2019/20 Premier League Thread - The Longest Season

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

First topic message reminder :

2019/20 Barclays season thread

Start off by asking how long you think Ole will last at the wheel? For me, sacked by February 2020

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Hopefully FFP will also hit Utd and other European clubs (hi Madrid) who have racked up nearly a billion pounds worth of debt

[Duty281]

More chance of the Queen being arrested than Madrid getting hauled up by UEFA!

[lfc91]

Can't see this being upheld. At least not in its current severity (although here's hoping). Halved to a 1 season ban would be my guess.

If it is, hopefully 5th spot gets the champions league.

Could have massive implications for City. Pep could leave. The likes of Sterling and De bruyne won't want to give up 2 years of their career outside the champions league you would imagine. Would impact the players who would come over the next few seasons and their financial ability to actually buy them.

Could easily see the end of this great Man City team, with a rebuild over several seasons required.

If I understand it correctly, part of the FFP rules state you're not supposed to spend more than you earn...but since City are sponsored by Etihad...which is owned by the rulers of the UAE...they can pretty much spend whatever they like. Which seems wrong to me (unless I've got it hopelessly wrong).

Think that was part of the issue they were investigating. Whether or not those sponsorship deals were indicative of true market value or were they ridiculously inflated by the owners to circumvent FFP. Or as Soul says, financial doping.

Think it was clear for everyone to see that the City owners had done exactly that with the Eithad deals etc. Question is how many other top clubs are doing this? Could all be at it to some degree for all we know.

[Atila]

That would be classed as financial doping Dyre. A team can only spend what it earns itself not the owners and sponsorship has to be at market value not inflated as has happened with City. Something should have been done years ago and I personally have never considered them great just an expensive team of mercenaries.

Good post.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

At least City only got themselves banned from Europe rather than every other English team as well

[Soul Requiem]

I've seen a lot this season about fans not wanting Liverpool to win the title but why? A proper football team with history going about things the right way is far better than a rich mans play thing surely?

PSG must be next in line.

[Atila]

I've seen a lot this season about fans not wanting Liverpool to win the title but why? A proper football team with history going about things the right way is far better than a rich mans play thing surely?

PSG must be next in line.

Jealousy, rivalry, wanting to keep a club down etc. It was the same back in 1992-93, plenty of fans didn't want United to win their first title in 25 years, even though United played decent football.

[Atila]

One thing that I keep reading with regards to Man City is that the Premier League may deduct points from them, I don't see the point in this. They're not going to win the title this year so the two year ban would be enough to prevent them from playing in Europe next year. If they are going to deduct points from them, it should be from next years total, so they start of with for example, minus 10 points.

Perhaps an easier way to punish them would be to relegate them and make them start of next season in the Championship.

[GSC]

hope City take down FFP in court.

Pointless regulation designed to protect historically bigger clubs from their own ineptitude.

[Soul Requiem]

Let's turn football into a rich man's play thing.

[GSC]

I'm not seeing a vast difference between the likes of City/Chelsea/PSG in that regard and the likes of Madrid/United/Barca etc. Is it more noble when a car company is paying Ronaldos salary for Juve?

Wake me up when someone wants to do something about the financial chasm that increases exponentially as you go down the chain rather than stopping people investing their own money.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Let's turn football into a rich man's play thing.

You don’t think it is? You think City - who are mercenaries and all about the money rather than the loyal players of Real Madrid, Manchester United and Liverpool who play for the love of the game - are the only ones who are making football a money play thing?

[Dolphin Ziggler]

The only way to become part of the elite is to spend wild amounts of money. The rules were brought in that made sure that spending wild amounts of money was only available to those elites.

Weird

[Atila]

Whether we agree with FFP or not is not the issue here. You would think that Man City with their billionaire owners would hire accountants and top class business men to make sure that they complied 100% with the FFP rules that I'm sure they knew about. It seems that they didn't, or at least they didn't comply with the rules enough to keep UEFA'S accountants and business men happy. Numbers and statistics generally don't lie.

The only issue seems to be whether UEFA has been too harsh with the punishments given to Man City. Personally, I think if Man City have been bending the rules then they deserve their punishment. Wondering if other clubs have broken the rules is just clouding the issue and doesn't make Man City innocent. If other clubs have broken the rules then I'm sure they will be punished in due time.

UEFA may not be the most honest organization in sport, but they would easily be caught out if they went after Man City while allowing other clubs to escape the rules scot free.

[Soul Requiem]

Whether we agree with FFP or not is not the issue here. You would think that Man City with their billionaire owners would hire accountants and top class business men to make sure that they complied 100% with the FFP rules that I'm sure they knew about. It seems that they didn't, or at least they didn't comply with the rules enough to keep UEFA'S accountants and business men happy. Numbers and statistics generally don't lie.

The only issue seems to be whether UEFA has been too harsh with the punishments given to Man City. Personally, I think if Man City have been bending the rules then they deserve their punishment. Wondering if other clubs have broken the rules is just clouding the issue and doesn't make Man City innocent. If other clubs have broken the rules then I'm sure they will be punished in due time.

UEFA may not be the most honest organization in sport, but they would easily be caught out if they went after Man City while allowing other clubs to escape the rules scot free.

Agreed. Too many wish to condone cheating.

[GSC]

The only way to become part of the elite is to spend wild amounts of money. The rules were brought in that made sure that spending wild amounts of money was only available to those elites.

Weird

in one.

[GSC]

Whether we agree with FFP or not is not the issue here. You would think that Man City with their billionaire owners would hire accountants and top class business men to make sure that they complied 100% with the FFP rules that I'm sure they knew about. It seems that they didn't, or at least they didn't comply with the rules enough to keep UEFA'S accountants and business men happy. Numbers and statistics generally don't lie.

The only issue seems to be whether UEFA has been too harsh with the punishments given to Man City. Personally, I think if Man City have been bending the rules then they deserve their punishment. Wondering if other clubs have broken the rules is just clouding the issue and doesn't make Man City innocent. If other clubs have broken the rules then I'm sure they will be punished in due time.

UEFA may not be the most honest organization in sport, but they would easily be caught out if they went after Man City while allowing other clubs to escape the rules scot free.

no I think it's two issues, and it is reasonable to also discuss the merits of a rule. If City have breached the rules as they stand then they should receive the appropriate punishment. UEFA seem to think they have, City by all accounts will have their day in court to argue otherwise.

it is still pertinent to discuss the merits of FFP however, and we have a difference of opinion on what spending can be considered legitimate, and what debts are considered illegal

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Whether we agree with FFP or not is not the issue here. You would think that Man City with their billionaire owners would hire accountants and top class business men to make sure that they complied 100% with the FFP rules that I'm sure they knew about. It seems that they didn't, or at least they didn't comply with the rules enough to keep UEFA'S accountants and business men happy. Numbers and statistics generally don't lie.

The only issue seems to be whether UEFA has been too harsh with the punishments given to Man City. Personally, I think if Man City have been bending the rules then they deserve their punishment. Wondering if other clubs have broken the rules is just clouding the issue and doesn't make Man City innocent. If other clubs have broken the rules then I'm sure they will be punished in due time.

UEFA may not be the most honest organization in sport, but they would easily be caught out if they went after Man City while allowing other clubs to escape the rules scot free.

no I think it's two issues, and it is reasonable to also discuss the merits of a rule. If City have breached the rules as they stand then they should receive the appropriate punishment. UEFA seem to think they have, City by all accounts will have their day in court to argue otherwise.

it is still pertinent to discuss the merits of FFP however, and we have a difference of opinion on what spending can be considered legitimate, and what debts are considered illegal

Exactly. In two, I could say.

I’d suggest it’s fair to make it one season and to make sure they’re compliant by their return. Not that I particularly agree with FFP in its current form.

If they want to tackle debt (hilarious, in the context of the Man Uniteds of this world) and bring a level playing field, I’m not sure FFP is the vehicle. They should reverse cuts to percentage of money distributed across the leagues (think it was voted to be lowered by the big clubs when it was last discussed) and introduce wage caps.

[Atila]

Whether we agree with FFP or not is not the issue here. You would think that Man City with their billionaire owners would hire accountants and top class business men to make sure that they complied 100% with the FFP rules that I'm sure they knew about. It seems that they didn't, or at least they didn't comply with the rules enough to keep UEFA'S accountants and business men happy. Numbers and statistics generally don't lie.

The only issue seems to be whether UEFA has been too harsh with the punishments given to Man City. Personally, I think if Man City have been bending the rules then they deserve their punishment. Wondering if other clubs have broken the rules is just clouding the issue and doesn't make Man City innocent. If other clubs have broken the rules then I'm sure they will be punished in due time.

UEFA may not be the most honest organization in sport, but they would easily be caught out if they went after Man City while allowing other clubs to escape the rules scot free.

no I think it's two issues, and it is reasonable to also discuss the merits of a rule. If City have breached the rules as they stand then they should receive the appropriate punishment. UEFA seem to think they have, City by all accounts will have their day in court to argue otherwise.

it is still pertinent to discuss the merits of FFP however, and we have a difference of opinion on what spending can be considered legitimate, and what debts are considered illegal

Exactly. In two, I could say.

I’d suggest it’s fair to make it one season and to make sure they’re compliant by their return. Not that I particularly agree with FFP in its current form.

If they want to tackle debt (hilarious, in the context of the Man Uniteds of this world) and bring a level playing field, I’m not sure FFP is the vehicle. They should reverse cuts to percentage of money distributed across the leagues (think it was voted to be lowered by the big clubs when it was last discussed) and introduce wage caps.

If we're arguing about FFP in general, I'll admit that unlike you and GSC, I don't know all the rules. My post is about Man City and the current situation that they find themselves in.

[GSC]

I suspect it really all stems from UEFAs fear that the big clubs will end up forming their own super league and relegating the CL to a b tier competition overnight.

The entirety of football just seems more and more grubby as it goes on. The PL starting to talk about streaming just makes me suspect that will be the vehicle to end up in a la liga like scenario where the big clubs sell streaming rights for vastly more than the rest of the league.

Really I'm struggling with the concept that Citys owners spending their own money is somehow immoral when United, Barca and Atletico Madrid collectively owe banks 1 billion, or Chelsea buy up legions of young players at cut prices and rent them across Europe.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Reports that Liverpool are front runners to sign Cantwell for £30m+ this summer

[Beer]

At least City only got themselves banned from Europe rather than every other English team as well

Subtle dig at Liverpool, excellent content.

[Duty281]

A poor Chelsea lose to a poor Manchester United on a night dominated by VAR.

Seven points separate fourth placed Chelsea and eleventh placed Burnley with twelve games left. The race for the top four or five is very open.

[GSC]

very much a lottery with VAR, the opposite of what it was meant to be

[JDizzle]

Story of Chelsea’s season. Play fine, but so few players have a real cutting edge and the CB’s are so soft.

[Guest]

Be interesting to see how much patience RA has with this FL experiment. Honeymoon period ended a long time ago. Youth haven’t kicked on, and the old guard’s contract situations, have probably meant they’re now focusing on their next moves.

Mourinho rocking up at the Bridge this weekend, and taking three points, might just make Roman’s trigger finger itchy. Nothing would surprise me with this owner.

[hampo17]

Whether we agree with FFP or not is not the issue here. You would think that Man City with their billionaire owners would hire accountants and top class business men to make sure that they complied 100% with the FFP rules that I'm sure they knew about. It seems that they didn't, or at least they didn't comply with the rules enough to keep UEFA'S accountants and business men happy. Numbers and statistics generally don't lie.

The only issue seems to be whether UEFA has been too harsh with the punishments given to Man City. Personally, I think if Man City have been bending the rules then they deserve their punishment. Wondering if other clubs have broken the rules is just clouding the issue and doesn't make Man City innocent. If other clubs have broken the rules then I'm sure they will be punished in due time.

UEFA may not be the most honest organization in sport, but they would easily be caught out if they went after Man City while allowing other clubs to escape the rules scot free.

I think part of the reason for the size of the punishment is down to City refusing to assist UEFA with their investigation. Surely if they've done nothing wrong they'd be helping all they can to avoid this, not burying their head in the sand and refusing to help. Also worth remembering that this punishment has been handed out before, AC Milan were banned for two years from European competition, but on appeal it was reduced to one season. So the question for CAS will be is what City have done worse than Milan or does it deserve the same punishment.

You also have to question that when this investigation was announced last year why City felt the need to instantly get CAS involved, it all smacks of dodgy to me. This also isn't the first time they've breached FFP.

[Beer]

Isn't City's issue that the documents were leaked and that UEFA were part of the 'independent disciplinary commission' that investigated them?

[hampo17]

Yeah so they're claiming that they were hacked and that these are the documents that UEFA have reviewed, but again if this is the case why refuse to help and not show them the correct paperwork?

They've also claimed it's unfair that UEFA are the ones handing out the punishment for a UEFA competition, wonder if the Premier League punish them if they'll moan about that as well.

[Beer]

I think because the documents showed UEFA were already planning to give City a proverbial spanking, so they refused to play ball.

As for UEFA handing out the ban, if they have appointed an independent commission to investigate, then UEFA should have no part in that process.

Ultimately, City are quoted as saying they would rather spend £50m on world class lawyers to fight this, than let UEFA win. This isn't going to go away quietly, and you feel at some point UEFA are going to back down.

[Crimey]

Basically the punishment is for the dishonesty, not the breach of FFP. The analogy that I think works best is speeding. 

If you're caught speeding, you get points on your licence, a fine/speeding awareness course. It's a relatively minor offence.

If you're caught speeding and then start claiming that you weren't driving and are proven to be lying that then becomes a very serious offence. 

Man City are being punished for fraudulent behaviour not the FFP breach itself. They have actually already been punished for the breach (alongside PSG) which they paid a small fine for- it's just that it then turns out they had lied in those investigations. 

The issue with complaints about FFP protecting the elite (albeit I know as a Liverpool fan it's easier for me to be in favour) is that whilst spending over your means feels like it's the only way to break into the top, it's hugely risky for the clubs in question. Man City are a good example of this because if their owners were to pull out now, they would be in an extremely precarious position as it's quite clear that they can only operate financially because of the owner support. 

The only way I feel as though you can try to financially balance football better is by increasing the amount larger clubs have to trickle down the pyramid - so television rights for European football get fed into each of the lower divisions for example, but this does seem difficult to implement. Alternatively, we could implement salary caps and spending caps to limit the amount this can then affect the actual competition.

[Crimey]

I think because the documents showed UEFA were already planning to give City a proverbial spanking, so they refused to play ball.

As for UEFA handing out the ban, if they have appointed an independent commission to investigate, then UEFA should have no part in that process.

Ultimately, City are quoted as saying they would rather spend £50m on world class lawyers to fight this, than let UEFA win. This isn't going to go away quietly, and you feel at some point UEFA are going to back down.

City's claims that UEFA had decided the punishment already comes from somebody who was part of the process being quoted as saying - if Man City have done what then they will receive a hefty punishment. Which is completely acceptable and does not mean the decision had been made beforehand.

[Beer]

Basically the punishment is for the dishonesty, not the breach of FFP. The analogy that I think works best is speeding. 

If you're caught speeding, you get points on your licence, a fine/speeding awareness course. It's a relatively minor offence.

If you're caught speeding and then start claiming that you weren't driving and are proven to be lying that then becomes a very serious offence. 

Man City are being punished for fraudulent behaviour not the FFP breach itself. They have actually already been punished for the breach (alongside PSG) which they paid a small fine for- it's just that it then turns out they had lied in those investigations. 

The issue with complaints about FFP protecting the elite (albeit I know as a Liverpool fan it's easier for me to be in favour) is that whilst spending over your means feels like it's the only way to break into the top, it's hugely risky for the clubs in question. Man City are a good example of this because if their owners were to pull out now, they would be in an extremely precarious position as it's quite clear that they can only operate financially because of the owner support. 

The only way I feel as though you can try to financially balance football better is by increasing the amount larger clubs have to trickle down the pyramid - so television rights for European football get fed into each of the lower divisions for example, but this does seem difficult to implement. Alternatively, we could implement salary caps and spending caps to limit the amount this can then affect the actual competition.

I thought it was both? They misled UEFA over their breaching of FFP? Inflating sponsorship deals?

[Crimey]

As far as I am aware they've already been punished for breaching FFP. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/27445475

This was despite the fact they were inflated sponsorship deals. The lying about the sponsorship means that essentially their breach of FFP was larger than reported but more importantly they were lying in the initial reports which is why the punishment is so harsh.

[Soul Requiem]

Carragher picking Mane over Giggs is ultimate lols.

[hampo17]

I thought he had a point about that to be honest Soul, Giggs played 44 games that season and only scored 7 goals. Mane has played 32 this season and has scored 16. So based on the 433 formation he picked Mane is the better choice.

Worth remembering that he was basing it solely on the 99 season and not his career, didn't seem to matter what he said Keane couldn't understand that.

[Beer]

As far as I am aware they've already been punished for breaching FFP. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/27445475

This was despite the fact they were inflated sponsorship deals. The lying about the sponsorship means that essentially their breach of FFP was larger than reported but more importantly they were lying in the initial reports which is why the punishment is so harsh.

I think this another breach, that was 2014...

The independent Adjudicatory Chamber of the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) said City had broken the rules by "overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts and in the break-even information submitted to Uefa between 2012 and 2016", adding that the club "failed to cooperate in the investigation".

So this is after the initial fine.

The original ban, was in part due to this:-

"At the heart of discussions is a fundamental disagreement between the club's and Uefa's respective interpretations of the FFP regulations on players purchased before 2010," it read.

[Soul Requiem]

I thought he had a point about that to be honest Soul, Giggs played 44 games that season and only scored 7 goals. Mane has played 32 this season and has scored 16. So based on the 433 formation he picked Mane is the better choice.

Worth remembering that he was basing it solely on the 99 season and not his career, didn't seem to matter what he said Keane couldn't understand that.

Not entirely sure why you'd choose to use a 433 formation when that Manchester United midfield four is available but each to their own.

[Crimey]

As far as I am aware they've already been punished for breaching FFP. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/27445475

This was despite the fact they were inflated sponsorship deals. The lying about the sponsorship means that essentially their breach of FFP was larger than reported but more importantly they were lying in the initial reports which is why the punishment is so harsh.

I think this another breach, that was 2014...

The independent Adjudicatory Chamber of the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) said City had broken the rules by "overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts and in the break-even information submitted to Uefa between 2012 and 2016", adding that the club "failed to cooperate in the investigation".

So this is after the initial fine.

The original ban, was in part due to this:-

"At the heart of discussions is a fundamental disagreement between the club's and Uefa's respective interpretations of the FFP regulations on players purchased before 2010," it read.

This ban relates to the time period 2012-16 hence the discussion over them being stripped of the 2014 title. The breach above relates to the losses reported in 2012 and 2013, in this period. 

If you read the communication over the recent ban, it's all related to the misreporting of the sponsorship deal not spending too much or not being profitable. They are being banned for their dishonesty over those deals. Even with those deals they were breaching FFP.

[Beer]

Yeah, I get that, my point is, they are two separate punishments.

Back in 2014 they didn't know in 2016 they were going to continue to mislead UEFA after the initial ban.

Not sure stripping the title is worth it, is that not just Liverpool fans trying to clutch at a potential title?

[Crimey]

Yeah they are two separate punishments but this recent punishment is not for overspending or not making a profit, it's for the fraud - hence the higher level of punishment. If they were being punished for the loss they made it would likely just be a fine, they're being punished now for lying about the level of loss made.

I don't think the PL will strip it but the consensus seems to be if UEFA do stick with the ban, then they would be legally allowed to - maybe even pushed to. There won't be many Liverpool fans who would want to win that title in that way - it would feel very hollow and maybe even dampen the win this year as it would be ending a six year drought rather than a 30 year drought. It is frustrating of course though to feel as though two titles in recent years have been lost to a team who have cheated, according to the rules (whether you agree to those or not).

[Atila]

Wouldn't United also pick up a title? They finished second to City in 2017-18.

[Crimey]

I don't think so, because it only covers 2012-16 - so the only title once during that period was 13-14 assuming 11-12 isn't covered.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Be insane if they stripped titles. Ridiculous too.

No point talking about it being used to protect clubs, that may have been the intention but it’s never getting through if the top clubs didn’t think it benefited them. So it’s all well and good talking about money funnelling down, but they won’t let it happen. They tried to do that last vote and it ended up being reduced instead of increased.

[Soul Requiem]

Be insane if they stripped titles. Ridiculous too.

No point talking about it being used to protect clubs, that may have been the intention but it’s never getting through if the top clubs didn’t think it benefited them. So it’s all well and good talking about money funnelling down, but they won’t let it happen. They tried to do that last vote and it ended up being reduced instead of increased.

Cheating to win normally results in being stripped of titles.

[Beer]

I can see City pushing to have all clubs owned by these type of owners scrutinized across Europe.

Stripping titles would be ridiculous. Also, their transfer business that season was woeful!

Fernandinho aside, they signed some utter dross. Demichelis, Jovetic, Navas. Hardly won them the title. Even the season before it was awful. Rodwell, Sinclair... Nastasic.

[Soul Requiem]

A lot of talk about VAR and the offside rule, could they not bring in a linesmans call to clear it up a bit.

If Player A is ruled offside and any part of him is then the decision stays but if the linesman doesn't flag then there has to be clear daylight to change the decision?

[Beer]

I think that's been alot of the issue, Soul. That is how it's supposed to work. That's why they have been encouraging the Ref's to use the pitchside monitor.

It still baffles me that a player is flagged offside by VAR for his hand being offside, when he can't score with it!

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Yeah so they're claiming that they were hacked and that these are the documents that UEFA have reviewed, but again if this is the case why refuse to help and not show them the correct paperwork?

They've also claimed it's unfair that UEFA are the ones handing out the punishment for a UEFA competition, wonder if the Premier League punish them if they'll moan about that as well.

I think it might be fair to point out the following;

Andrea Agnelli - Chairman of Juventus, on UEFA executive committee
Nasse Al Khalefi - CEO of PSG, on UEFA executive board
Jacobo Beltran - UEFA financial control body, member of Madrid council who essentially bankroll Real
Rick Parry - UEFA investigatory panel of club financial fair play, former Liverpool CEO.

I can see why they'd be a bit skeptical of UEFA handing out punishments with such conflicting interests

[Beer]

SG president Nasser Al-Khelaifi has been charged by the Swiss Attorney General in connection with a three-year corruption investigation allegedly involving ex-FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke and a third businessman.

The same guy the just had City nailed for breaching FFP.... people in glass houses anyone?

[Sponsored content]