Shalaye

This city ban should be good news to Bayern, now they can get Sane.

The only other two players may leave would be Gabriel Jesus or more likely KDB, who is 28 and has just 3 years left in his contract. Infact him staying won't benefit him at all. Every other player either have the time or are retiring, some might even use this as an opportunity to get improved contract. Not sure how City will be able to recruit players.

Pep will be under massive pressure to win UCL, maybe if City win it this whole scenario might not be so bad. Well not happening since Zizou and Madrid are in top form

Leyqute:
Elruditor are you comparing City’s commercial outreach and fan base with Madrid, Barca, Juve and PSG’s?

Cos you can easily convince the average Joe that Madrid and others made enough income to buy players ( PSG less so) but you can’t with City.

Cos they don’t have a strong brand nor a fan base big enough to bring them that much.

But that’s by the way.

City could not generate that amount of money in 2012-16 but not today. The other clubs I mentioned were complicit as well. Fact.

Your argument that City should not be penalized because others are “allegedly doing it” is immature. Should a jobless youth be allowed to rob people at gunpoint because “others are doing it”?

Every cheat should be penalized irrespective of location or stature. That’s how to create a level playing field for everybody.

What City did was not a crime. That is part 1.

2, City can make that argument in this case simply because FFP was introduced to create a level playing field. So if other big clubs were doing same, does it not prove that the field was level when the game was being played?

Eruditor:




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8006067/Meet-man-downed-Manchester-City-Football-Leaks-hacker-Rui-Pinto-prison.html



Lies. FFP rules made it difficult for a fledgling club like City at the time to raise enough revenue to make purchases. So the owners provided the money for it through sponsorship. That is all.



City have been making enough revenue since 2017.



1. They can prove that other big clubs did same thereby nullifying the "FairPlay" spirit of the rule.
2. They can prove that the punishment was not commensurate with the crime



Of course. Like City were not buying players even after the investigation commenced.

Other big clubs like?

Eruditor:




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8006067/Meet-man-downed-Manchester-City-Football-Leaks-hacker-Rui-Pinto-prison.html



Lies. FFP rules made it difficult for a fledgling club like City at the time to raise enough revenue to make purchases. So the owners provided the money for it through sponsorship. That is all.



City have been making enough revenue since 2017.



1. They can prove that other big clubs did same thereby nullifying the "FairPlay" spirit of the rule.
2. They can prove that the punishment was not commensurate with the crime



Of course. Like City were not buying players even after the investigation commenced.

Just as you believe that City can still win epl.

BlueAngel444:


Other big clubs like?

PSG
Juventus
RM
Barcelona

Don't tell me you believe PSG had generated enough revenue to buy Neymar and Mbappe for e.g.

airmark:


Just as you believe that City can still win epl.

Just like I believed so in 2017/18 and 2018/19 as well.

Eruditor:

Lies. FFP rules made it difficult for a fledgling club like City at the time to raise enough revenue to make purchases. So the owners provided the money for it through sponsorship. That is all.



City have been making enough revenue since 2017.

Take 10 year Etihad naming rights of £400m in 2011 which was double any other naming right. The fraudulent effect of that contract continues till 2021. Unless they restate those contracts to their true value, then their revenue is still overstated till date. A simple accounting principle - if you sign a 10 year deal, you will book 1/10th of the present value of that deal each year to Revenue under deferred Revenue principles. So Pep is still benefiting from all those frauds. That's why he can buy without selling like other clubs.

No, they are not making enough revenue since 2017. Let them restate their fraudulent deals to true value first. Most of their commercial revenue is still Abu-Dhabi related and likely inflated. The only issue is burden of proof. Same as with PSG.

Eruditor:

1. They can prove that other big clubs did same thereby nullifying the "FairPlay" spirit of the rule.
.

They can only allude to suspicions about PSG et al. They can't prove it in court. If there's any public info about PSG, UEFA will charge them sooner or later. The only one caught red-handed for now is City.

Eruditor:

2. They can prove that the punishment was not commensurate with the crime

CAS will treat City based on AC Milan precedent which was one year deferment of ban, followed by one year ban.

Eruditor:


Just like I believed so in 2017/18 and 2018/19 as well.

What about in 2016/2017?

These people will defend anything Pep.. I like their Passion

Eruditor:


PSG
Juventus
RM
Barcelona

Don't tell me you believe PSG had generated enough revenue to buy Neymar and Mbappe for e.g.

PSG bought them at different seasons and their purchase is still off shoot by the players who left.

Besides PSG didn't spend 300m a season buying players.

Juventus are you serious or seriously joking, those guys sign free players or is it De lite and Ronaldo that you are counting.

This two teams above win their leagues almost yearly for the past 5+ seasons.

The you mention Real Madrid, what a joke, RM always buys and offloads. Do you know how many seasons went buy and Madrid hardly bought any player even with winning UCl back to back to back. Bro you need help

Now Barca you might have a point, but then again, Barca like Madrid have serious income revenue, they win LA liga and QFs in UCL for seasons though they stupidly spent almost 400m on 3 left wingers double what they collected for Neymar, still one of them is on his way out.

What stopped City from selling Sane last summer.

Then again how does your post justify that other clubs are inflating their incomes to sign players, mehn look at PSG XI na, can you compare that to City who have a star player for every position with back up.

Eruditor:


PSG
Juventus
RM
Barcelona

Don't tell me you believe PSG had generated enough revenue to buy Neymar and Mbappe for e.g.

How will City prove it in court?

airmark:


How will City prove it in court?

Even proving it in court would be worse for them.

You don't make life long enemies trying to get out of a short time fix. And these teams don't forgive nor forget.

Just look at Madrid and united in transfer, all because of De gea saga.

They caught you cheating you now go and report others for what na, ahhh in this life even in common school o you go hear am

Who's watching the Norwich vs Liverpool game?
See that tackle on Van Dijk. It's not even getting a VAR review.
If that was a City player by now we'd have seen like 22 posts and 15 mentioned monikers telling us how the FA, Queen Elizabeth, Boris Johnson and Prince William have all conspired to award Liverpool the league.

LegoxMetahuman:
[s][/s]stop giving the glory of messi to your overhyped apari.

all the destruction was done by mostly messi under Guardiola and you dont see anyone calling messi overhyped or fraud here.


even you apari has been a victim of messi's destruction.

Corrected

Ibime:


Take 10 year Etihad naming rights of £400m in 2011 which was double any other naming right. The fraudulent effect of that contract continues till 2021. Unless they restate those contracts to their true value, then their revenue is still overstated till date. A simple accounting principle - if you sign a 10 year deal, you will book 1/10th of the present value of that deal each year to Revenue under deferred Revenue principles. So Pep is still benefiting from all those frauds. That's why he can buy without selling like other clubs

.

Let's say City needed 200M to make purchases. They did not generate enough revenue. Sheikh gave them the money but pretended it came from sponsorship. That is all. UEFA suspected it but could not prove it until the leaks showed those emails.

No, they are not making enough revenue since 2017. Let them restate their fraudulent deals to true value first. Most of their commercial revenue is still Abu-Dhabi related and likely inflated. The only issue is burden of proof. Same as with PSG.

They are.

They can only allude to suspicions about PSG et al. They can't prove it in court. If there's any public info about PSG, UEFA will charge them sooner or later. The only one caught red-handed for now is City.

They can. UEFA have not charged PSG because they don't have leaked emails. Their books don't add up.

CAS will treat City based on AC Milan precedent which was one year deferment of ban, followed by one year ban.

The person who leaked the emails is arrested in Portugal. The leaked emails are not even supposed to be admissible because of how they were obtained. Precedent ko.

airmark:


What about in 2016/2017?

You are good at digging. Bring my posts then.

Ibime:


CAS will treat City based on AC Milan precedent which was one year deferment of ban, followed by one year ban.

not likely, I thought the same when Chelsea was facing a similar issue and thought heck the transfer ban would be treated like those of the Spanish teams but that didn't occur, worse was how City's own was even treated self.


Looking at that Milan case you will notice the difference in the cases. City is also to be investigated by the league because what they are being accused of is financial fraud, inflation of revenue and not them not balancing the books.

City neither have the time to actually get any favorable hearing, also note that Chelsea stated the partiality of treatment they received in their previous case.

Looking at how the case progressed City haven't been at the front foot at at all in any area unlike with ac milan.

Starting from

Below is a timeline of events:
5 November, 2018: German publication Der Spiegel claims Manchester City and their sponsors manipulated contracts to circumvent Uefa's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. The German news magazine says the club allegedly misled Uefa by not revealing they had directed money to the club from Abu Dhabi owner Sheikh Mansour via sponsors linked to him, and artificially inflated the value of their commercial income to help meet FFP rules requiring clubs to break even. City say they will not be commenting on the claims.
March 2019: Uefa begins investigating the club for potential breaches of its FFP regulations. It says: "The investigation will focus on several alleged violations of FFP that were recently made public in various media outlets."


calling this an execution will be justified.

Eruditor:


You are good at digging. Bring my posts then.

So it was after you saw the way he spent 'Mompha' money in his second season, that you now believed he could win it. Nice one.

I will like to know the venue you will chose to severe that hand. I need to send my friends at TVC.

Eruditor:
.
They are.

No they are not.

UEFA cannot ask them to restate their books and cannot punish them twice for the same crime. UEFA only need to find a rolling five year period where they would have breached FFP rules to nail them. 2012 to 2016 will do. You take your punishment for that period, and don't need to do a complicated unwinding of your accounts which has effect on other jurisdictions (tax authorities etc). If UEFA ask them to unwind their 2012 to 2016 commercial agreements which are still accruing revenue in 2017, 2018, 2019, you will see they are not making enough revenue in 2017, 2018, 2019, but no need to punish them twice for the same crime.

Eruditor:


If Amaechi and Peter Odili have grouses and Amaechi has another unrelated case that Mary Odili will preside over, do you think Amaechi will have a fair hearing in the case?

Do you think he will ask for another Judge to oversee the case?

Lol. I asked you a simple question and you are jumping from pillar to post to answer. Who should be the judge in this case?

During PSG trial, UEFA Adjudicatory chamber heard the case likewise Madrid and Chelsea but now that it involved your Beloved City and Pap, UEFA should not have been the judge, they should have taken the case to Spanish FA or FIFA to sit on the matter.

Yeye

BlueAngel444:

PSG bought them at different seasons and their purchase is still off shoot by the players who left.

You don't need to comment on something you don't know.

Besides PSG didn't spend 300m a season buying players.

Spending 10B is not the issue. Did you generate the revenue to spend it, that is the issue.

Juventus are you serious or seriously joking, those guys sign free players or is it De lite and Ronaldo that you are counting.

If you don't know something, just ignore it.

This two teams above win their leagues almost yearly for the past 5+ seasons.

And how much do they generate for their spendings?

The you mention Real Madrid, what a joke, RM always buys and offloads. Do you know how many seasons went buy and Madrid hardly bought any player even with winning UCl back to back to back. Bro you need help

You are clearly not well-versed in an issue and yet you are commenting the most.

Now Barca you might have a point, but then again, Barca like Madrid have serious income revenue, they win LA liga and QFs in UCL for seasons though they stupidly spent almost 400m on 3 left wingers double what they collected for Neymar, still one of them is on his way out.

Hope you know the issue being discussed happened between 2012-15?

What stopped City from selling Sane last summer.

Questions like this prove you should leave the discourse for people who know what is going on.

Then again how does your post justify that other clubs are inflating their incomes to sign players, mehn look at PSG XI na, can you compare that to City who have a star player for every position with back up.

Read up please.

Ibime:


No they are not.

UEFA cannot ask them to restate their books and cannot punish them twice for the same crime. UEFA only need to find a rolling five year period where they would have breached FFP rules to nail them. 2012 to 2016 will do. You take your punishment for that period, and don't need to do a complicated unwinding of your accounts which has effect on other jurisdictions (tax authorities etc). If UEFA ask them to unwind their 2012 to 2016 books which are still accruing revenue in 2017, 2018, 2019, you will see they are not making enough revenue in 2017, 2018, 2019, but no need to punish them twice for the same crime.

City are making more than enough revenues especially when juxtaposed with how much they spent in said years.

UEFA did not need any period. They relied on the emails that leaked. Simple. Only thing City did was not cooperate during the investigations.

Eruditor:


You don't need to comment on something you don't know.



Spending 10B is not the issue. Did you generate the revenue to spend it, that is the issue.



If you don't know something, just ignore it.



And how much do they generate for their spendings?



You are clearly not well-versed in an issue and yet you are commenting the most.


Hope you know the issue being discussed happened between 2012-15?


Questions like this prove you should leave the discourse for people who know what is going on.



Read up please.

Oya you that know something tell us why you mentioned those clubs na.

ain't you the same Id.iot that mentioned players bought by PSG or was it another id.iot that posted that.

larride:


Lol. I asked you a simple question and you are jumping from pillar to post to answer. Who should be the judge in this case?

During PSG trial, UEFA Adjudicatory chamber heard the case likewise Madrid and Chelsea but now that it involved your Beloved City and Pap, UEFA should not have been the judge, they should have taken the case to Spanish FA or FIFA to sit on the matter.

Yeye

I told you that comprehension and expressing yourself adequately are not your gifts. Trying to mask it with this faux umbrage and show of ego is unbecoming.

City's position:

"The Club has always anticipated the ultimate need to seek out an independent body and process to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence in support of its position".

If the police will prosecute, still constitute the jury, be the judge and then dislike the plaintiff, the plaintiff will simply never get a fair hearing.

BlueAngel444:

Oya you that know something tell us why you mentioned those clubs na.

ain't you the same Id.iot that mentioned players bought by PSG or was it another id.iot that posted that.

Once this gets in the picture, my point has been proven.

Move along.

BlueAngel444:
not likely, I thought the same when Chelsea was facing a similar issue and thought heck the transfer ban would be treated like those of the Spanish teams but that didn't occur, worse was how City's own was even treated self.


Looking at that Milan case you will notice the difference in the cases. City is also to be investigated by the league because what they are being accused of is financial fraud, inflation of revenue and not them not balancing the books.

City neither have the time to actually get any favorable hearing, also note that Chelsea stated the partiality of treatment they received in their previous case.

Looking at how the case progressed City haven't been at the front foot at at all in any area unlike with ac milan.

Starting from

Below is a timeline of events:
5 November, 2018: German publication Der Spiegel claims Manchester City and their sponsors manipulated contracts to circumvent Uefa's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. The German news magazine says the club allegedly misled Uefa by not revealing they had directed money to the club from Abu Dhabi owner Sheikh Mansour via sponsors linked to him, and artificially inflated the value of their commercial income to help meet FFP rules requiring clubs to break even. City say they will not be commenting on the claims.
March 2019: Uefa begins investigating the club for potential breaches of its FFP regulations. It says: "The investigation will focus on several alleged violations of FFP that were recently made public in various media outlets."


calling this an execution will be justified.

City case is the same as Milan in UEFAs eyes which is breach of FFP limits.

Premier League have their own rules on FFP and treat it more seriously than Serie A so it will be a double-whammy for City, both domestically and Internationally.

Milan may have escaped domestic censure because Serie A don't pay much attention to those things. This is the main difference between them.

As far as UEFA is concerned, Milan and City are the same except Milan will have more goodwill in sentencing as they declared their losses while City hid theirs. UEFA is not police though, so that is a moot point. UEFA is only concerned with FFP compliance.

I doubt tax or criminal authorities will be interested in picking up City's case as inflating Revenues does not reduce your tax liability.

Hi Eruditor, Liverpool just won another game, what will happen to our hand like this?

BikeMan:
Hi Eruditor, Liverpool just won another game, what will happen to our hand like this?

76 points. It has been a while since anyone won the league with less than 78 points.

I am on schedule

Eruditor:


City are making more than enough revenues especially when juxtaposed with how much they spent in said years.

UEFA did not need any period. They relied on the emails that leaked. Simple. Only thing City did was not cooperate during the investigations.

You can argue till you are blue in the face. Anyone who knows accounts will know they would fall foul if forced to restate accounts. They are barely compliant now so any reduction in revenue (just for current accounting period only) will take them below FFP threshold.

And if you want to get technical, if they were found to overstate revenue in the past, IAS8 rules would require them to correct prior period misstatements in 2020 to cover incorrect revenue recognition from 2012 to 2019 which would hit their Other Comprehensive Income line in their P&L for hundreds of millions of pounds and knock them out of FFP compliance once and for all.



On another point, City are in a serious bind. It is in their interest to accept EPL points deduction this year since they cannot win the league and may be banned from UCL next year. However that will constitute admission of guilt in the eyes of CAS and hamper their case there.

On the other hand, they could challenge Premier League sanction this year and risk taking the hit next year which will knock them out of league contention for 20/21 season while also getting hammered by UEFA.


ELruditor, would you advise that they take their L this year or next?

Eruditor:


I told you that comprehension and expressing yourself adequately are not your gifts. Trying to mask it with this faux umbrage and show of ego is unbecoming.

City's position:



If the police will prosecute, still constitute the jury, be the judge and then dislike the plaintiff, the plaintiff will simply never get a fair hearing.

You are the one that’s having comprehension issue.

I asked you a simple question that you are yet to find an answer too. Who should have being the Judge in this case?

No need for megedege. Answer the question.

Eruditor:


City could not generate that amount of money in 2012-16 but not today. The other clubs I mentioned were complicit as well. Fact.



What City did was not a crime. That is part 1.

2, City can make that argument in this case simply because FFP was introduced to create a level playing field. So if other big clubs were doing same, does it not prove that the field was level when the game was being played?

Did you understand my post?