Manchester City

[Exiled_red]

I've seen loads of City fans saying that the battered in the streets doesn't refer to Sean Cox, but none seem to be suggesting what it is refering to. The chant has been around all year and I've always assumed it refers to Sean Cox, because it's about our champions league campaign last year, and that being the case what else can it be refering to? because I can't think of anything.

To be honest I suspect that many of the City fans and most of the players don't know what it refers to but sing it anyway, the line is distasteful whatever it refers to.

[Leyton388]

****s are trying to create a manufactured rivalry against us as before they got their sugar daddy the only rivalry they had was against the likes of Rochdale and stockport.

[Corndog]

I can't stand Vincent Kompany, Kyle Walker or Fabian Delph. The rest of their players seem alright. Ederson and Stones are as thick as some freshly laid cement.

Kompany reckons he's quite intelligent too but it's clear he just talks a load of **** and sounds confident when he does.

Unbelievable he wasn't sent off for some of the challenges he put in this season. Against salah was definitely a red and I think there was also another similar against United because of a poor touch and he just went steaming in getting absolutely no ball.

[baitman]

Now on the bbc football page

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48276093

Manchester City: 'Battered' Liverpool fans song draws criticism

Manchester City have been criticised over a video that appears to show players and staff joining in a song that celebrates Liverpool fans being "battered in the street".

The video is thought to have been captured on an aircraft as the club's travelling party returned from a 4-1 Premier League win at Brighton.

That victory saw the Blues beat Liverpool to the title by one point.

It is unclear which players and staff - if any - are joining in the singing.

The song - which City described in a statement as a "regular chant during the 2018-19 season" - recalls Liverpool's defeat in last year's Champions League final in Kiev.

It cites fans being "battered in the streets" and "crying in the stands" and includes a line on Liverpool forward Mohamed Salah being injured - but with the original culprit, Real Madrid's Sergio Ramos, changed to City defender Vincent Kompany.

However, many of the party only join in at the "Allez, Allez, Allez" chorus.

"It's honestly embarrassing that some Man City fans think it's OK for their players to sing about fans being beat up," one Liverpool fan tweeted, while many more responded saying the video was "classless", "unprofessional" or "naive".

[S-RED]

Looks like the lawyers are already starting to flex their muscles.... Uefa/Fifa will already be ****ting themselves.

https://www.mancity.com/news/club-news/club-news/2019/may/man-city-club-statement-uefa-new-york-times

Manchester City FC is fully cooperating in good faith with the CFCB IC’s ongoing investigation. In doing so the Club is reliant on both the CFCB IC’s independence and commitment to due process; and on UEFA’s commitment of the 7th of March that it “….will make no further comment on the matter while the investigation is ongoing”.

The New York Times report citing “people familiar with the case” is therefore extremely concerning. The implications are that either Manchester City’s good faith in the CFCB IC is misplaced or the CFCB IC process is being misrepresented by individuals intent on damaging the Club’s reputation and its commercial interests. Or both.

Manchester City’s published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record. The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false, and comprehensive proof of this fact has been provided to the CFCB IC.

[Chris]

That's a really vile statement from them. I'd expect nothing less though, absolutely disgusting club, owned by scum, supported by a majority of the lowest of the low.

[Norbs]

How ****ing threatening is that

[Assassin]

It just reads......

As. Guilty. As. ****.

[rodo]

Rick Parry is on the panel

[Lecter]

Reading the lyrics Im not particularly bothered about the rest of it (it’s just pathetic) but them singing a song which references a supporter who is still suffering getting battered in the street is pretty shameful.

Kind of puts all the mutual respect ****e to rest that has been being spouted by them.

The mutual respect between the teams and the coaching staff has/had been quite refreshing

I cant abide all the ****e amongst the supporters from both sides

It just shows that an awful lot of football fans are ****ing halfwits

[Lecter]

Looks like the lawyers are already starting to flex their muscles.... Uefa/Fifa will already be ****ting themselves.

https://www.mancity.com/news/club-news/club-news/2019/may/man-city-club-statement-uefa-new-york-times

Manchester City FC is fully cooperating in good faith with the CFCB IC’s ongoing investigation. In doing so the Club is reliant on both the CFCB IC’s independence and commitment to due process; and on UEFA’s commitment of the 7th of March that it “….will make no further comment on the matter while the investigation is ongoing”.

The New York Times report citing “people familiar with the case” is therefore extremely concerning. The implications are that either Manchester City’s good faith in the CFCB IC is misplaced or the CFCB IC process is being misrepresented by individuals intent on damaging the Club’s reputation and its commercial interests. Or both.

Manchester City’s published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record. The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false, and comprehensive proof of this fact has been provided to the CFCB IC.

Why would they be ****ting themselves??

Taking UEFA or FIFA to court (other than through Court of Sporting Arbitration) means that you are not allowed to compete in their tournaments until the case is decided

UEFA wont give two ****s whether City go down the legal route

[Shaggy]

I always told my City mates it would take decades of intense rivalry before I hated them like I hate United, but to be quite honest right at this moment I already hate them more. I can't believe I'm saying that, but at least you can respect United, grudgingly. These ****ing cunts won the lottery and haven't a clue how to handle their new-found wealth and status. They remind me of that lout Michael Carroll who won massive amounts on the lottery years ago.

[Assassin]

I always told my City mates it would take decades of intense rivalry before I hated them like I hate United, but to be quite honest right at this moment I already hate them more. I can't believe I'm saying that, but at least you can respect United, grudgingly. These ****ing cunts won the lottery and haven't a clue how to handle their new-found wealth and status. They remind me of that lout Michael Carroll who won massive amounts on the lottery years ago.

This The financial doping is one thing. But this latest episode is just totally unacceptable on so many levels.

[dom9]

[ame]https://twitter.com/RorySmith/status/1128554794145275905[/ame]

[Rafa Justice]

https://twitter.com/RorySmith/status...54794145275905

Manchester City and European Soccer Arrive at a Moment of Reckoning
Both a proposal to alter the Champions League and the news that Manchester City could be barred from playing in it were stories about the same thing: power, and who holds it.

Manchester City’s owners have spent more than $1 billion assembling the teams and the coaching staffs that have produced four Premier League titles in eight seasons.
Credit
Frank Augstein/Associated Press

Image
Manchester City’s owners have spent more than $1 billion assembling the teams and the coaching staffs that have produced four Premier League titles in eight seasons.CreditCreditFrank Augstein/Associated Press
By Rory Smith
May 15, 2019

MANCHESTER, England — Strip away the jargon and the euphemisms and the disorientating forest of acronyms, tune out the noise from claim and counterclaim and strident denial, pick a way through the laborious detail and the tangled minutiae, and a simple truth emerges: At the very apex of European soccer, a moment of reckoning is coming.

The report last week that UEFA is studying not so much a revamp as a total reset of its crown jewel, the Champions League, is not an administrative story about the format of a competition. The New York Times’s report, on Monday, that Manchester City might yet be banned from that same tournament is not a story about rule breaches or misleading financial declarations or malicious leaks.

Both are about something far broader and, in a way, far easier to understand. Both are about a struggle for control, between UEFA — the body that has overseen European soccer for decades — and the globe-straddling, extravagantly wealthy superclubs that provide much of its revenue.

Both are about power, and who can exert it. And both are about who runs soccer — on whose behalf, and for whose benefit.

ADVERTISEMENT


To recap: Last Wednesday, a UEFA document came to light, one that maps out a vision of what the Champions League, soccer’s most glamorous, most lucrative, most exalted club competition, might become.

It set out what would be a fundamentally different tournament to the one that currently occupies screens and minds: 24 teams would, under the proposal, no longer have to qualify for the Champions League through domestic competition. They would become, essentially, a permanent class of Champions League teams, a continental superleague in all but name, and the death knell, according to Richard Scudamore, the outgoing chairman of the Premier League, of more than a century of domestic soccer.

This is your last free article.
Subscribe to The Times
And then, on Monday, as they were still clearing up the detritus left at the Etihad Stadium by Manchester City fans celebrating a second successive Premier League title, The Times reported that the body investigating suggestions that the club had misled UEFA financial regulators over its commercial income was expected to recommend that City be sanctioned for its transgressions. The punishment could be as harsh as a season-long ban from the Champions League, the tournament whose trophy the club’s ownership group prizes above all others.

Manchester City claimed another trophy on Sunday, but its was on the defensive by Monday.
Credit
Phil Noble/Reuters

Image
Manchester City claimed another trophy on Sunday, but its was on the defensive by Monday.CreditPhil Noble/Reuters
It is easy to become detached from stories like these. They have an air of remoteness, a whiff of futurology. It is tempting to file them as somewhere between soothsaying and speculation. A chorus of voices, each offering a different tangent, strikes up as soon as they appear. The facts are easily lost in the flood of comment.

ADVERTISEMENT


Last week, in the midst of possibly the most dramatic few days the Champions League in its current incarnation has ever produced, most of Europe’s major leagues came out against the plan to change the competition. UEFA immediately insisted it was just part of a consultation process. Everyone would get a say. It was just an idea. Nothing was set in stone. The panic abated. The fury faded. Nothing changed, not immediately: Tottenham beat Ajax, the Champions League was still as good as ever. The world turned.

On Tuesday, Manchester City reiterated its denial of any wrongdoing at all. Ever since the accusations first surfaced on the Football Leaks whistle-blowing platform, the club has steadfastly dismissed all allegations that it deliberately inflated sponsorship deals in order to comply with the so-called financial fair play regulations UEFA created to govern clubs’ spending.

In a statement that described the accusation of any financial regularities as “entirely false,” City said it was extremely concerned by the fact The Times had cited “people familiar with the case.”

Either the club’s “good faith” in the independent investigators reporting to UEFA was misplaced, Manchester City said, or the process was being “misrepresented by individuals intent on damaging the club’s reputation and its commercial interests. Or both.” UEFA did not comment on the Times article.

Focusing on the existence of the leaks, though, misses the point, just as the debate over the validity of financial fair play rules — whether European soccer needs someone telling its owners how to spend their money — does, and just as the dispute over whether the Champions League would be better or worse if it was played on a Saturday did a week or so ago.

UEFA’s president, Aleksander Ceferin, is caught between two powerful, opposing forces: the big clubs seeking to dominate European soccer, and a far larger group opposed to their plans.
Credit
Laurent Gillieron/Keystone, via Associated Press

Image
UEFA’s president, Aleksander Ceferin, is caught between two powerful, opposing forces: the big clubs seeking to dominate European soccer, and a far larger group opposed to their plans.CreditLaurent Gillieron/Keystone, via Associated Press
It is not ridiculous to think that F.F.P. is an inherently anti-competitive measure. It is not absurd to believe that owners should be allowed to spend whatever they like on their plaything, and it is not crazy to feel that clubs should be allowed to gamble their very existences on the whim of a benefactor, or that the whole edifice was designed to protect, and enshrine, the primacy of the established elite. Perhaps the rules, as they currently stand, are wrong.

ADVERTISEMENT

The converse is true, too: There is a perfectly logical case to be made that F.F.P. is a good thing, that clubs should have to live within their means, that longstanding sporting and social institutions being deployed as vanity projects or soft-power plays or reputation-laundering devices for regimes with questionable human rights records is less than ideal. Perhaps the rules are the rules, and the clubs should have to abide by them, while lobbying to get them changed, rather than just picking and choosing which ones they like.

Equally, maybe the Champions League would be better if Europe’s giants played one another more frequently. Maybe it would be in the best interests of the game if high-profile European games were played on weekends, and domestic fixtures in midweek. Maybe the handful of teams from Greece and Poland and Belgium who make it are just a waste of time.

Or maybe not. Maybe Europe’s elite clubs — who had, after all, conjured an idea for what the Champions League should look like that was eerily, entirely coincidentally, similar to the idea UEFA is currently workshopping — are in danger of overestimating their own place in the firmament. Maybe changing the Champions League is killing the golden goose. Maybe it works as it is, and it does not need to be altered.

It is perfectly feasible to make a case for all of the above, but the question of which of them is most convincing — which of them, if any, is correct — is not the most pressing. It is the fact that these questions have, now, to be asked, that matters most. The significance of the plan to change the Champions League runs beyond its potential impact on domestic tournaments. The consequences of Manchester City’s possibly being banned from European competition run much further than its Etihad Stadium.

ADVERTISEMENT

In both cases, something far deeper is at stake. These stories, at their heart, once everything else is stripped away — the acronyms and the arguments and all the rest — are about who will get to run European soccer, whose voice carries the most weight, and who answers to whom.


Realigning the Champions League to suit the demands of the biggest, richest clubs (as of 2019) might come under UEFA’s banner, but it would not be at UEFA’s behest. It would suggest that the power, really, lies with the superclubs; that they can shape the competitions they enter to their benefit; that UEFA is now just a brand, a rubber-stamp, an administrator, a licensing commission.

If UEFA failed to listen to the recommendations of its own investigators — if a ban for City is the sanction they seek — it would prove that F.F.P., meanwhile, is effectively finished, that the rising elite of Manchester City and Paris St.-Germain, backed by Abu Dhabi and Qatar, have been right to flout the rules; that those clubs who built their business models around the new reality have been foolish; that Aleksander Ceferin, the UEFA president elected by a consortium of associations from Central and Eastern Europe, away from the big five leagues, could not withstand the pressure of the big money and the old elite; that, ultimately, UEFA did not heed its own investigators, and that it could or would not enforce its own rules.

ADVERTISEMENT

That is the clarity; all the rest is fug.

Maybe that is all for the best. Maybe it would be better if UEFA was not the ultimate source of power in European soccer any longer. Maybe it is time to accept that what is good for the Premier League, or P.S.G., is not the same thing as is good for Bulgaria, and Lokomotiv Plovdiv. Maybe the era of broad churches and consensus is over. Maybe it is time to cut the smaller countries loose, to stop even the pretense of sharing the wealth.

Or maybe it is not. Maybe handing over control of the game to a cartel of superclubs, or allowing nation states to run teams according to their own, unchecked desires, risks disenfranchising everyone outside that small cabal.

Maybe the game should be run for the elite. Maybe the game should be run for everyone. Either way, we approach a crossroads. The direction we eventually travel will tell us more than how many Champions League games will be played on the weekend, or whether Manchester City will feature in them. It will tell us where, precisely, the power now lies.