, there are some I would be more gutted to see leave than others though. Kev being one, he should be competing for Ballon d’ors in the post Messi/ Ronaldo world, as should Leroy. The rest, bar Laporte, are a bit more replaceable.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
No, I said the accusation was that it didn't come from Etihad, I also said that they have denied it.
I don't know if it's true or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still think it was a longer ban because UEFA know it will be reduced.
Are you worried that if found guilty the PL will look into your FFP compliance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, no. It's past the five year limit to investigate, they'd be on very shaky ground if they did. I think that will be part of our defence against Uefa too tbh.
posted on 2/6/20
Hopefully not the only defence though!
posted on 2/6/20
Agreeing to have the appeal heard behind closed doors means it's unlikely the public will find out what's in 'The Dossiers' City have on other clubs which presumably would reveal far greater transgressions of UEFA's rules that have gone unpunished.
City could have insisted on an open hearing so I guess some compromise has been struck.
Aleksander Čeferin recently said the case was nothing to do with him and the lawyers would deal with it.
Maybe justice (of a sort) will prevail.
Page 1 of 3