The English Football Thread

[Vesper 30,091]

and to realllly fuck us, even if Leicester collapses, and we win against Norwich, DRAW against Liverpool (so go into the Wolves game on 64) if they (Wolves) beat us (and win against those other two shit teams) they STILL could crash us out (hello GD nightmare, as they are only 3 back of us)

let me explain that last scenario better

we are +3 GD on Wolves and on 60

so lets say the next games are

Chels 3 Norwich 1 BUT wolves beat beat Burnley by the same 2 goals

we are now still +3 GD over them

BUT then we draw against the dippers and they beat Palace by 2 goals

now we are only +1

then they beat us by one goal

so our GD goes down by one AND theirs goes UP by one, thus a net loss of 2

they go through over us on GD

IF we are level on 64 with Wolves and level on GD, WE go through (more goals scored overall, we are +15)

BUT even if we come into the game +2 (or even +3)

and they beat us by 2 or more, we still crash out as that is a net loss (we go down in GD by 2, they go up by 2) of FOUR to them in GD

[NikkiCFC 8,285]

Everton, Palace, Newcastle and Southampton are only 4 teams that have nothing to play for. Ok you can add Norwich and City now there.

So did not see this coming.

Anyway, I am greedy. Not only that I want us to finish top4 I also want Leicester to finish above UTD. 

Not likely tho...

They would need to win one of the next two games to be in position to decide everything in the last round at home. 

Leicester have better goal difference than UTD.

So if Leicester just win two home games against SU and UTD they would finish above UTD.

[Tomo 21,751]

10 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

Everton, Palace, Newcastle and Southampton are only 4 teams that have nothing to play for. Ok you can add Norwich and City now there.

So did not see this coming.

Anyway, I am greedy. Not only that I want us to finish top4 I also want Leicester to finish above UTD. 

Not likely tho...

They would need to win one of the next two games to be in position to decide everything in the last round at home. 

Leicester have better goal difference than UTD.

So if Leicester just win two home games against SU and UTD they would finish above UTD.

I don't really buy this nothing to play for thing.

Yeah there's some cases where a team/manager jacks it in after 40 points is secured (Tony Pulis for example) but in general i think more unexpected results happen once the pressures off teams. Brighton vs Arsenal and Huddersfield and Cardiff vs United examples from the back end of last season alone.

[NikkiCFC 8,285]

Congrats to Wycombe. They got promoted for the first time in 133 years old history to Championship. 

Just 6 years ago goal difference saved them from going down to Conference.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

not if Leicester win their next 2

if we get 6 points out of the 3 games we are at 66

Leicester, if they beat both SU and Spuds will be on 65

if we lose to wolves on the last day (or beat them but lose to Liverpool), Leicester goes to the CL with a draw (based on on GD) or a win versus manure (again if they win the next two games)

even if we draw with Wolves or Victimpool  and win the other two games (so we would be at 67) Leicester goes to the CL if they beat Manure (they would have 68 points) after winning the next two

but even if they draw one and win one (so they are at 63 points) and then beat Manure, we crash out unless we win 2 and draw one.

beating Norwich and wolves or Liverpool, but losing to the other leaves us wide open to getting fucked by Leicester, as does even a draw and 2 wins by us if they win all three

Leicester's next two games are MASSIVE for us, we need them to LOSE one of them, or draw both, then 2 wins by us and we are 100% CL bound

 

finally, in theory, even Wolves could catch us, IF they win out  (they play shit Burnley and shit Crystal Palace) and we only get 1 win or a draw and win (and the loss is to them)

if we only beat Norwich and lose to the dippers and Wolves, we are on 63 points, wolves, IF they win out, will have 64

and I explain another way in the next post we get fucked by Wolves even with a win v Norwich and a draw v the Dippers

I just doubt that Leicester will get 6 points from Sheffield, Tottenham and Manutd on their current form. Once we get 66 points, we qualify. I just hope we do the job against Norwich Tomorrow to put some pressure on the rest to slip up.

[Rapkun 668]

19 minutes ago, kellzfresh said:

I just doubt that Leicester will get 6 points from Sheffield, Tottenham and Manutd on their current form. Once we get 66 points, we qualify. I just hope we do the job against Norwich Tomorrow to put some pressure on the rest to slip up.

I think Leicester will get 1 point or none from their remaining 3 games. Their current form is that bad.

[DDA 9,924]

4 minutes ago, Rapkun said:

I think Leicester will get 1 point or none from their remaining 3 games. Their current form is that bad.

Also i do believe Maddison, Ricardo and Chilwell are all out injured?? Does Soyuncu have to serve a ban for the red now too?

[Rapkun 668]

Just now, DDA said:

Also i do believe Maddison, Ricardo and Chilwell are all out injured??

That's right, I don't know for how long though. I've included that in their "bad form" factor. Also add Soyuncu being suspended until the end of the season.

[DDA 9,924]

Just now, Rapkun said:

That's right, I don't know for how long though. I've included that in their "bad form" factor. Also add Soyuncu being suspended until the end of the season.

Ahh yes, I added that to my post after you replied. Losing Soyuncu along with the injuries really does put them in a tough position. You can't write them off because it's footballl and anything can happen but it's looking very unlikely for them now.

[Rapkun 668]

2 minutes ago, DDA said:

Ahh yes, I added that to my post after you replied. Losing Soyuncu along with the injuries really does put them in a tough position. You can't write them off because it's footballl and anything can happen but it's looking very unlikely for them now.

Yeah, can't exclude them having a good run and getting 4 points which is IMO the best they can get out of these games. Pereira in particular was a big loss for them. He was their best player at interplay, none of their other wingers(I know he's a FB) in the squad can compensate for what he brings. And now they lost their best defender as well.

[Vesper 30,091]

‘I went straight to my car’ – the ignominy of being substituted at half-time

https://theathletic.com/1925212/2020/07/14/half-time-substitutions-mason-mount-derry-blake-perch/

It is one of the hardest things a footballer has to deal with: you’ve just given your all for 45 minutes but the manager decides your performance is so underwhelming that a change has to be made at half-time.

In the grand scheme of things, it’s not quite as bad as “the ultimate indignity” — a substitute being substituted — or a player failing to even make it to the interval before getting the hook but it’s right up there in terms of demeaning moments any player wants to avoid.

“You just feel embarrassed,” former Crystal Palace and Queens Park Rangers midfielder Shaun Derry explains to The Athletic. “The Premier League is always scrutinised, even if you’re at a smaller club.

“On the times it happened to me, I was gutted. You go home, you’re quiet. You just went to get back on the training pitch to put it right. Games come round quickly, so you can move on to the next page. You just want to play again, to show the quality you do have.”

One can only assume that is exactly how Mason Mount is feeling ahead of Chelsea’s game against Norwich tonight. The England international has suffered the ignominy of going off at half-time twice in as many weeks.

Mount, as well as fellow youngsters Billy Gilmour and Reece James, suffered the consequences for Chelsea’s underwhelming display in the first half at Leicester City in the FA Cup quarter-final on June 28. Head coach Frank Lampard’s ruthless streak paid off, because his team ended up winning the tie 1-0.

The 21-year-old caught Lampard’s eye for the wrong reasons once more at Sheffield United on Saturday. He was replaced, along with fellow academy graduate Andreas Christensen, although the defender at least had an injury to blame. This time, the changes made no difference as the home side, who led 2-0 at half-time, went on to cruise to a comfortable 3-0 victory.

Derry knows exactly what emotions Mount and the other early-subbed Chelsea players have been through. The 42-year-old will never forget QPR manager Neil Warnock brutally axing him at half-time twice in October 2011.

On the first occasion, QPR trailed Fulham 3-0 at the break (they went on to lose the match 6-0) and the second came halfway through a 3-1 loss at Tottenham.

“Neil was always black and white with me in terms of being positive and negative,” Derry explains. “He’d tell me if I’d done well or was poor. At half-time against Fulham, we were 3-0 down and I hadn’t played well. It’s as simple as that. As an older player, you understand your game a little bit more and I knew I’d not done myself justice.

“He had this pretty honest way of communicating with me. Some days, he would tell you. Others, he wouldn’t even look at you. This was one of those days where it was the former — it was along the lines of, ‘Shaun, that’s you done, son’.

“You don’t put up a fight. There’s no point. We were getting absolutely battered. It was time for a change and a manager has the right to do that. I just sat there and took my boots off.

“He said the same to Adel (Taarabt, who was also withdrawn at half-time in both matches). But at Fulham, being the young man that he was at the time, he stormed off into the showers. It later emerged he walked out and was seen at a bus stop outside the stadium.

“I didn’t know he had left until we were on the bus back to the training ground and I realised he wasn’t on it. We didn’t really talk about it because that was Adel. We’d become used to some of his decision-making. I didn’t care because we’d seen it often, even during the good times he’d had. That was just the way he was.

“When both of us were taken off at half-time again at Spurs a few weeks later, I didn’t take it personally. We were fighting for our lives. You didn’t have 10-12 consistent players every week in a team like ours. The highs and lows are regular. As a manager, you will constantly change to find a formula. I knew I’d still get my shirt back because of the way I performed in training.”

The strength of Derry’s relationship with Warnock, much like Mount’s is with Lampard, was such that it didn’t develop into something more negative or sinister.

In the Chelsea youngster’s case, he has still featured in every Premier League match this season and the brief introduction of the five substitute rule, as well as an intense fixture list, does encourage coaches to use their bench more regularly than normal.

To say Robbie Blake was quite so forgiving when he was hooked at half-time against Manchester City in April 2010 would be inaccurate.

Manchester City were four goals up inside 20 minutes at Turf Moor, so manager Brian Laws opted to replace Blake with Wade Elliott, while Jack Cork came on for Kevin McDonald. In some ways, it worked, as Burnley kept the second-half score down to 2-1 to City. Yet the decision backfired because both withdrawn players disappeared while the match was still going on. McDonald ended up getting fined, having been spotted in a local pub. Dressing room morale was arguably dented more by the fallout than the result itself, and Burnley were relegated come May. Blake never started a Premier League game for the club again and moved on to Bolton at the end of the campaign.

Looking back on the encounter, Blake reveals: “It was incredible, really. He (Laws) was hammering the boys at half-time, saying words I can’t repeat, and then he said, ‘There are only some boys who can come out with a little bit of credit here, and that’s him’ — and he pointed at me — ‘and Kev. They’re the only ones who are trying’. He waffled on a bit longer, then he said, ‘Well, anyway, I’m going to make two changes. You’re coming off and you’re coming off’ to me and Kev.

“My first reaction was, ‘It sums you up’. Being a coach now (at non-League Bognor Regis Town), I can understand certain situations but the guy, at that level, was just struggling. He didn’t know how to give a challenge or how to deal with that. If someone else had taken me off, who I had a bit more respect for, it probably would have hurt me a bit more.

“Genuinely, I was laughing inside. I’m not trying to be disrespectful now, or then, but I thought, ‘You haven’t got a clue, mate, so I find it a compliment that you’re going to take me off’. People have disagreements, but I felt the job was too big for him. It didn’t make sense, we were (being made) the scapegoats, really. He didn’t even change the formation.

“I listened to the second half as I was driving home. I went straight out of the dressing room and at Turf Moor, you can go left or right. Kev turned right and went into the pub where his dad was. I turned left and got straight in my car and drove home.

“It was devastating (to leave on that note). I had a meeting with (director) Brendan Flood and he was saying, ‘Please stay, please stay’ but I was replying, ‘I can’t stay while he’s in charge. If you think you’re going to go straight back up, you’ve got another thing coming’. It was a nightmare.”

Clearly, the way a manager handles such a sensitive subject is key to how quickly people can move on afterwards.

Egos, pride, confidence and relationships can be damaged if an individual thinks they’ve been slighted.

James Perch played for Newcastle as a right-back under Alan Pardew. On the final day of the 2011-12 season, he had no complaints after having his afternoon cut short during a 3-1 loss at Everton. However, in what proved to be his penultimate appearance for the club, Perch took great exception at Pardew’s drastic response to going into half-time 2-0 down at home to Liverpool a year later. They went on to lose 6-0.

“For the most part, the team was awful,” Perch concedes. “But, I have to be honest, I thought I did all right. But he just took me off. I was raging. I don’t think I deserved it.

“There was no explanation. We just came back to the dressing room and he said, ‘Right, Perchy, you’re off’. It’s disappointing and it’s not nice because, sometimes, you feel like you’ve been made to look a bit of a scapegoat.

“Sometimes, I felt like I was the easy option for the manager to take off, rather than some of the ‘bigger names’. He could have changed a whole host of players against Liverpool ahead of me but he chose me and I didn’t think that was right. It was maybe less of a story if it was me than someone else.

“So straight away, I just took my boots off, took my kit off and walked into the shower. I didn’t want to listen to what he had to say. I wanted to let him know I was disappointed, and I’m sure he got the message!”

With so many professionals seeking a career in coaching or management once their playing days are over, it is inevitable things they have seen and been through may be used to help them in the dug-out.

Lampard’s call to take Mount, James and Gilmour off at Leicester led to comparisons with his former Chelsea boss Jose Mourinho, who used all three substitutions at half-time during an FA Cup tie at Newcastle in 2005. Indeed, Lampard was one of the individuals who came on to try turn a 1-0 deficit around. It didn’t work, partly because Wayne Bridge soon had to go off due to a broken leg, meaning the visitors were reduced to 10 men.

Derry, who is now in charge of Crystal Palace Under-23s, has no doubts Lampard will be helped by lessons learned when he was younger and will handle the situation accordingly.

“Lampard is a fantastic communicator,” he says. “I did my UEFA A licence with Frank and (his Chelsea No 2) Jody Morris. There couldn’t be two better individuals to look after the young players at Chelsea, because they have been young players at Chelsea and succeeded.

“Frank will stick with them and explain things to them — what is really required. For example, it was a dip at Leicester, something three of them experienced together.

“I’ve been in the same situation as a coach. I’ve brought on a substitute and taken him off again. That’s not a nice thing to do. But at the same time, I can always refer back to my own experiences and say, ‘It happened to me’. When you can tell that story, it resonates a bit clearer with the player.

“The coaching staff at Chelsea won’t let it be a situation that gets out of hand. The big factor is coping with it. Do you know what? I don’t think it is a bad thing. It will turn into a real positive for their futures. The journey is not always smooth. There will be dips in the road as footballers.”

[Vesper 30,091]

Manchester City’s Champions League ban lifted – everything you need to know

https://theathletic.com/1925259/2020/07/13/manchester-city-uefa-cas-champions-league-explained/

Manchester City’s two-year ban from UEFA competition has been overturned after the club’s successful appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland.

But what does this mean for the club — and their rivals — going forward? The Athletic explains…

What has been decided? 

Sam Lee: The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled the allegation that City artificially inflated their sponsorship agreements was “not established” (not proven) or “time-barred”, so there is no Champions League ban at all and City will be in the competition next season.

It did find they had breached Article 56 of the club licensing and Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations by failing to co-operate with UEFA’s investigation, which is why there is a £9 million fine — reduced from the £25 million UEFA imposed in February.

Now that is all cut and dried, City are in the Champions League, but City’s reputation and the future of FFP could well be decided in a few days’ time when CAS’s full written reasons for why and how they came to these decisions are published.

The alleged breaches were “either not established or time-barred”. What does that mean?

Matt Slater: Apart from the actual result, this is the most interesting sentence in the CAS press release and we will not know its full meaning until we have seen the full written decision.

In short, “not established” means UEFA failed to prove part of its case and “time-barred” means the alleged offences happened too long ago to be considered now.

UEFA has five years to bring an FFP case against a club and as these allegations dated back to a five-year period between 2012 and 2016, most of them fell outside that statute of limitations.

UEFA obviously knew that but its legal advisors clearly decided the alleged deception at the heart of this case should overrule that limit. This is a well-established legal principle and was perhaps best seen in the Lance Armstrong doping scandal, where most of his wrongdoing would have been time-barred if he had not lied about it.

We really need to see the full CAS verdict before saying anything further on City’s conduct in this case, particularly as the press release also says UEFA simply failed to make part of its case stick. But how much of City’s apparent exoneration is down to technical grounds (time-barred) and how much it owes to UEFA not having the evidence to support those sanctions (not established) will frame the debate about City for years to come.

Hang on — but City have still been hit with a fine. They failed to cooperate with UEFA. This isn’t a complete exoneration, is it? 

Oliver Kay: A win is a win. And for City, who were facing the threat of two years without Champions League football and with a huge stain on their reputation, this is clearly a highly significant victory — hugely important for their on-pitch ambitions and for the wider credibility of their project under Sheikh Mansour’s ownership.

It is, though, a result with certain grey areas. Even with their ban overturned and a ban reduced from £25 million to £9 million, and with CAS concluding that the club “did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions”, it is not the total vindication City hoped for. The CAS statement said that City had shown a “disregard” for UEFA’s regulatory process, citing their “obstruction” of the investigation, hence that significant fine.

CAS said that “most of the alleged breaches reported by the adjudicatory chamber of the (UEFA) CFCB were either not established or time-barred”. That is embarrassing for UEFA but it also raises the possibility that there might have been a different outcome if either (a) City had cooperated with the UEFA inquiry or (b) Rui Pinto had hacked into their email server a year or two earlier.

There were many damaging allegations in the “Football Leaks” reports. City have complained that those allegations were “out of context” but they have never denied the authenticity of the content. We will find out more when CAS publishes the written reasons for its findings but it appears that some of those allegations have been rejected simply because of the amount of time that has elapsed, rather than because they were untrue.

Either way, City are entitled to feel an overwhelming sense of relief. The result from CAS was not quite the emphatic vindication that they might have hoped for but it was certainly a significant victory and one that will ensure that the whole unedifying story gradually fades from the memory (as City’s FFP sanctions 2014 had been forgotten by many until “Football Leaks” blew open the whole issue once more). What can be said with far greater certainty is that, for UEFA, it is an extremely damaging defeat. 

Will the Premier League take any action? 

Sam Lee: This is very interesting now as the Premier League has been investigating for about as long as this whole UEFA process has taken. The feeling is that the Premier League has been waiting to see how UEFA got on and now we know the answer — not very well. In any case, the Premier League’s own FFP regulations are much less strict than UEFA’s and allow losses of up to £105 million over three seasons.

There is another slightly less well-known rule, however. Under section J7 of the Premier League’s handbook, “any club making a false statement (whether made verbally or in writing) in an application for a UEFA Club Licence or falsifying a document produced in support of such an application shall be in breach of these rules and shall be liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section W of these rules (disciplinary).”

This is another example of why CAS’s full, written judgement regarding the time-barred element will be so interesting. If CAS says that UEFA could not act on breaches that did take place because they happened more than five years ago, the Premier League may take that as evidence that there were breaches and act on those, either in line with their FFP regulations or the falsifying of documents.

But it should be said that CAS’s decision does make the chances of a Premier League punishment far less likely. FIFA gave City a £310,000 fine in August 2019 for breaching rules regarding the recruitment of minors but the club avoided a transfer ban. Now they have seen a European suspension lifted and been given another, admittedly more considerable, fine. From a City point of view, you might expect them to say to the Premier League: “Look, guys, UEFA threw everything at us, FIFA threw everything at us… are you really going to try it too?”

What do other clubs make of this?

Adam Crafton, David Ornstein and Matt Slater: It’s worth remembering that eight of the top 10 Premier League clubs — excluding City and Sheffield United — submitted an application to CAS in March arguing City should not be allowed to play in the Champions League while their ban was under appeal. City have not forgotten this. It has also not gone unnoticed that a question about monitoring sponsorship valuations is generally raised at most Premier League meetings.

City’s Premier League rivals are keeping their counsel publicly for fear of sounding hypocritical or disparaging. Even if they thought City would end up with some sort of European ban, the likes of Wolverhampton Wanderers, Leicester City and Sheffield United have just been trying to concentrate on winning enough points to qualify for Europe in their own right.

Arsenal, we know, are very supportive of FFP. Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur will be keeping a very close eye given they operate sustainable financial models too. Meanwhile, things just got a lot more interesting in the race for Europe for Chelsea and Manchester United.

“I was never pinning my hopes on it meaning an extra team got in,” said Chelsea manager Frank Lampard. “We worry about ourselves. I wouldn’t like the players to have been thinking, ‘There is an extra place, does that mean we can relax a little bit more?’ It can’t be the way. It’s just clear now what the positions are and we have to fight for it.”

In terms of European rivals, La Liga president Javier Tebas, a long-time outspoken critic of “dangerous” City with their “petrol money and gas money”, has already had his say. “We have to reassess whether the CAS is the appropriate body to which to appeal institutional decisions in football,” he said. “Switzerland is a country with a great history of arbitration. The CAS is not up to standard.”

Major European clubs tend to operate with a little more subtlety but they won’t let this lie either. UEFA’s statement highlighted how the European Club Association (ECA), the umbrella group of Europe’s leading clubs, “remain committed to its principles”. The Athletic understands some of City’s rivals called external advisors this morning to discuss the next steps, while elite Champions League clubs have a WhatsApp group where they’ll be discussing what to do.

The next step for the likes of Bayern Munich, Juventus, Manchester United, Arsenal, Real Madrid and Inter Milan is to hold a call in the next few days to decide their approach. If — and that “if” is not certain — the full written verdict reveals the decision is more down to the allegations being “time-barred” than “not established”, one could imagine UEFA being goaded into an appeal by public sentiment and private pressure: possible, not probable, as UEFA will have to be convinced it has a chance of success. The success rate of UEFA winning an appeal at a Swiss federal court, the next port of call after CAS, is understood to be very low.

The alternative would be to seek a more conciliatory approach with City, who are very much on the outside looking in when it comes to the elite of European clubs. The ECA’s 24-person executive board includes representatives from Barcelona, Real Madrid, Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Juventus, Paris Saint-Germain and two from Bayern Munich. There is no representative from City.

It’s the same with UEFA’s executive committee, which includes Juventus chairman Andreas Agnelli and PSG’s Nasser Al-Khelaifi as the two ECA reps. Former Manchester United chief executive David Gill is still a vice-president and treasurer of the UEFA executive committee, while United’s vice-chairman, Ed Woodward, is also on UEFA’s Professional Football Strategy Council.

PSG have shown it is possible to infiltrate Europe’s inner circle, having received a £20 million fine for breaching FFP restrictions in 2014, but the French club’s Qatari ownership and close links with television giant beIN Sports have undoubtedly helped in this regard.

A source at one leading club said: “There’s never been a coordinated vendetta against City by UEFA or the established elite. The focus for all of us now is making sure the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater. It’s a shame if the City case overshadowed the strides FFP has made. It’s worth preserving that.”

What does this mean for other Premier League clubs fighting for European places then?

Sam Lee: Quite simply, there will be no extra place now. The top four will get the Champions League spots as normal and fifth, sixth and possibly seventh will get a Europa League spot. The FA Cup winner also gets a Europa League place, unless they have already qualified. So, if Arsenal win the FA Cup and finish eighth in the league, they would get the Europa League place. If City, Manchester United, or Chelsea win it (or Arsenal win it and finish in the top six) then seventh place will get that final spot.

Wolves or Manchester United could also gain a place in next season’s Champions League by winning this year’s Europa League.

How have City and UEFA responded?

Matt Slater: City and UEFA have issued short statements that make predictable but sensible points.

City’s 66-word statement starts by saying the club and its legal advisors have not yet reviewed the full ruling but the verdict is a “validation” of its position and “the body of evidence that it was able to present”.

This is consistent with City’s messaging on this matter from the moment Der Spiegel published its allegations in November 2018. While the club’s official statements on the matter have been few and far between, they have always strongly denied any wrongdoing and projected a supreme sense of confidence that they would, eventually, be exonerated.

UEFA’s statement is twice as long but does not say much more.

The most significant sentence is the second, in which it notes the three-man CAS panel found there was “insufficient conclusive evidence” to uphold all of the Club Financial Control Body’s (CFCB) “conclusions” and “that many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the five-year time period foreseen in the UEFA regulations”.

This is a signal that UEFA believes the battle may have been lost but the war is not over.

All this doesn’t sound good for the future of FFP…

Matt Slater: Once the dust has settled from the big scuffle, this is very much the next one.

Cards on table time. Back in November, we wrote that City would not be banned but would get a significant fine. We are not claiming to be right retrospectively, as we thought that would be the result at UEFA level, not CAS.

But we also wrote that if that was the ultimate result, it really would be the end of FFP as it would have meant UEFA admitting it no longer had the stomach to police its spending rules, particularly when it could be argued they had achieved their primary objective of reducing the amount of debt in the game, therefore making it more sustainable.

And in that regard, FFP has worked. Numerous studies have been published over the last few years have demonstrated how European club football’s cumulative debt has fallen and wage bills have become more closely aligned to revenues.

There are, of course, exceptions to this — we are looking at you, Championship — but FFP has acted as a soft salary cap and steered dozens of clubs away from the precipice. UEFA believes FFP still has a role to play in this regard and defeat in the City case does not change that.

“UEFA will not consider FFP to be dead but it has been a disaster of communications,” said a source familiar with UEFA. “It has led to a fundamental misunderstanding of what FFP is about. It was never introduced to stop investment. It was about financial health. This has actually been achieved, if you study club accounts across Europe, in what it set out to do in that regard.”

But is that all FFP was meant to achieve? Former UEFA boss Michel Platini, its main advocate, certainly hoped it would also address the competitive balance by levelling the financial playing-field a tad.

In this regard, it has emphatically failed, with the elite clubs looking more entrenched than ever. And UEFA is complicit here as Champions League broadcast revenue has been the rocket fuel that has helped the top clubs in every country achieve separation from the rest.

On the flip side, you could argue that UEFA has an impossible task, as it may want to rein in the big clubs and encourage the type of competition American sports fans take for granted with their closed leagues, salary caps and draft picks but knows it cannot push too hard or the elite will pick up their ball and form their own closed league.

So FFP was always going to be a balancing act and is likely to remain so. By taking City on, UEFA has signalled its commitment to the principles of the rules — keeping your spending in line with your income and not allowing unlimited support from rich owners — but defeat does suggest evolution is required.

UEFA will say the rules have evolved — and it is certainly true that rules are now less about debt, which was never really a problem for likes of Chelsea, City, Manchester United or PSG, and more about a sustainable investment that does not upset the game’s equilibrium — so they can evolve again.

But as stated above, how that process plays out will depend on what is in the written decisions from the CFCB and CAS. If City escaped on technicalities, there will be pressure to address those. If City were cleared because UEFA’s evidence was flimsy, there will be calls to find more credible, defensible and transparent ways of keeping a lid on spending.

“For sure, this judgment may mean owners thinking, ‘Come on, let’s get the chequebook out’,” added the source. “But don’t forget that City have now had £25 million fines between the two cases and I dread to think of the legal fees. There will be a huge expense to this that nobody should doubt, a real cost implication. What this all does mean is UEFA has to start implementing FFP in a conciliatory way, working with clubs in an open book transparent process rather than ‘investigation’.”

Bit embarrassing for UEFA this though, isn’t it? Will they regret picking this fight?

Matt Slater: It is understood there was a debate internally at UEFA about whether this was an FFP issue at all and it should perhaps have been treated as a case for its disciplinary committee instead. This then would have become an argument about the behaviour of City’s senior staff, as opposed to one about the club’s revenues and spending.

There is a theory that UEFA always knew the time-bar issue could be its undoing at CAS but felt — for the good of the game and the survival of FFP, which it views as one and the same thing — it had to prosecute City regardless and let someone else make a decision on whether the time limit should apply or not.

If UEFA had gone down the disciplinary route, it would not have been so constrained by “time-bars” or its 2014 settlement with City, but any sanctions would most likely have only applied to the likes of chief executive Ferran Soriano, chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak and so on. UEFA clearly decided it had to defend FFP and, if City had breached the rules, any sanctions should be applied to the team. There will now, though, be an inquest in Nyon as to whether they made the right call.

What does this mean for Pep Guardiola and the future of the City squad?

Sam Lee: City were planning to spend big this summer anyway, but the only doubt would have been whether the players they have already lined up would want to join them once the reality of no Champions League football for two years had hit. Of course, that is no longer an issue and City will set about refreshing their squad in key areas. We understand they will make attempts to sign at least one centre-back, a left-back, a winger and a striker.

As for Pep Guardiola’s future, this decision will not be the key factor. What is most important is that he and the players feel fresh and motivated after five years together. This is very good news, of course, as it would’ve been harder to convince him to stay with no Champions League football and possibly a Premier League punishment. Without those barriers, he can look ahead but there are bigger factors.

Can UEFA challenge the decision? What happens now? 

Matt Slater: Both parties can challenge this decision but it is hard to see why City would wish to do so.

A fine of £9 million sounds big — and nobody is suggesting that sum is trivial — but it is only one-third of what UEFA’s independent panel demanded and not an amount that should stretch the resources of City’s owners too far.

It has also been levied because CAS agreed with UEFA that the club had not cooperated with the investigation, which tallies with what many sources have told The Athletic. Part legal strategy, part indignation, City took the most hostile possible approach to this case from the outset, even trying to persuade CAS to throw it out before UEFA’s process had been completed.

UEFA now has a big decision to make about what it does next. While we must wait to see how CAS reached its verdict, it appears it has either rejected UEFA’s argument for ignoring the five-year time bar or decided that much of these issues have already been dealt with in City’s 2014 FFP case and subsequent settlement with the governing body. If that is the case, it is hard to see how a Swiss federal court will unpick that.

 

 

https://theathletic.com/podcast/144-the-ornstein-and-chapman-podcast/?episode=111

Why Manchester City’s Champions League ban was lifted

The Athletic's David Ornstein, Sam Lee & Matt Slater explain everything you need to know on the ruling that saw Manchester City's two year Champions League ban overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport

We delve into the details and answer these questions:

- What was the reaction inside City to the verdict?
- Were they always confident or preparing for the worst?
- Why have CAS decided to rule in City's favour?
- Why have CAS said some of the allegations were 'time-barred' and what does that mean?
- What does this ruling mean for the future of Financial Fair Play?
- Could UEFA still mount a challenge to this decision?
- Could the Premier League decide to take action against City?
- Will this boost City's summer transfer plans?
- Will the verdict raise eyebrows in rival clubs boardrooms?

Elsewhere we're joined by The Athletic's Simon Johnson for the latest on Chelsea's pursuit of Ajax goalkeeper Andre Onana and what that means for Kepa's future, we also check in with Phil Hay to take the temperature at Leeds as they inch closer to promotion, and David has insight into what a likely lack of European football will mean for Arsenal's transfer plans this summer

[Vesper 30,091]

The story of Manchester City’s five months in limbo

https://theathletic.com/1926335/2020/07/14/manchester-city-champions-league-ban/

Among the powerful Catalan contingent who bestride the corridors of power at Manchester City, the announcement on Monday morning brought an instant release of euphoria.

On the Instagram page belonging to Manel Estiarte, a long-serving member of Pep Guardiola’s backroom staff, a picture rapidly surfaced. In the background, the rolling coverage of Sky Sports News played out and, in front of the screen, the grinning faces of City’s leading men beamed out. Guardiola and Estiarte posed alongside the chief executive Ferran Soriano, the sporting director Txiki Begiristain and the chief operating officer Omar Berrada.

Behind the scenes, City’s handsomely-paid legal team have worked around the clock to file their ultimately successful submission to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). This week, all that expense paid lucrative dividends, eliminating a two-year Champions League ban and reducing the fine — for obstructing the original investigation — from €30 million to €10 million. Yet while the legalese secured headline-grabbing success, City’s head coach Guardiola and their Catalan executive staged a careful production of their own, managing the uncertainty pervading the dressing room and keeping a roll call of star turns on board. City’s most senior figures only discovered the verdict an hour before its public announcement and the five men pictured are understood to have taken in the news together when the call came in from Switzerland.

In the City boardroom, the news soon went global. At 9.30am, CAS published their statement and, four minutes later, an email dropped into the inboxes of the club’s staff not only at their Manchester training base but also to offices in London, Singapore, Japan and Melbourne. Soriano conceded that “these have not been easy times” but praised the “resilience and character” of those employed by City. It carried a triumphant tone, telling staff that the outcome “vindicated the club’s decision” to challenge the decision taken by UEFA’s club financial control body in February. The email concluded by describing the episode as an “unwelcome distraction” and said the “club can now push ahead with recovery from COVID-19 and our performance on and off the pitch”.

In the City dressing room, confirmation of the reprieve was greeted with similar acclaim. On the outside, City have maintained a stiff upper lip and a brave face over the past five months but even the most ardent supporter may have wondered how some of the squad’s most talented players would respond to a potential two-year ban from the continent’s elite competition.  Sergio Aguero is 32 and Kevin De Bruyne, now 29, would have been 31 by the time Champions League football returned to east Manchester if the worst punishment transpired.

There were red flags. Early in May, for example, De Bruyne said in an interview in his native Belgium that he would consider his future. The midfielder said: “Two years would be long but in the case of one year I might see.”

Equally, The Athletic reported in February how Bernardo Silva, the Portuguese playmaker, would require some major persuading to remain at the club for the two years preceding the major World Cup of his career without access to Europe’s biggest club competition.

Perhaps most curious, however, was the concern that privately gripped City over Raheem Sterling, now 25 and at the peak of his powers. Shortly before City travelled to face Real Madrid in the Champions League, Sterling afforded an interview to the Spanish AS newspaper and it is no exaggeration to say that eyebrows were raised internally over the player’s decision to pose with a Real Madrid shirt draped over one shoulder and a City shirt over the other. In Madrid, the antennae pricked up and anyone who has witnessed Real’s pursuit of star names over the years sensed it may be the beginning of a drawn-out affair. City, at the time, felt that making a big deal out of the affair may only serve to inflame a sensitive situation, although the player’s agent, Aidy Ward, had previously said publicly that Sterling would not leave the club.

Despite the Sterling reservations, however, it is also true that not one City player approached the club’s executives during this period to state an intention to leave the club due to their fears over the Champions League ban and much of this loyalty is owed to the careful management overseen by Guardiola and Soriano.

The news of a potential two-year ban dropped on City on the evening of Valentine’s Day, just as the club returned from their winter break on a Friday night. Guardiola rapidly called his players in for a meeting on the Saturday. In a conference room at the club’s training ground, Guardiola reassured his players he would remain at the club next season, regardless of the result of any appeal, and he rallied the troops. The tone was us-against-the-world and, ahead of their Champions League fixture against Real Madrid, Guardiola urged his players to show Europe “we are not money, we are talent”. Indeed, on the Friday evening that preceded the meeting, City’s executives took a proactive approach, reaching out to their players’ agents to give reassurances that the club would overturn the punishment upon appeal. While De Bruyne teased an exit in public, his agent did, however, reassure City, while representatives of Phil Foden made abundantly clear he wished to remain at the club.

City’s players were further comforted when, shortly after the club returned to training after lockdown, Guardiola roused his group with a speech. In the address, he told his players that Soriano had reassured him that the club would be successful upon appeal and in the immediate aftermath, both Sterling and De Bruyne confided in team-mates that they would remain at the club. During the pandemic, most clubs broached the possibility of wage deferrals or reductions with their playing squad and it was notable that, despite an initial discussion over a five or ten per cent deferral, City’s hierarchy ultimately agreed to carry on paying the squad’s full wages.

Perhaps most interestingly, those most closely familiar with these City players felt the major sticking point in the group could ultimately hinge upon how their successes in recent times would be framed in the event the ban stood. Yet City did fear their players may feel their achievements to be tainted due to the UEFA judgment, or an asterisk placed against the trophies won under Guardiola’s guidance.

Not everybody, it should be said, was convinced City would succeed. While the super-agent Jorge Mendes sent a private memo of support, other agents gossiped privately, aware that the Ballon d’Or bonuses in their players’ contracts, for instance, would swiftly fade into irrelevance if their clients could not compete at the highest level. Players can receive five-figure windfalls through partnerships and sponsorships linked to European competition and some boot deals will include clauses based on the number of appearances a player makes in the Champions League.

City’s future plans, meanwhile, would clearly have been compromised by an absence from the elite. City recorded a £10.1 million profit last season but £77 million of their income came from Champions League participation. In the absence of this cash flow, it is tempting to wonder whether City may have needed to do more to balance the books than simply sell Leroy Sane in his long-trailed move to Bayern Munich.

Now, however, such concerns have dissipated. City are favourites to see off Real Madrid in the Champions League round of 16 and they will return to the competition next season with added sparkle. The club are determined to recruit players at centre-back, left-back, on the wing and up front this summer. At left-back, City are open to selling any of Angelino, Benjamin Mendy or Oleksandr Zinchenko. City conceived a plan to include Bayern Munich’s David Alaba in the Sane deal but the Germans could not be persuaded. Juventus’ Alex Sandro is a long-standing target who may return to the shortlist, while City have not yet abandoned all hope on Leicester’s Ben Chilwell, in a deal which may be revived if Chelsea fail to qualify for the Champions League.

Southampton’s experienced full-back Ryan Bertrand, who has excelled of late, is also on the radar after Guardiola first considered a move for him in 2017. At centre-half, Napoli’s Kalidou Koulibaly and Bournemouth’s Nathan Ake are contenders while Valencia’s breakthrough talent Ferran Torres is running down his contract and impressing suitors in the wide position. Bayern’s Kingsley Coman and Bayer Leverkusen’s Leon Bailey are alternatives.

While the targets are varied, the nub is clear: City want to recruit and Guardiola wants it done with conviction. Previous summers have irritated the City coach, particularly in the way the club were beaten to transfers by Chelsea and Manchester United for Jorginho and Harry Maguire, despite subsequent protestations that the club will not pay over the odds for players.

While City go on the attack, both on and off the field, the reaction elsewhere has been shock and bewilderment. One senior Premier League club executive described himself as “flabbergasted” on Monday. Meanwhile, a WhatsApp group of leading European club directors rapidly exchanged messages to discuss the next steps for financial fair play within an hour of the news breaking. Soon enough, they were consulting external advisers and deliberating whether to lobby UEFA to take City to a Swiss federal court.

Guardiola, for his part, is expected to be robust in his next press appearance and he has privately been unimpressed by the moves made by the European elite to circle on City. Earlier this year, Guardiola turned on his former club Barcelona, telling them not to “talk too loud” after the club’s president praised the decision to ban City. Guardiola may take aim at certain clubs, for City have been equally unimpressed by representations made by Juventus and Bayern over the years, as well as what they see as a concerted bid to cut the club’s representatives out of key positions on European Club Association and UEFA committees.

There are no shortage of contenders for a Guardiola riposte but, deep down, the coach will be most content to know his City team will now be able to do their talking on the pitch.

[Vesper 30,091]

Inability to keep the ball when pressed a wake-up for Manchester United

https://theathletic.com/1927262/2020/07/14/united-possession-manchester-solskjaer-pogba-bruno-fred/

Usually it is Bruno Fernandes admonishing others over standards but on the hour against Southampton, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer felt compelled to urge improvement from the player who has dramatically invigorated Manchester United.

“Bruno! Hey! Come on!” Solskjaer shouted from his seat in the dugout when Fernandes overhit a pass out to Marcus Rashford, ending an attack that had looked promising. It seemed a cry in context of appreciating what Fernandes is capable of and also a concern that not enough care was being put into United’s play in general.

Little more than 10 minutes earlier, Fernandes had tried a similar quick pass to Aaron Wan-Bissaka which also failed due to its hurried nature and though that is part of the deal with the Portuguese, whose pass completion rate of 73.68 per cent was only his joint fourth-lowest 11 in Premier League games, the balance between risk and reward was a little off for large parts of the contest.

The control that United have enjoyed in matches since lockdown lifted was not there against Southampton, particularly in the second half when Solskjaer’s side dropped deeper in attempt to protect their 2-1 lead. Too often passes were misplaced and there was frustration from Mike Phelan late on when Fred hooked errantly into the centre of the pitch, rather than play the ball down the line to Rashford. Phelan swivelled in angst and motioned his hand to show where Fred should have aimed, not only because it could have launched an attack but because it would have been a less dangerous place on the pitch for Southampton to gain possession.

Phelan spent the entirety of the contest stood on the edge of the technical area, a sure sign matters are not progressing to United plans, and though Ralph Hasenhuttl’s team needed until the 96th minute to equalise, they were well worth their point.

It was at St Mary’s in August that United recorded their highest number of lost possessions this season (183) and Southampton’s frenzied high press in this reverse fixture unsettled Solskjaer’s side again. United lost possession 141 times, significantly higher than in recent games against Sheffield United (107), Aston Villa (109), Brighton (109) and Bournemouth (111) — four of the five lowest totals this campaign.

Pressing in the final third was of course the source of Stuart Armstrong’s goal, a two-pass move instigated by a smart and sharp hunt from Danny Ings when Paul Pogba turned on David De Gea’s pass out from the back. In the 18th minute, Pogba was again slow to the speed of Southampton’s forwards, with Che Adams seizing possession but fortunately for United playing a poor pass to Ings.

Southampton’s approach did enable United space further up the pitch for those occasions they did beat the press, and Martial’s goal – fed by fluid passes from Pogba then Fernandes – was a perfect case in point. Martial and Rashford, who were both at their best, each created two further big chances through fast breaks and there was an exquisite backheel pass by Fernandes to set up Pogba. But United never really seemed at ease.

Pogba for instance had a passing accuracy of 80 per cent and the only time he has recorded a lower number this season came against Chelsea on the opening day (76.19 per cent).

Rather than blame his players, Solskjaer credited Southampton. “It’s the team that you play against,” he said. “They didn’t give us any respite. We knew before the game that we were not gonna get a lot of time on the ball, so it’s risk and reward. Of course we lost the ball on the first goal. We never got the rhythm really to play, because you have to earn the right. But when we did we scored some fantastic goals.”

The average positions from the match shows Fernandes (No 18), Pogba (No 6) and Nemanja Matic (No 31) further apart than usual, and it was little wonder that Solskjaer implored his team to stay compact in the closing stages, squeezing his hands together to illustrate his point from the touchline.

Solskjaer was trying to compensate after the injury to Brandon Williams, and there is an element of irony that United finished with ten men when Oriel Romeu was fortunate in the extreme to stay on the pitch after planting his studs down Mason Greenwood’s ankle in the first half.

Even though Fernandes and Pogba had below-par performances, United’s possession did drop in their absence, from 55.3 per cent to 36.8 per cent once Fred replaced the Frenchman in the 63rd minute. It fell to 16.8 per cent for the final six minutes plus added time that Fernandes was in the stands.

Overall United had 47.61 per cent possession, the first time since football returned that they have held the ball less than their opponents – and against a team who do not necessarily want to dominate play. Hasenhuttl reminded afterwards that his style is for dynamic attacks rather than methodical build-ups.

A further point to note is that United’s passing accuracy fell from 84 per cent in the first half to 71.7 per cent in the second, while Southampton’s rose from 77.9 per cent to 83.9 per cent. Hasenhuttl’s side applied increasing pressure as the game wore on and ultimately it told.

United will hope that is not an indicator of what might happen in the final three games of the season as the stakes get higher. Squeaky bum time got that bit squeakier with CAS overturning UEFA’s ban on Manchester City and United missing the chance to go third means the test of nerve for Champions League qualification will inevitably go to the final day at Leicester.

 

[Vesper 30,091]

Three and a half mad minutes could ruin Leicester’s season

https://theathletic.com/1925219/2020/07/13/leicester-bournemouth-champions-league/

It took only 210 seconds for Leicester City’s Champions League destiny to be left hanging by a thread. It was three and a half season-defining minutes that could have more impact on Leicester’s campaign than any other game this season.

Kasper Schmeichel fired a goal kick straight into the backside of his team-mate, Wilfred Ndidi, who then conceded the penalty that gave Bournemouth a lifeline. Minutes later, there was the atrocious defending that allowed Dominic Solanke to score the second goal and referee Stuart Attwell showed Caglar Soyuncu a straight red card after a petulant kick out at Callum Wilson. A promising season that had become frayed around the edges since the turn of the year is now in very real danger of unravelling.

The emotions and reactions inside the Leicester camp were raw. Captain Schmeichel held up his hands to apologise to his team-mates for his error, as did Soyuncu for his rashness in kicking Wilson as they tussled over the ball in the net. The centre-back’s three-game ban means Leicester are without the Turkey international, who had seemed to have eradicated those costly mindless lapses from his game, for the rest of the season, further hampering Brendan Rodgers side’s chances of finishing in the top four.

There was also anger, frustration and complete confusion at how Leicester could have capitulated in such a shocking fashion — they had been in complete control in the first half. There was also the realisation that there are serious ramifications. During a lengthy conversation in the away dressing room, the senior players, including Schmeichel, were ramming home the message to their young team-mates that their destiny is still in their hands. Regardless of what Manchester United do, if Leicester win their final three games, including a final-day showdown with United, they will qualify for the Champions League in the top four — but there can be no more slip-ups.

Schmeichel and the other senior players were quick to pick their less experienced colleagues up, with Thursday’s must-win clash against Sheffield United looming. There is no time to dwell on the past when Leicester can still qualify by winning their remaining games, although there was the honest realisation that a dramatic improvement is required.

Rodgers is a calm figure. Instead of throwing teacups, he would rather point out the ergonomics of their design and how they can aid his players’ rehydration. Having been berated by his own father when he was playing as a youngster in Northern Ireland, he doesn’t shout at his players or rant and rave, but his charges were still left in no doubt of his feelings in the dressing room at Bournemouth. If they didn’t get the message internally, Rodgers saved some home truths for the media.

“I’ve always said we can never talk about that (Champions League) and you see, after a performance like that in the second half, you’re nowhere near the Champions League level,” he said. “We’re not experienced or consistent enough to worry about the Champions League.”

It was the first time Rodgers, usually protective and supportive of his players, had been so damning of their performance, and more worryingly, their attitude and mentality. The gentle arm around the shoulder made way for a kick up the backside.

After an astonishing first half of the season, in which they appeared to be the only challengers to Liverpool for the title for a short spell, plenty of praise was heaped upon his side. They were lauded as the exciting, youthful challengers to the established elite. They weren’t just European qualification contenders — they looked set for a place in the Champions League.

They moved into third in September after six games and have not dropped out of the top four since, but they look likely to do so now. Since the start of the year, Leicester’s ability to cling onto that lofty status has had as much to do with the deficiencies of their rivals as their own abilities. The advantage they built up in the first half of the season, particularly with an eight-game winning streak, gave them a buffer, but that safety net has disappeared since the restart.

Based on their displays since their New Year’s Day win at Newcastle, during which they have collected only three wins from 14 Premier League games, Rodgers side massively overperformed in the first half of the season, which raised expectations around the club.

Supporters believed there should be more of the same but Rodgers’ young side hasn’t been able to deliver consistently. It seems some of his players have not been able to handle the hype without taking their eye off the ball. The inconsistent form and focus of some individuals have been concerns for Rodgers for several months.

But it isn’t just his players who have come under scrutiny. For the first time since his arrival from Celtic, Rodgers is now starting to be questioned by some supporters. The displays of his side earlier this season took Rodgers stock sky-high, even leading to speculation Arsenal were interested in him before Mikel Arteta was appointed at the Emirates. But Rodgers’ tactics and some of his substitutions have been criticised by sections of the fanbase in recent weeks.

His decision to replace Kelechi Iheanacho at half-time at Bournemouth, when Leicester had dominated the first half, and bring on central midfielder Dennis Praet, was blamed as a factor in Leicester’s sudden and uncharacteristic collapse. It may have played a part, but when individual players make such inexplicable and uncharacteristic errors as some did at the Vitality Stadium, it is difficult to point to one tactical move as the root cause.

With three games to go, Leicester’s entire season hangs in the balance. Rodgers’ words of warning to his players were designed and delivered to get a response. At the start of the season, a top-six finish and European qualification were the targets. A top-four finish remains in their hands, although the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s ruling on Manchester City’s Champions League ban makes it more difficult to qualify for the Champions League, with fifth place no longer offering a spot in the competition.

However, as Leicester experienced on the south coast, fortunes can change very quickly. Leicester have three games. Sometimes, it only takes three and a half minutes.