Man City Banned From Europe

[KaiserEFC]

he said he is staying, he has never walked out of a contract

And historically what someone has said has counted for what in football? Fabian Delph held a press conference to say he was staying at Villa.

He holds no loyalty to City, in my opinion he’s been assured by the club that they’ll get the ban overturned and I think if they do end up with a ban he’ll be off to some other “project”

 

[Seathestars]

Qatari PSG boss Nasser Al-Khelaifi elected to UEFA Executive Committee, oh really
You couldn't make it up, now charged in Switzerland with bribing Fifa

Kettle

 

[ToffeeDan]

Uefa cant distinguish that their rules are not laws and if challenged laws supersede, rules and rules may not always comply with the law themselves

Uefa could be on shaky ground if this escalates..

Not so. UEFA run the competition and they make the rules. It's not a BUSINESS rule so City's owners can choose to prop their project up with their own money if they want. UEFA or any Commercial court are not stopping City from doing that in any shape or form. Outraged from Oldham can't differentiate between one and the other.

Let me give you an example. I am 59 this week and I am not yet eligible to play in Senior Bridge tournaments. You need to be 60 in the calendar year of entry. Now let's suppose I lied about my date of birth and then got found out (someone knew I wasn't yet 60). What do you suppose would happen? Likely as not I'd be fined and banned for two years (say). So how is breaking an entry requirement for the CL any different? You will find that every court in Europe will side with the organisers providing they produce evidence of rule breaking.

All we are seeing now are City being outraged at being caught out and crying foul of the rules and the process. Tough luck on them.

 

[MikeH72]

Imagine rating Manuel Pellegrini, literally cheated and still managed to take his team rapidly backwards over 3 years.

 

[msb]

Not so. UEFA run the competition and they make the rules. It's not a BUSINESS rule so City's owners can choose to prop their project up with their own money if they want. UEFA or any Commercial court are not stopping City from doing that in any shape or form. Outraged from Oldham can't differentiate between one and the other.

Let me give you an example. I am 59 this week and I am not yet eligible to play in Senior Bridge tournaments. You need to be 60 in the calendar year of entry. Now let's suppose I lied about my date of birth and then got found out (someone knew I wasn't yet 60). What do you suppose would happen. Likely as not I'd be fined and banned for two years (say). So how is breaking an entry requirement for the CL any different. You will find that every court in Europe will side with the organisers providing they produce evidence of rule breaking.

The knub of the issue. They must be pretty confident or would not have banned them, the mighty $ of fighting a state in court would determine their confidence in the outcome.

City should show some class, apologise and move on. They did it and everyone knows they did.

 

[Seathestars]

Not so. UEFA run the competition and they make the rules. It's not a BUSINESS rule so City's owners can choose to prop their project up with their own money if they want. UEFA or any Commercial court are not stopping City from doing that in any shape or form. Outraged from Oldham can't differentiate between one and the other.

Let me give you an example. I am 59 this week and I am not yet eligible to play in Senior Bridge tournaments. You need to be 60 in the calendar year of entry. Now let's suppose I lied about my date of birth and then got found out (someone knew I wasn't yet 60). What do you suppose would happen? Likely as not I'd be fined and banned for two years (say). So how is breaking an entry requirement for the CL any different. You will find that every court in Europe will side with the organisers providing they produce evidence of rule breaking.

Maybe not, if the said organisers are rotten to the core themselves. What's to say they just don't want City challenging their select few like Barca, Madrid and PSG.
Is Nasser Al-Khelaifi part of the UEFA FFP committee or whatever they call it, I'm honestly not sure.

 

[Neiler]

Not so. UEFA run the competition and they make the rules. It's not a BUSINESS rule so City's owners can choose to prop their project up with their own money if they want. UEFA or any Commercial court are not stopping City from doing that in any shape or form. Outraged from Oldham can't differentiate between one and the other.

Let me give you an example. I am 59 this week and I am not yet eligible to play in Senior Bridge tournaments. You need to be 60 in the calendar year of entry. Now let's suppose I lied about my date of birth and then got found out (someone knew I wasn't yet 60). What do you suppose would happen? Likely as not I'd be fined and banned for two years (say). So how is breaking an entry requirement for the CL any different. You will find that every court in Europe will side with the organisers providing they produce evidence of rule breaking.

I know were you are coming from TD, but id still say the law supersedes, an organisations rules. Uefa can only adjudicate on rules, but if those rules dont align with law, or breach a law, then rights underneath the law would supersede a rule. The Bosman thing is a good example.

If you were really bothered you could take a case about being excluded from the senior bridge on discriminatory grounds and likely have a strong argument, but you wouldn't bother in reality because its not worth the hassle.

Im not saying Uefa have broken any laws here, but ultimately it could be tested and City seem confident, i tend to think this will all be watered down though as i was saying to catcher.

 

[Seathestars]

The knub of the issue. They must be pretty confident or would not have banned them, the mighty $ of fighting a state in court would determine their confidence in the outcome.

City should show some class, apologise and move on. They did it and everyone knows they did.

This might change things
EUFA Executive committee member no less

PSG president charged over World Cup bribery

PSG chairman and CEO Nasser Al-Khelaifi has been charged in connection with the award of media rights to various World Cup tournaments.

africa.espn.com

 

[msb]

Maybe not, if the said organisers are rotten to the core themselves. What's to say they just don't want City challenging their select few like Barca, Madrid and PSG.
Is Nasser Al-Khelaifi part of the UEFA FFP committee or whatever they call it, I'm honestly not sure.

They claim to have evidence of manipulating the payments to deceive the the rules set by the competition organisers. It will never be a question of the fact that EUFA themselves are corrupt and try to manipulate the entrants, the british judicial system is heavily biassed towards white middle class or rich and does not really get scrutinised for disproportionately prosecuting minorities or the poor. The only criteria is if the offence was committed.

 

[ToffeeDan]

The knub of the issue. They must be pretty confident or would not have banned them, the mighty $ of fighting a state in court would determine their confidence in the outcome.

City should show some class, apologise and move on. They did it and everyone knows they did.

Imagine that. Some folks assassinate journalists in their Turkish embassy and others round up intellectuals who ask for mild democratic reforms.

It's clear to me that states with delayed political development will be miles behind modern Western Democracies. That's not to say the likes of the UK hasn't had its crises. (Civil Wars, Peterloo, suffragette movement etc) but should we be surprised when others act like 15th century Potentates and behead dissenters or simply refuse to comply with rules that more liberal minded people find (more or less) acceptable.

 

[Yarrgh]

Juve want the champions League as much as guardiola wants to win it. Apparently also have a warchest

Klopp would be a good fit there. His kick and rush style would have a dramatic effect there.

 

[Yarrgh]

What?

He has literally walked away from every club he has managed.

He gets angry and then leaves at the end of the season at all of his previous clubs.
He was always going to leave as soon as we saw this.

Are you talking about Klopp again?

 

[number4.]

We have a war chest ffs, He’s not leaving he’s not that type of manager

Crazy to say he is not that type of Manager, he has walked away from every job he has had & will have a War chest wherever he goes, so dont see that as a massive selling point.

City have everyone in the trenches at the moment, which is the right position but if they lose their appeal; feet will get itchy and the players and probably Pep will start changing their tune....

 

[ToffeeDan]

I know were you are coming from TD, but id still say the law supersedes, an organisations rules. Uefa can only adjudicate on rules, but if those rules dont align with law, or breach a law, then rights underneath the law would supersede a rule. The Bosman thing is a good example.

If you were really bothered you could take a case about being excluded from the senior bridge on discriminatory grounds and likely have a strong argument, but you wouldn't bother in reality because its not worth the hassle.

Im not saying Uefa have broken any laws here, but ultimately it could be tested and City seem confident, i tend to think this will all be watered down though as i was saying to catcher.

The Bosman rule was a good example and poorly framed. My thought was that a trade off should have materialised whereby:

The player was entitled to move on and seek new employment (to avoid restraint of trade)

However: Given

a) his existing club may have paid a significant sum to buy him out of his contract with another club ('Transfer Fee')

And

b) May have been willing to offer a 'reasonable' new contract commensurate with the expiring one (in financial terms and considering his age)

That, under both those circumstances the club should be entitled to a favourable transfer fee from the next club. (Gosling for example)

As things stand the player, who may have cost a pretty penny in the first place, can stick two fingers up at his employer who was prepared to offer, maybe outbid the new club and yet receive nothing (or very little) by way of compensation.

 

[Seathestars]

They claim to have evidence of manipulating the payments to deceive the the rules set by the competition organisers. It will never be a question of the fact that EUFA themselves are corrupt and try to manipulate the entrants, the british judicial system is heavily biassed towards white middle class or rich and does not really get scrutinised for disproportionately prosecuting minorities or the poor. The only criteria is if the offence was committed.

Do UEFA prosecute under British law, not sure what that point was.
But anyway, I would imagine City Lawyers would be all over this.
If City have broken rules they should be banned, but not if there's UEFA skullduggery going on regarding evidence or those rules.
That was my point really.