Man City Banned From Europe

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

I was suggesting that even in UK, there can be a bias in the legal process, but the law has to be followed, regardless of the bias. My only reason to cite British Law (no such thing actually)

You implied that they were being banned to protect the "chosen few", which is probably the truth, but not the reason given. Any legal challenge can only be done on the basis of the rule that was enforced. For example if you go and batter Klopp, you get done for assault and battery, there is no excuse that he is RS and deserved it.

UEFA must be pretty sure they are legally water tight on the evidence that led to the ban, otherwise they are extremely foolish. They may be the most gobshite ridden bunch of cheating drooling eejits, but if they have evidence of rule breaking they are entitled to ban clubs from entering their own tournaments and/or paying a fine that they impose. To expose themselves to legal challenge on the substance of the case would be huge folly, knowing the financial might of the accused party.
 
I was suggesting that even in UK, there can be a bias in the legal process, but the law has to be followed, regardless of the bias. My only reason to cite British Law (no such thing actually)

You implied that they were being banned to protect the "chosen few", which is probably the truth, but not the reason given. Any legal challenge can only be done on the basis of the rule that was enforced. For example if you go and batter Klopp, you get done for assault and battery, there is no excuse that he is RS and deserved it.

UEFA must be pretty sure they are legally water tight on the evidence that led to the ban, otherwise they are extremely foolish. They may be the most gobshite ridden bunch of cheating drooling eejits, but if they have evidence of rule breaking they are entitled to ban clubs from entering their own tournaments and/or paying a fine that they impose. To expose themselves to legal challenge on the substance of the case would be huge folly, knowing the financial might of the accused party.
lol The bold

If EUFA were a witness in a court trial the Judge would tell the jury to ignore their testimony, I'd be surprised if he let them on the witness stand in the first place.
I feel a bit sorry for City but mostly because it's EUFA who I have no time for at all.
 
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....

Why would he need to or want to? If the ban is overturned. He’s won everything everywere and he will win the UCL at city
 

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.

Not sure id be on board with that mate. Essentially although the norm - transfer fees shouldn't exist. We frame transfer fees as a necessity, when really they are not. What transfer fees are, are a compensation package to a club loosing a player they signed a contract with for permission to release them from a contract.

In reality all you can pay for is players service and time over the length of a contract.

In time i believe players transfer fees will become less and less.
 
Why would he need to or want to? If the ban is overturned. He’s won everything everywere and he will win the UCL at city

He clearly doesn't need to, if the ban is overturned he has everything at his disposal.

Why would he want to?? Possible reasons....
- New challenge
- In need of a break
- change of scenery / weather
- Disruption to family (wife back in Barcelona)
- exhausted by working for a club who's owners demand the CL, while fans aren't arsed about it
- the moral quandary....
...................... the role of city as a PR tool for a state & his role in that
.......................despite getting away with a loophole to clear city, knowing he will always be associated with the financial doping
.......................being paraded as a stooge for rainbow laces campaign, while collecting a wage from a state where homosexuality is illegal

not suggesting they are reasons for him to leave, but all reasons someone in his position might choose to consider
 
Funny how one of the people involved in doing city has just been charged with corruption himself....
Also happens to have an interest in a direct competitor....
Psg fella btw
 

The whole thing isn't really entirely about the FFP rules being broken. It's the fact that City are said to have been obstructive and dishonest throughout the entire process. There's a hell of a lot of dirt on them and the ways they've deliberately and dishonestly circumnavigated rules which they were fully aware of but rather than cop to it they've dug their heels in deeper.

Like most things, if you try and deliberately obstruct an investigation then the punishment will be much stronger. According to UEFA this is what City have been doing.
 
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.

Which is exactly how it should be once a contract has been fulfilled.

If a club is willing to pay another club the necessary money asked to release a player from their contract early then that is the sole decision of that club. It has no bearing whatsoever on the contract which follows between player and new club.

Automatic compensation for fiscal irresponsibility should not be forcibly enforced under law or in any way restrict the opportunities of a player who has fulfilled their contractual obligations. Adding financial burden to prospective employees would restrict those opportunities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top