The Manchester City Thread

[AdamBrunt]

Originally Posted by Rob

We all know that the main thrust of this action was that City were supposedly hiding where equity came from and were funding through related parties.

I suggest anybody in any doubt of the outcome read the conclusion in paragraph 289 of the report. I know this doesn't fit the narrative, but there you go.

The media don't seem to be reporting the most significant part of the document (I don't know why) - anybody reading the BBC / Daily mail / Guardian headlines would think that UEFA won the case.

Wait ... are you suggesting the BBC are anti-City ??

The main thrust of the action was there is no way City were capable of getting a £400M 10 year sponsorship deal from Etihad legitimately ( which made them the most lucrative club on the planet ) and also no reason for Etihad to keep increasing that deal during the 10 years ( when there is zero evidence of anyone else trying to outbid them ).

As others have said .... all it has shown is that you can cheat, as much as you want under FFP, as long as you stall UEFA long enough. Some clubs will try to continue to do that ( the press will have you believe that City are able to spend another £250M this window, even in the current climate, when none of the other - vastly more successful clubs - are. Maybe their is another litter bin ADUG can sponsor ? ), the vast majority will continue to play by the rules. And still be better

If UEFA have any sense they will be putting non-compliance on the same level as guilt ( punishable by immediate expulsion ) and make the acceptance of the new rule a requirement for inclusion from immediate effect.

[Rob]

I'm not suggesting that the BBC are anti-City, I'm simply stating that various news outlets are using a minor punishment as their headline when the main finding of the case is that City's appeal has been upheld for sound legal reasons.

Originally Posted by AdamBrunt

The main thrust of the action was there is no way City were capable of getting a £400M 10 year sponsorship deal from Etihad legitimately ( which made them the most lucrative club on the planet ) and also no reason for Etihad to keep increasing that deal during the 10 years ( when there is zero evidence of anyone else trying to outbid them ).

Correct and that underlines my point above. You, and others, have indeed suggested this without considering the possibility that such an agreement is legal. You've pre-judged the case and, to suit your own argument, are ignoring the findings of a legitimate legal body.

As you can't be bothered to do your research, I'll do a bit for you. The conclusions of the CAS report in relation to the sponsorship agreement are as follows:-

Originally Posted by CAS

J. Conclusion 289

In view of all of the above, there is no doubt that Etihad fully complied with its payment obligations towards MCFC and that MCFC rendered the
contractually agreed services to Etihad in return. The majority of the Panel finds that Etihad Sponsorship Agreements are presumed to be negotiated at fair value and that MCFC, HHSM, ADUG and Etihad are considered not to be "related parties". The Etihad Sponsorship Agreements were legally binding contracts. There is no evidence that agreements were backdated or that MCFC otherwise retrospectively tried to cover up alleged violations following the publication of the Leaked Emails.

Originally Posted by AdamBrunt

As others have said .... all it has shown is that you can cheat, as much as you want under FFP, as long as you stall UEFA long enough.

Sadly (for you), it appears that despite UEFA's claims that "MCFC on countless occasions refused to answer questions, refused to provide documents, refused to provide documents", there were found to be "only two specific respects in which MCFC failed to comply with its duty of cooperation". Hence they broke FFP article 56, hence the fine. One of these occasions was simply that City decided not to reply to a question over the authenticity of the criminally obtained documents.

In summary, this idea that City somehow stalled UEFA to their advantage is a nonsense. But don't take my word for it - CAS even said the following:-

Originally Posted by CAS

The majority of the the panel finds that no adverse inferences can be drawn from the fact that MCFC did not provide such information.

[Grunge]

Been a while.

but I'll leave this one here.

https://twitter.com/Chris_G_Howard/s...10539400978433

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Grunge

Been a while.

but I'll leave this one here.

https://twitter.com/Chris_G_Howard/s...10539400978433

Yeah, saw that on the BlueMoon forums today. Its a good summary of the situation.

[Grunge]

Originally Posted by AdamBrunt

Wait ... are you suggesting the BBC are anti-City ??

The main thrust of the action was there is no way City were capable of getting a £400M 10 year sponsorship deal from Etihad legitimately ( which made them the most lucrative club on the planet ) and also no reason for Etihad to keep increasing that deal during the 10 years ( when there is zero evidence of anyone else trying to outbid them ).

As others have said .... all it has shown is that you can cheat, as much as you want under FFP, as long as you stall UEFA long enough. Some clubs will try to continue to do that ( the press will have you believe that City are able to spend another £250M this window, even in the current climate, when none of the other - vastly more successful clubs - are. Maybe their is another litter bin ADUG can sponsor ? ), the vast majority will continue to play by the rules. And still be better

If UEFA have any sense they will be putting non-compliance on the same level as guilt ( punishable by immediate expulsion ) and make the acceptance of the new rule a requirement for inclusion from immediate effect.

Not in the slightest. That was covered and dealt with in 2014.

This action was suggesting that we lied to UEFA at that time based on leaked out of context emails as one of them stated HRH will cover any shortfalls for the Etihad deal.

UEFA decided that was Mansour, it wasnt.

Fact is, we broke FFP. we know we did and were punished for it in 2014.

But this new action is something else entirely, it has nothing to do with the deals in place and is about saying we lied about where the money came from. and we have been exonerated on that one entirely. City wanted the standard of proof to be "beyond reasonable doubt", but CAS rejected this and sided with UEFA's assertion of "comfortable satisfaction".

Even with this lower burden of proof, UEFA's 'evidence' still did not meet it.

[Rob]

RIP Colin Bell. I remember him suffering that injury just after I started following City, so I never got to see him play.

[AdamBrunt]

I assume they stopped at the 5th Round in the draw, last night, so they could wait and see which easy teams were left in at the 6th Round to allocate to City

[Citysmith]

Originally Posted by AdamBrunt

I assume they stopped at the 5th Round in the draw, last night, so they could wait and see which easy teams were left in at the 6th Round to allocate to City

Amount of PL sides drawn by the Big 6 in the domestic cups since 16/17:

City: 24 (41)
Chelsea: 23 (38)
United: 20 (37)
Arsenal: 18 (32)
Liverpool: 13 (21)
Spurs: 11 (27)

City played MORE games against PL sides alone than Liverpool played in all cups since 2016/17. Cry more ha ha

[AdamBrunt]

Originally Posted by Citysmith

Amount of PL sides drawn by the Big 6 in the domestic cups since 16/17:

City: 24 (41)
Chelsea: 23 (38)
United: 20 (37)
Arsenal: 18 (32)
Liverpool: 13 (21)
Spurs: 11 (27)

City played MORE games against PL sides alone than Liverpool played in all cups since 2016/17. Cry more ha ha

LOL .... big own goal there; 58% for City and 62% for Liverpool. And the further you progress in Cup competitions you will, naturally, meet PL times towards the end.

Also, you must have had drawn a PL side in every round of the League Cup for those figures to be correct since:

Man City's FA Cup opponents since 2017/18:

Burnley
Cardiff
Wigan
Rotherham
Burnley
Newport
Swansea
Brighton
Watford
Port Vale
Fulham
Sheff Wed
Newcastle
Arsenal (final)
Birmingham
Cheltenham

[Citysmith]

Originally Posted by AdamBrunt

LOL .... big own goal there; 58% for City and 62% for Liverpool. And the further you progress in Cup competitions you will, naturally, meet PL times towards the end.

Also, you must have had drawn a PL side in every round of the League Cup for those figures to be correct since:

You’re right.... it’s all rigged and City get easy teams every draw and Liverpool get hard ones

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Citysmith

You’re right.... it’s all rigged and City get easy teams every draw and Liverpool get hard ones

I love the fact that win, lose or draw, we City fans take it all with good grace & humour.

Imagine if winning the Champions League, followed by the Premier League wasn't enough to stave off the overwhelming bitterness relating to decisions beyond your control?

Anyway, given that St Virgil gets a regular nomination for POTY, you'd think that if things continue as they are, John Stones & Ruben Dias must be in with a shout this year. The number of clean sheets is getting ridiculous now.