Manchester City Banned From Champions League for 2 Seasons

tcofran

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
2,510
Interesting...

The club was also fined 30 million euros for “serious breaches” of European soccer’s financial regulations.

 

NeonNinja

Neon Resident
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
20,876
Imagine. This would spell the demise of the greats.

And Liverpool to win the subsequent 5 seasons.
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
25,617
How ironic. Breaching financial regulations in a competition designed to keep a dozen teams wealthy.

Farce of a competition.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
14,664
The interwebz is not the greatest place for City fans right now... because... It's a playground for the fans of all other teams, ever.

I haven't seen Pep posts like this since, well since forever. Loving the Aguero long-term contract ones too.
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
16,175
Reality is city is at best a West Ham or Newcastle without money being pumped in to it from outside sources. Newcastle at least fills its stands on a near weekly basis.

It's an artificial "big" club. No way its generating the income required to play with the big boys of Europe.
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
25,617
Reality is city is at best a West Ham or Newcastle without money being pumped in to it from outside sources. Newcastle at least fills its stands on a near weekly basis.

It's an artificial "big" club. No way its generating the income required to play with the big boys of Europe.
You can add 3/4 of the Premier league to your list of “big” clubs who aren’t actually big clubs.

But the reasons are simple that the City stands are not filled (they pretty much are though).

First, City were in the lower leagues when Sky bought the rights to the PL and the world started supporting English football, so they never got the “supporters” from the early years of the explosion in the early 90s.

So now, the stands are full of tourists for the teams seen as “big” clubs nowadays. Man U, Spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea. The rest don’t have that international support and rely on locals to fill their grounds.

(I should add that Liverpool and Chelsea are imo recent big clubs. When I was a kid, City were up there, if not above them in terms of stature).

So, generally, until recently, City are supported by people from Manchester and not from half way across the world. And there have been many debates on how normal working people have been priced out of the game with City being particularly hurt hard due to recent success. People simply have to pick and choose their games.
 

MirageF1

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2018
Messages
4,803
"The heart of man (is deceitful above all things, and desperately) is wicked: who can know it?"


Clever boy Jeremiah.
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
16,175
You can add 3/4 of the Premier league to your list of “big” clubs who aren’t actually big clubs.

But the reasons are simple that the City stands are not filled (they pretty much are though).

First, City were in the lower leagues when Sky bought the rights to the PL and the world started supporting English football, so they never got the “supporters” from the early years of the explosion in the early 90s.

So now, the stands are full of tourists for the teams seen as “big” clubs nowadays. Man U, Spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea. The rest don’t have that international support and rely on locals to fill their grounds.

(I should add that Liverpool and Chelsea are imo recent big clubs. When I was a kid, City were up there, if not above them in terms of stature).

So, generally, until recently, City are supported by people from Manchester and not from half way across the world. And there have been many debates on how normal working people have been priced out of the game with City being particularly hurt hard due to recent success. People simply have to pick and choose their games.
City have never been a bigger club than Liverpool. That's a bizarre statement to make when Liverpool was far and away the most successful club in the country until Alex Ferguson pulled in to town.

I'd even place Leeds, Nottingham, Villa, Everton and Arsenal above City if we are talking historical/traditional powerhouse clubs. City had a moment in the 60s and 70s where they were at the top, but that is it. They then spiralled down the leagues for a bit and yo-yo'd between the Premier League and Division 1 in the 90s and early 00s. Your Villas, Evertons, Nottinghams, while no longer winning many trophies, were mainstays of the top flight. Leeds too. Arsenal have always been there or there abouts where trophies are concerned.

Before Abramovich, even Chelsea was doing better than City, pushing for European spots before the Russian millions arrived.

It's a mid-table to Championship level club without oil money because that is what it was before the oil money.
 
Last edited:

Neoprod

Honorary Master
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
17,258
How ironic. Breaching financial regulations in a competition designed to keep a dozen teams wealthy.

Farce of a competition.
Is that in reference to the Champions League specifically?

The issues go deeper than that to national leagues and how television revenue is distributed. England have the fairest distribution of the big European leagues whereas Spain (even with the Spanish royalty forcing collective bargaining to be adopted a few years ago) still sees almost a quarter of TV revenue go to Barca and Real (it used to be around 40%). That kind of thing is not within the remit of UEFA and it does impact who can "afford to qualify" from their national league into the Champions League. The last-placed club in La Liga gets about a quarter of what Barca \ Real get - in England, that ratio is more like 60%.

Ironically, Barca and Real are making more money from tv rights than ever because the overall pot has grown a lot.
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
25,617
City have never been a bigger club than Liverpool. That's a bizarre statement to make when Liverpool was far and away the most successful club in the country until Alex Ferguson pulled in to town.

I'd even place Leeds, Nottingham, Villa, Everton and Arsenal above City if we are talking historically successful clubs. City had a moment in the 70s and 80s where they were the top Manchester club when United were in the doldrums but even then they were not the kings of England. Leeds of the 70s wiped the floor with City.
Yeah, fair enough. It's all subjective and it's hard to have a definitive marker of what makes a club big or not. No doubt Villa and Forest winning the EC puts them up there, and Leeds were a great team when I was a kid with all sorts of success and a huge support.

But to my point, Liverpool were a bog standard club until Bill Shankly turned them around in the 60s and their success stemmed from that. Undoubtedly, the late 70s and 80s turned them into the biggest club in the country. I'm not saying otherwise. But City had had their purple patch in the late 60 early 70s and in the mid 70s their history was much of a muchness. I remember City beating United to relegate them, that tends to stick in the mind and that's the period I have my memories from and hence my reference point. You are obviously younger than me, but there is no doubt City and Liverpool were on an even footing mid 70s wrt being "big" clubs.

To be honest, watching English football for a long time before the TV explosion, I'd argue there were about 20 or so clubs no bigger than others, just these clubs enjoying periods of success and the odd trophy here and there. Clubs were supported by local people and communities and success came and went.

So yes, I agree with you somewhat on the other clubs you mention (they'd be in the big clubs traditionally), but I'd have them more on a level with City who I'd also include in that bracket.. Except Arsenal. They are a bone fide big team in my eyes.

Good chat, interesting discussion now I think about it :)
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
25,617
Is that in reference to the Champions League specifically?

The issues go deeper than that to national leagues and how television revenue is distributed. England have the fairest distribution of the big European leagues whereas Spain (even with the Spanish royalty forcing collective bargaining to be adopted a few years ago) still sees almost a quarter of TV revenue go to Barca and Real (it used to be around 40%). That kind of thing is not within the remit of UEFA and it does impact who can "afford to qualify" from their national league into the Champions League. The last-placed club in La Liga gets about a quarter of what Barca \ Real get - in England, that ratio is more like 60%.

Ironically, Barca and Real are making more money from tv rights than ever because the overall pot has grown a lot.
Yeah, the CL format. I take your point abut England, but the money aspect has much wider ramifications outside the big 4 countries. For me it has pretty much ruined European football for the vast majority of teams in Europe. 4 leagues with top 4 assured of CL place is just ridiculous and has helped widen the gap in many countries domestically as well. For example, in Scotland it's almost impossible to catch Celtic, who have to go through 4 qualifying rounds to get to the group stages, because getting to that group stage guarantees millions in revenue that the other clubs have no hope in hell of generating. This leads to one team in the league with huge spending power and ever widening gaps. And it's same for a few countries with one or two teams dominating because of the money they get just for qualifying for the group stage.

Kinda why I scoff at these financial regulations. Money has fscked football for millions of fans, and now a few of the big boys suffer because one team spent a few squillions more than the others who only spent bazillions :p

Try being in a league where the champions have a team worth 125 million and the second place team is worth a tenth of that, and then tell me what's unfair UEFA.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
16,021
If this ban sticks they will probably face fines from the Premier League also. The EPL have rules about financial mismanagement.

There's a chance of being banned from Europe, getting points docked in the next season and the owners getting bored and selling the club then next thing you know city is going back down .
 

Neoprod

Honorary Master
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
17,258
Yeah, the CL format. I take your point abut England, but the money aspect has much wider ramifications outside the big 4 countries. For me it has pretty much ruined European football for the vast majority of teams in Europe. 4 leagues with top 4 assured of CL place is just ridiculous and has helped widen the gap in many countries domestically as well. For example, in Scotland it's almost impossible to catch Celtic, who have to go through 4 qualifying rounds to get to the group stages, because getting to that group stage guarantees millions in revenue that the other clubs have no hope in hell of generating. This leads to one team in the league with huge spending power and ever widening gaps. And it's same for a few countries with one or two teams dominating because of the money they get just for qualifying for the group stage.

Kinda why I scoff at these financial regulations. Money has fscked football for millions of fans, and now a few of the big boys suffer because one team spent a few squillions more than the others who only spent bazillions :p

Try being in a league where the champions have a team worth 125 million and the second place team is worth a tenth of that, and then tell me what's unfair UEFA.
That's solid though tbh, teams from smaller leagues are screwed from the get-go...Celtic Park is like 3 times bigger than Aberdeen's stadium (I think Aberdeen is like the 3rd biggest team in Scotland)?

With that kind of disparity at the ground-level (no pun intended), there will be issues regardless of UEFA.
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
25,617
That's solid though tbh, teams from smaller leagues are screwed from the get-go...Celtic Park is like 3 times bigger than Aberdeen's stadium (I think Aberdeen is like the 3rd biggest team in Scotland)?

With that kind of disparity at the ground-level (no pun intended), there will be issues regardless of UEFA.
Sure, Celtic and Rangers have about 50,000 season ticket holders each and other Scottish teams cannot compete with that. But that's another set of issues wrt domestic football (although UEFA money after a couple of good runs has indeed made Celtic untouchable domestically where even Rangers can't touch them financially with the same number of supporters).

But the issue wrt to UEFA goes a bit further. For example, in the decade before the onset of the Premiership, Sky money and the change to the Champions League in 1992, Aberdeen won the UEFA cup winners cup beating Real Madrid in the final. They also won the Super Cup beating Hamburg.

Dundee United also got to the final of the European Cup (CL now obviously) and to the semi final of the UEFA cup beating Barca home and away in the process (they've done it twice, 100% win record against them).

My own team Hearts got to the QF of the UEFA cup and lost over two legs 1-2 to Bayern Munich. We won 1-0 in Edinburgh and 2-0 over there (I was at both games) :)

And really, these times are now gone and to me growing up with this, it's a real shame. Now it's just the same few teams year in year out and so many great old names have been reduced to bottom feeders.

Well that turned into a snot nosed rant :p

But the point remains. As Staggy says, City are not a grand old giant with a pedigree in Europe, like for example Celtic who were the first British team to win the European cup. But money has got them at the top table where they will stay for years and years to come, and for me it's at the expense of so many of these great old clubs who just can't compete until they get lucky and put a good team together on a comparative shoestring for a decent run to the group stages.
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
16,175
Yeah, fair enough. It's all subjective and it's hard to have a definitive marker of what makes a club big or not. No doubt Villa and Forest winning the EC puts them up there, and Leeds were a great team when I was a kid with all sorts of success and a huge support.

But to my point, Liverpool were a bog standard club until Bill Shankly turned them around in the 60s and their success stemmed from that. Undoubtedly, the late 70s and 80s turned them into the biggest club in the country. I'm not saying otherwise. But City had had their purple patch in the late 60 early 70s and in the mid 70s their history was much of a muchness. I remember City beating United to relegate them, that tends to stick in the mind and that's the period I have my memories from and hence my reference point. You are obviously younger than me, but there is no doubt City and Liverpool were on an even footing mid 70s wrt being "big" clubs.

To be honest, watching English football for a long time before the TV explosion, I'd argue there were about 20 or so clubs no bigger than others, just these clubs enjoying periods of success and the odd trophy here and there. Clubs were supported by local people and communities and success came and went.

So yes, I agree with you somewhat on the other clubs you mention (they'd be in the big clubs traditionally), but I'd have them more on a level with City who I'd also include in that bracket.. Except Arsenal. They are a bone fide big team in my eyes.

Good chat, interesting discussion now I think about it :)
Well to be fair, younger me learned the hard way when questioning how ''big'' someone's club is. Pro tip: Don't refer to Aston Villa as a small club because you'll quickly and irritably be reminded that they have won 7 league titles, 7 FA Cups and were European champions, still making them one of England's most successful clubs.

Interesting graph regarding the two Manchester giants;



Everything before 1992 is Manchester United without the Premier League and Sky TV fame. Both grounds were of comparable size throughout the 70s and 80s. Old Trafford topped off at 56,000 in 1985 before the massive renovations throughout the 90s and 00s while Maine Road (City's old ground) was somewhere around 52,000.

City's average attendance graph at Maine Road is quite telling on its own. Attendance didn't even change much during their successful years of the late 60s and early 70s.

 
Last edited:

The Voice

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
9,088
This isn't going to stick for very long. City is financially backed by an entire country. A country with more money than FIFA/UEFA. And it has better lawyers, too.
 
Top