Manchester City

[wilai]

Wonder if Michael Johnson might return and get a run out in the CL next season?

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHqwbcajZ7Ok-QDWqoXT0M3_XEOrNrpbdylvPLV5B6twg4NQg146_9CSxY

[redrus]

Wonder if Michael Johnson might return and get a run out in the CL next season?

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHqwbcajZ7Ok-QDWqoXT0M3_XEOrNrpbdylvPLV5B6twg4NQg146_9CSxY

Shocking that isn't it, like a different person totally.

redrus

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[mad mary]

Wonder if Michael Johnson might return and get a run out in the CL next season?

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHqwbcajZ7Ok-QDWqoXT0M3_XEOrNrpbdylvPLV5B6twg4NQg146_9CSxY

Looks like Michael Byrne who plays for Nakon ? In the Thai league (just seen him tonight on tele puking up during a game)

[mad mary]

4fs again

Edited May 17, 2014 by mad mary

[mad mary]

Edit . DP

Edited May 17, 2014 by mad mary

[PREM-R]

PSG won French League 1, Man City won the Premier League, both were then accused and convicted of cheating. There used to be a saying "Cheats don't win and Winners don't cheat", maybe not valid anymore.

[carmine]

City fined €60 million and CL squad limited to 21 for next season, for breaking FFP regs.

Thoughts lads...?

I still stand by what I said a couple of weeks ago and I'd be happy for City to tell em to eff off and we won't bother entering this year.

Wow.... Strong words old mate, seeing as you could very well be in with a chance of winning it next year, that is very powerful indeed.

There is the argument that you knew the rules though..?

There is also the argument that €69million is a drop in the ocean to your owners too.....!

redrus

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Seems to me like the owners chose to break the rules and in reality couldn't care less about a poxy 60m.

Its an irrelevant sum lf money to the owners of City. Either way you look at it, they knew the rules, probably weighed things up and felt it was advantageous to break them and risk the fine.

Can't imagine the likes of Borussia Dortmund breaking them though!

[Chicog]

It's not even 60m, most of it is suspended.

[mrbojangles]

City fined €60 million and CL squad limited to 21 for next season, for breaking FFP regs.

Thoughts lads...?

I still stand by what I said a couple of weeks ago and I'd be happy for City to tell em to eff off and we won't bother entering this year.

Wow.... Strong words old mate, seeing as you could very well be in with a chance of winning it next year, that is very powerful indeed.

There is the argument that you knew the rules though..?

There is also the argument that €69million is a drop in the ocean to your owners too.....!

Seems to me like the owners chose to break the rules and in reality couldn't care less about a poxy 60m.

Its an irrelevant sum lf money to the owners of City. Either way you look at it, they knew the rules, probably weighed things up and felt it was advantageous to break them and risk the fine.

Can't imagine the likes of Borussia Dortmund breaking them though!

I think you are looking at it too simplistically Carms. They didn't just make a black or white decision to break the rules or not.

Apparently, the main argument between City and the FFP panel was the validity of the stadium sponsorship by Etihad and the value.

We can all have our own views on the validity due to the relationship between the owners of Etihad and Mansour but at the end of the day, a company has paid a football club sponsorship money. Nothing new there and record amounts are being paid every year. I really don't see the issue whether a sponsor is owned by your brother, cousin or someone you don't know.

[mrbojangles]

City fined 60 million and CL squad limited to 21 for next season, for breaking FFP regs.

Thoughts lads...?

I still stand by what I said a couple of weeks ago and I'd be happy for City to tell em to eff off and we won't bother entering this year.

Wow.... Strong words old mate, seeing as you could very well be in with a chance of winning it next year, that is very powerful indeed.

There is the argument that you knew the rules though..?

There is also the argument that 69million is a drop in the ocean to your owners too.....!

Nah Russ, no chance of us winning the Champs League next year, especially with only a squad of 21 players. This could put a lot of injury woes on the squad for the title challenge and so I would sooner concentrate on the league.

The main issue here is not whether our owners can afford it but a precedent has now been set for Platini to come and raid every clubs coffers to fund his own. You have all been warned.

[Chicog]

I think you are looking at it too simplistically Carms. They didn't just make a black or white decision to break the rules or not.

Apparently, the main argument between City and the FFP panel was the validity of the stadium sponsorship by Etihad and the value.

We can all have our own views on the validity due to the relationship between the owners of Etihad and Mansour but at the end of the day, a company has paid a football club sponsorship money. Nothing new there and record amounts are being paid every year. I really don't see the issue whether a sponsor is owned by your brother, cousin or someone you don't know.

The main issue is that they are throwing money around to buy and pay players and inflating the market for all other teams.

But we now know what Platini means by FFP:

Bugger all.

Much like Qatar, you have to wonder how many backhanders the Shaikh has paid to get the punishment reduced to a slap on the wrist.

[mrbojangles]

I think you are looking at it too simplistically Carms. They didn't just make a black or white decision to break the rules or not.

Apparently, the main argument between City and the FFP panel was the validity of the stadium sponsorship by Etihad and the value.

We can all have our own views on the validity due to the relationship between the owners of Etihad and Mansour but at the end of the day, a company has paid a football club sponsorship money. Nothing new there and record amounts are being paid every year. I really don't see the issue whether a sponsor is owned by your brother, cousin or someone you don't know.

The main issue is that they are throwing money around to buy and pay players and inflating the market for all other teams.

But we now know what Platini means by FFP:

Bugger all.

Much like Qatar, you have to wonder how many backhanders the Shaikh has paid to get the punishment reduced to a slap on the wrist.

Give over Chiccy. Do you seriously think that is a mere "slap on the wrist"?

[mrbojangles]

This is what has reportedly been handed out:-

After weeks of hard bargaining, UEFA finally announced their sanctions on City which include:

*A limit of £49m on new signings this summer, only increased by money they receive from selling players.

*Their wage bill for the next two seasons must stay the same as this season.

*A fine of nearly £50million – £32m of which will be returned to City if the break even over the next two years.

*They can only name a 21-man squad for the Champions League next season, instead of the normal 25, with eight of the players being “home-grown”.

*City can only lose £17m next season and just £8.5m the following year.

[jellydog]

A significant punishment no matter how you cut it, even if City gets some of the money back down the road. As one would expect, those most eager to see punishment meted out are the ones who won't be satisfied with less than a disembowlment and beheading. They would rather have had City not punished at all so they could have continued to moan and bitch.

[mrbojangles]

A significant punishment no matter how you cut it, even if City gets some of the money back down the road. As one would expect, those most eager to see punishment meted out are the ones who won't be satisfied with less than a disembowlment and beheading. They would rather have had City not punished at all so they could have continued to moan and bitch.

A heck of a lot of truth in that Jelly

But they won't spoil us being champion's eh. Already re-designing our Riyadh Blues 2014/15 Polo shirts to incorporate the double

[P45Mustang]

This is what has reportedly been handed out:-

After weeks of hard bargaining, UEFA finally announced their sanctions on City which include:

*A limit of £49m on new signings this summer, only increased by money they receive from selling players.

*Their wage bill for the next two seasons must stay the same as this season.

*A fine of nearly £50million – £32m of which will be returned to City if the break even over the next two years.

*They can only name a 21-man squad for the Champions League next season, instead of the normal 25, with eight of the players being “home-grown”.

*City can only lose £17m next season and just £8.5m the following year.

"A City statement said that they only fielded 21 players in the Champions League this season, were not planning to spend a net amount of more than £49m on players this summer and expected their wage bill to be lower next season anyway."

Source BBC Sport. The Link to the MCFC statement is worth a look.

Will the £49m restrict City much in the Summer Transfer Window do you think?

Wage freeze can be got round by performance related bonuses.

Can't see Aguero taking a pay cut.

[mrbojangles]

This is what has reportedly been handed out:-

After weeks of hard bargaining, UEFA finally announced their sanctions on City which include:

*A limit of £49m on new signings this summer, only increased by money they receive from selling players.

*Their wage bill for the next two seasons must stay the same as this season.

*A fine of nearly £50million – £32m of which will be returned to City if the break even over the next two years.

*They can only name a 21-man squad for the Champions League next season, instead of the normal 25, with eight of the players being “home-grown”.

*City can only lose £17m next season and just £8.5m the following year.

"A City statement said that they only fielded 21 players in the Champions League this season, were not planning to spend a net amount of more than £49m on players this summer and expected their wage bill to be lower next season anyway."

Source BBC Sport. The Link to the MCFC statement is worth a look.

Will the £49m restrict City much in the Summer Transfer Window do you think?

Wage freeze can be got round by performance related bonuses.

Can't see Aguero taking a pay cut.

The 49 mill is net spend but don't know who they have in mind to sell, if any. Lescott, to name one is out of contract so his huge salary will be saved. We also got rid of Toure's salary last year which will show on the books this time round.

We did only use 21 players last year but that doesn't mean we wouldn't have had this year, cos you don't know what your treatment room will be like this year.

[P45Mustang]

Yes. Fair points mrbojangles.

Looks to me like FFP penalties won't do too much damage to City's competitiveness, but may restrict their ability to further increase their competitive advantage.

Chelski are operating within FFP so in the transfer window, things like sale of Luiz to Barca would offset purchase of Costa.

We are not in a big net spending spree atm so FFP looks like a leveller.

[Chicog]

I think you are looking at it too simplistically Carms. They didn't just make a black or white decision to break the rules or not.

Apparently, the main argument between City and the FFP panel was the validity of the stadium sponsorship by Etihad and the value.

We can all have our own views on the validity due to the relationship between the owners of Etihad and Mansour but at the end of the day, a company has paid a football club sponsorship money. Nothing new there and record amounts are being paid every year. I really don't see the issue whether a sponsor is owned by your brother, cousin or someone you don't know.

The main issue is that they are throwing money around to buy and pay players and inflating the market for all other teams.

But we now know what Platini means by FFP:

Bugger all.

Much like Qatar, you have to wonder how many backhanders the Shaikh has paid to get the punishment reduced to a slap on the wrist.

Give over Chiccy. Do you seriously think that is a mere "slap on the wrist"?

For a bloke with the best part of a trillion dollars? It's <deleted> all.

Did you look at the other UAE companies he can tap up to sponsor them? Investment companies - that he owns. Other airlines - that he owns - Mobile Phone companies - that he owns.

It's a joke.

And all done with the sovereign wealth of the UAE people that he's busy stashing in his foreign bank accounts.

I'd be ashamed if I were you.

You'll never have the satisfaction of actually earning the right to win a trophy.

[smokie36]

City fined €60 million and CL squad limited to 21 for next season, for breaking FFP regs.

Thoughts lads...?

I still stand by what I said a couple of weeks ago and I'd be happy for City to tell em to eff off and we won't bother entering this year.

Wow.... Strong words old mate, seeing as you could very well be in with a chance of winning it next year, that is very powerful indeed.

There is the argument that you knew the rules though..?

There is also the argument that €69million is a drop in the ocean to your owners too.....!

Seems to me like the owners chose to break the rules and in reality couldn't care less about a poxy 60m.

Its an irrelevant sum lf money to the owners of City. Either way you look at it, they knew the rules, probably weighed things up and felt it was advantageous to break them and risk the fine.

Can't imagine the likes of Borussia Dortmund breaking them though!

I think you are looking at it too simplistically Carms. They didn't just make a black or white decision to break the rules or not.

Apparently, the main argument between City and the FFP panel was the validity of the stadium sponsorship by Etihad and the value.

We can all have our own views on the validity due to the relationship between the owners of Etihad and Mansour but at the end of the day, a company has paid a football club sponsorship money. Nothing new there and record amounts are being paid every year. I really don't see the issue whether a sponsor is owned by your brother, cousin or someone you don't know.

I expect one of the sheikh's friends willl be buying a second string City player and paying well over the odds....nice way around the transfer cap.

The whole thing is flawed anyway....typical of the modern game....led by FIFA and UEFA....corrupt in every regard.

[P45Mustang]

FWIW.

My view is this:

UEFA fine is a pittance for people with huge wealth.

Restriction to 21 players in the CL will only marginally affect City's competitiveness, if at all (depending on injuries).

49mil transfer budget and wage freeze will make very little difference to them next season.

But if they were planning to spend 100 or 200mil this window they obviously can't now.

Looks like the penalties are more like clipping wings than punishment for rule breaking.

( I don't think Chelsea can spend anymore than about 50m this window to maintain compliance and Chelsea haven't broken any rules.)

Exclusion from CL for one season plus the measures above may have been a more just penalty?

Edited May 17, 2014 by P45Mustang

[Chicog]

I expect one of the sheikh's friends willl be buying a second string City player and paying well over the odds....nice way around the transfer cap.

Kinda buggered up the quoting there, but you do have a point. What chance Nasri going to Al Ain for 100 million quid.

[mrbojangles]

I expect one of the sheikh's friends willl be buying a second string City player and paying well over the odds....nice way around the transfer cap.

Kinda buggered up the quoting there, but you do have a point. What chance Nasri going to Al Ain for 100 million quid.

I like that idea and hopefully they are already onto it. However, they will have to be very clever about it cos it's in the deal with UEFA that there has to be transparency in the books of the other clubs he owns i.e. NYC

[mrbojangles]

FWIW.

My view is this:

UEFA fine is a pittance for people with huge wealth.

Restriction to 21 players in the CL will only marginally affect City's competitiveness, if at all (depending on injuries).

49mil transfer budget and wage freeze will make very little difference to them next season.

But if they were planning to spend 100 or 200mil this window they obviously can't now.

Looks like the penalties are more like clipping wings than punishment for rule breaking.

( I don't think Chelsea can spend anymore than about 50m this window to maintain compliance and Chelsea haven't broken any rules.)

Exclusion from CL for one season plus the measures above may have been a more just penalty?

How can you do that Alfie? Exclusion means you don't have to adhere to anything. If you ain't in the Champs League you don't have to adhere to FFP.

[P45Mustang]

I expect one of the sheikh's friends willl be buying a second string City player and paying well over the odds....nice way around the transfer cap.

Kinda buggered up the quoting there, but you do have a point. What chance Nasri going to Al Ain for 100 million quid.

Yep. Very good point from Smokie.

That would be the obvious thing to do. Mansour can repay the guy at Al Ain without UEFA knowing anything about it.

Or would they investigate?

[mrbojangles]

And all done with the sovereign wealth of the UAE people that he's busy stashing in his foreign bank accounts.

I'd be ashamed if I were you.

Give over with the political tripe will ya chiccy. It's a footy forum so leave it at that or start a totally new thread on the subject as a whole.

You'll never have the satisfaction of actually earning the right to win a trophy.

But we do and you are just sounding more bitter every day. I've said it before and I'll say it again, all the clubs who've had the money in the past are now angry cos they are being pushed aside and they can't bare it.

[P45Mustang]

FWIW.

My view is this:

UEFA fine is a pittance for people with huge wealth.

Restriction to 21 players in the CL will only marginally affect City's competitiveness, if at all (depending on injuries).

49mil transfer budget and wage freeze will make very little difference to them next season.

But if they were planning to spend 100 or 200mil this window they obviously can't now.

Looks like the penalties are more like clipping wings than punishment for rule breaking.

( I don't think Chelsea can spend anymore than about 50m this window to maintain compliance and Chelsea haven't broken any rules.)

Exclusion from CL for one season plus the measures above may have been a more just penalty?

How can you do that Alfie? Exclusion means you don't have to adhere to anything. If you ain't in the Champs League you don't have to adhere to FFP.

I'm not Alfie mrbojangles, or are you suggesting this is an Alfie type post?

City ARE in the CL next season and they could have been excluded as part of the penalty for breaking rules.

[P45Mustang]

Does the FA have a view about EPL sides breaking UEFA FFP rules?

Chelsea and Arsenal are UEFA compliant. Liverpool will have to become UEFA compliant.

We are all competing against City in the EPL.

Is it fair?

[mrbojangles]

FWIW.

My view is this:

UEFA fine is a pittance for people with huge wealth.

Restriction to 21 players in the CL will only marginally affect City's competitiveness, if at all (depending on injuries).

49mil transfer budget and wage freeze will make very little difference to them next season.

But if they were planning to spend 100 or 200mil this window they obviously can't now.

Looks like the penalties are more like clipping wings than punishment for rule breaking.

( I don't think Chelsea can spend anymore than about 50m this window to maintain compliance and Chelsea haven't broken any rules.)

Exclusion from CL for one season plus the measures above may have been a more just penalty?

How can you do that Alfie? Exclusion means you don't have to adhere to anything. If you ain't in the Champs League you don't have to adhere to FFP.

I'm not Alfie mrbojangles, or are you suggesting this is an Alfie type post?

City ARE in the CL next season and they could have been excluded as part of the penalty for breaking rules.

Whoops, my bad P45. I think I had just been reading an Alfie post.

What I'm saying is it was either or either. They couldn't do both. The stick is to adhere to their penalty and the carrot is that we can stay in. If they exclude us, why should we pay a dime or meet their demands about wage caps etc.

[P45Mustang]

Fair point mrbj.

Reckon City got off lightly mind.