City Banned from CL | Page 4 | Vital Football

City Banned from CL

  • Thread starter Removed at own request
  • Start date
As a snapshot; it seems to me City may never recover from this if they can't get it overturned, take away their CL revenues per season (in the region of £100 mill) almost certainly a reduction in sponsorship fees/lower shirt sales and you could based on their last set of accounts I could see losses in the region of £85-125 mill losses! Over the two seasons they couldn't compete that could easily be higher than £200 mill of lost revenues, then consider that maximum allowable losses are approx £105 mill (I think) over there years and they are in a World of pain. Player sales would ease/off-set that of course, but how then do they get back to where they once were?

Of course thier owners have more money than we can dream about, but it's all for nothing in this situation, Pep and probably there best players would all be looking for an exit?
 
The Premier League rulebook allows for a points deduction, which can also be applied retrospectively!


Though not confirmed by the Premier League, the period under investigation would appear to be the same as which UEFA say City overstated their income - 2012 to 2016 – and although it is unclear whether it would cover City's 2012 Premier League title win, it raises the possibility that City could be stripped of the 2014 title.


Although there is no recent precedent for disgraced champions – such as Juventus, Fenerbahce and Marseille – being sued by vanquished rivals, in the Premier League there have been settlements between clubs that have fallen foul of miscreant rivals.


In 2009 Sheffield United and West Ham reached an out of court settlement said to be worth £20 million over the Carlos Tevez affair while more recently Liverpool paid £1 million to City after an alleged hacking incident.


It is nevertheless understood that there is no great appetite among Premier League clubs to see City stripped of their 2014 title, the season where Liverpool were runners-up

Everton are the team that missed out on CL that season and United Europa.....
 
Trevor Sinclair on talksport saying Pep will stay at City because "Pep doesn't like oppressive regimes

Along side - all PL clubs should be backing City because uefa hate English clubs

All the claims are unfounded
 
Trevor Sinclair on talksport saying Pep will stay at City because "Pep doesn't like oppressive regimes

Along side - all PL clubs should be backing City because uefa hate English clubs

All the claims are unfounded

He's a friggin idiot. Just read their accounts, read the emails, look at the 'sponsorship' deals they've done that are ludicrously over valued by businesses associated with sheik - it's a full on financial obfuscation designed to avoid FFPR.

They've been caught cheating before and got fined $50 mill, only having it reduced because they undertook to be good boys in future.

They have to be punished now and it has to be severe as they've literally ran roughshod over the rules and cheated and cheated and cheated; no matter how good they looked on the pitch - they cheated financially to be able to aquire those players and cheated further by paying deals that by any standards other than an elite few killed off most of their opposition.

Chances are they're have the punishment downgraded to a one year ban and a bigger fine.

They'll laugh at that, but they'll also take it.
 
He's a friggin idiot. Just read their accounts, read the emails, look at the 'sponsorship' deals they've done that are ludicrously over valued by businesses associated with sheik - it's a full on financial obfuscation designed to avoid FFPR.

They've been caught cheating before and got fined $50 mill, only having it reduced because they undertook to be good boys in future.

They have to be punished now and it has to be severe as they've literally ran roughshod over the rules and cheated and cheated and cheated; no matter how good they looked on the pitch - they cheated financially to be able to aquire those players and cheated further by paying deals that by any standards other than an elite few killed off most of their opposition.

Chances are they're have the punishment downgraded to a one year ban and a bigger fine.

They'll laugh at that, but they'll also take it.

I was listening to a few lesser idiots than TS on the matter and they seem to think they have no chance of over turning any part.

Be the end of FFP if they do.
 
I was listening to a few lesser idiots than TS on the matter and they seem to think they have no chance of over turning any part.

Be the end of FFP if they do.

The line-up of talent from a legal perspective by City is the best of the best of the best.

I suspect they will take three routes; they will challenge the right of the hacked evidence to be used. They will build a case that suggests that the leaks from UEFA about what they would do is prejudicial to a truly independent outcome (this argument has much merit), they will also use the legal appeal processes open to them (all the way up to the European HR court or the high court in the UK) to drag this out for years and years (I can easily see all this taking 10 years).

UEFA will know this and will in the short term be considering enduring a legal battle that could last a decade and could easily cost them £100 mill in costs with never being able to recover these costs..

The middle route is to do a backroom deal; City accept half the findings and take a one year hit and a slightly larger fine - neither which will be enforced for years and UEFA say 'we were tough, but fair and are only doing what we have to for the good of the football family!'

City will be in the CL for the next 5 years and that will give them plenty of time to get ready for a year out....or the owner could decide to cause Armageddon and pull their financial support and sell up.
 
The line-up of talent from a legal perspective by City is the best of the best of the best.

I suspect they will take three routes; they will challenge the right of the hacked evidence to be used. They will build a case that suggests that the leaks from UEFA about what they would do is prejudicial to a truly independent outcome (this argument has much merit), they will also use the legal appeal processes open to them (all the way up to the European HR court or the high court in the UK) to drag this out for years and years (I can easily see all this taking 10 years).

UEFA will know this and will in the short term be considering enduring a legal battle that could last a decade and could easily cost them £100 mill in costs with never being able to recover these costs..

The middle route is to do a backroom deal; City accept half the findings and take a one year hit and a slightly larger fine - neither which will be enforced for years and UEFA say 'we were tough, but fair and are only doing what we have to for the good of the football family!'

City will be in the CL for the next 5 years and that will give them plenty of time to get ready for a year out....or the owner could decide to cause Armageddon and pull their financial support and sell up.

There is precedent for hacked emails being used against an organisation in CAS previously, so I’m not sure how much they can rely on that - plus they haven’t actually denied the content of the emails - just that it was out of context - will they want those emails shown in full?



Maybe it’s misguided, but I actually think City will lose any appeal.
 
There is precedent for hacked emails being used against an organisation in CAS previously, so I’m not sure how much they can rely on that - plus they haven’t actually denied the content of the emails - just that it was out of context - will they want those emails shown in full?



Maybe it’s misguided, but I actually think City will lose any appeal.

They may well do, but if they pay it smart, and they will, the outcome is 3 years away.
 
Last edited:
Man City European ban: Why upcoming legal battle with Uefa is a watershed moment

Could a former footballer named Omer Riza play a key role in the next chapter of Manchester City's bitter and potentially defining legal battle with Uefa over their two-year ban from European club competitions?
Back in 2008, the dual British-Turkish national, a former fringe player at Arsenal and West Ham, walked out on Turkish club Trabzonspor and returned to England, claiming he had not been paid.

An arbitration panel appointed by the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) found he had terminated his contract and fined him 61,000 euros (£50,701).

So Riza appealed, first to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), then the Swiss Federal Court, and ultimately to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Last month, Riza - who has retired as a player and is now coaching at Watford's academy - heard he had finally won a decade-long legal battle. The ECHR decided the European Convention of Human Rights had been violated because the arbitration panel was appointed by the TFF's directors, and therefore Riza had legitimate reason to doubt it had approached his case with the necessary independence and impartiality.

So what relevance does all this have to Manchester City - a dominant force in the English game - as they prepare to appeal to Cas, and ramp up their fight against a shattering punishment?

A punishment that has done immeasurable damage to the club's reputation, added to the controversy surrounding owners already accused of using the club to furnish or 'sportswash' Abu Dhabi's image and divert from its questionable human rights record.

A punishment that has tainted the team's achievements, thrown the future of players, manager and finances into doubt, and could yet see the Premier League dock points and strip titles.
Based on City's typically aggressive statement responding to the ban and £25m fine, there are several parts to the defence the club will be expected to mount:
  • That they deny breaching Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations and have "irrefutable evidence" to prove it, despite Uefa's guilty verdict.
  • The suggestion - strongly denied - that Uefa pre-determined its decision because of alleged leaks to the media last year that correctly predicted the referral of the case to the club financial control body's adjudicatory chamber.
According to Cas, this argument was "not without merit" when it rejected City's attempt to get Uefa's case thrown out before a verdict was reached last year. Cas also said the leaks were "worrisome". But to make this argument stick the club would surely need solid evidence? City could demand access to private emails and communications, so expect a separate legal battle over disclosure when the case is heard.
  • That the leaked emails which appear to show City deceived Uefa - and which were published by German magazine Der Spiegel - were obtained illegally and were "out-of-context materials purportedly hacked or stolen", so should therefore be deemed inadmissible.
Even though Der Spiegel's source - Rui Pinto, the figure behind website Football Leaks - is awaiting trial in his native Portugal on multiple charges of computer hacking, which he denies, sports law experts seem to agree this will be a difficult argument for City to win. They have not denied the authenticity of the documents after all.
  • That the punishment is disproportionate or unfair compared to previous FFP cases or other clubs. City will certainly point to the fact a two-year ban is unprecedented, and therefore potentially excessive. They will also refer to other clubs' sponsorship arrangements with companies linked to their owners.
  • That this was a "prejudicial process" because it was "judged by Uefa" - ie the adjudicatory panel was effectively biased because it was appointed by Uefa and therefore lacked independence.
This final argument in particular has received little sympathy - and indeed much criticism. With highly respected legal minds such as top British barrister Charles Flint QC hired for their independence and integrity on the adjudicatory panel, and City fully aware of the system they had signed up to, many have portrayed this as disrespectful and, simply, sour grapes.

And whether you see FFP as a crude means of protecting club football's traditional status quo, or a sensible approach that has stabilised finances, many believe City breached rules they had agreed to adhere to - and then misled officials about it and therefore must be punished, especially as Uefa claims the club failed to co-operate with the investigation.

But does the conclusion of the Riza case just three weeks ago give City and their sizeable team of lawyers cause for optimism, and partly explain their defiance?
Leading British sports lawyer John Mehrzad thinks so.

"That case will be at the forefront of their lawyers' minds," he says. "They can't have missed it. I can already predict the argument they will run at Cas.
"The ECHR said that, in terms of a fair trial process, having a disciplinary body that also appoints the panellists who carry out the decision-making means there isn't sufficient distance between the two.

"In terms of the adjudicatory chamber members' expenses and appointments, they are at the behest of Uefa. That's not going to necessarily be sufficient to show a lack of impartiality, but you can see how there are arguments, and they have to raise those points now for them to be considered further down the line. City will say they had no choice but to sign up to these rules, and we've seen this argument of a lack of freedom used by claimants in key sports cases in the past."

Mehrzad predicts that, with money no object, City's lawyers will refer Cas to the precedent set by the Riza verdict, confront Uefa with the threat of dragging their case out in similar fashion, make clear their willingness to take their challenge to higher courts, and hope the governing body offers a settlement involving a reduced punishment, rather than risk the uncertainty of a drawn-out legal fight.
"We've seen this in other sports law sagas," he says. "These are cases that if you want them to run and run, the ultimate body is the ECHR.
"The Turkish process took 10 years, and if you can threaten to get a sanction suspended for that long, and make a mockery of the process, you'd think they'll be able to cut a deal."

Perhaps ominously for Uefa, one leaked email published by Der Spiegel featured City lawyer Simon Cliff explaining that rather than settle with the governing body, the chairman "would rather spend £30m on the best 50 lawyers in the world to sue them for the next 10 years".

Uefa would, of course, argue this case is very different to one involving Turkish football more than a decade ago. And Mehrzad concedes such a challenge over impartiality would only apply to a Cas panel, rather than Uefa's, and even then be a long-shot. Indeed, most legal experts offering up analysis believe Uefa's case appears solid.
The question is whether it is prepared to take the risk of a defeat that would have major ramifications?

Part II below
 
his case has been hugely damaging for City. But there is real danger here for Uefa too, especially at a time when the grip of European football's governing body on the club game is under mounting strain.
This comes with the European Club Association wanting the Champions League expanded by four matchdays amid a long debate over reform of the competition and continuing rumours of clandestine talks about a possible breakaway or 'Super League'.
Fifa, the world governing body, is preparing for an enlarged, 24-team Club World Cup in China next year.
There are growing fears over the threat posed by ever-richer and more powerful 'super clubs' to national leagues' competitiveness and sustainability.
And Uefa has to try to stand up for its rules against clubs - like Abu Dhabi-owned City, who have state-backed Chinese investors (as well as US private equity investors) and are valued at £3.7bn, and Qatar-owned Paris St-Germain - that have the support of entire nation states, not just wealthy individuals.
"There is an enormous amount hinging on this," adds Mehrzad. "If City are successful in getting a ruling about the processes adopted by Uefa, a whole series of other clubs will be able to use that and say: 'We should never have been sanctioned in the first place.'
"There's no doubt City have enough money and a fleet of lawyers to take this on for years, so Uefa is being put under the spotlight.
"We've seen the integrity of the FFP system challenged before, but this could be about the entire make-up of football's regulatory regime, so the repercussions are enormous."
The tone of City's outrage in their statements, and the sense of defiance and confidence now emerging from the club, should be seen in this context - not just as an expression of anger and shock by owners and executives who have become accustomed to getting their own way, but perhaps also as a strategy designed to send a message to Uefa.
A message that this is far from over. A message that the clubs - rather than the governing body - should set the rules in future.
Much remains uncertain.
There is no guarantee City will be granted a suspension of their ban when they apply for it in the coming days at the same time as any appeal. The decision - made by a Cas official - will be based on an assessment of the merits of City's appeal, so this initial decision will give a strong indication of their prospects.
If a hearing is not expedited, it is likely to be the middle of next season before a full Cas hearing takes place. So if City can get the ban suspended pending the outcome of their appeal, it is easy to see how months - or even years - of legal wrangling could lie ahead, with the Swiss Federal Court the next potential port of call after Cas.

These are truly extraordinary times in sports law. Alongside the City case, Cas is also being asked to decide whether to uphold the World Anti-Doping Agency's qualified ban of Russia before the Tokyo Olympics this summer.
The stakes are high in such cases. Entire governments lie behind the claimants. National prestige and reputation is on the line. The supporters of such parties admire their defiance, condemn the regulations, and portray such cases as witch-hunts, rather than sympathising with those trying to uphold the rules.
The resolve and resources of sports regulators and governing bodies are being tested like never before.
 
Manchester City yesterday formally lodged its appeal against UEFA's two-season ban from the Champions League to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.



Although CAS did not indicate a time frame for the appeal process, it is expected to take several months.


https://talksport.com/football/674951/man-city-european-ban-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-appeal/#

Pep Guardiola’s side have been sanctioned by UEFA over FFP breaches
In a statement CAS said: “The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has registered an appeal filed by Manchester City football club against the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA).

“The appeal is directed against the decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) dated 14 February 2020 in which Manchester City was deemed to have contravened UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations and sanctioned with exclusion from the next two seasons of UEFA club competitions for which the club would qualify and ordered to pay a fine of 30 million euros.

“Generally speaking, CAS appeal arbitration procedures involve an exchange of written submissions between the parties while a panel of CAS arbitrators is being convened.

“Once the panel has been formally constituted it issues procedural directions, including, inter alia, with respect to the holding of a hearing.

“Following the hearing, the panel deliberates and then issues its decision in the form of an arbitral award.

“It is not possible to indicate at this time when a final award in this matter will be issued.”

City are allowed to continue competing in this season’s Champions League despite UEFA’s sanctions, and they resume their European campaign this evening with a round-of-16 tie vs Real Madrid.

The clash comes a few days after England superstar Raheem Sterling refused to rule out a move to the Bernabeu in the future in an interview with Spanish media.
 
What is the Court of Arbitration for Sport ?
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is an institution independent of any sports organization which provides for services in order to facilitate the settlement of sports-related disputes through arbitration or mediation by means of procedural rules adapted to the specific needs of the sports world.
The CAS was created in 1984 and is placed under the administrative and financial authority of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS).
The CAS has nearly 300 arbitrators from 87 countries, chosen for their specialist knowledge of arbitration and sports law. Around 300 cases are registered by the CAS every year.

What is the function of the CAS ?
The CAS has the task of resolving legal disputes in the field of sport through arbitration. It does this pronouncing arbitral awards that have the same enforceability as judgements of ordinary courts.
It can also help parties solve their disputes on an amicable basis through mediation, when this procedure is allowed.
Lastly, the CAS sets up non-permanent tribunals, which it does for the Olympic Games, the Commonwealth Games or other similar major events. To take into account the circumstances of such events, special procedural rules are established on each occasion.

What kinds of dispute can be submitted to the CAS ?
Any disputes directly or indirectly linked to sport may be submitted to the CAS. These may be disputes of a commercial nature (e.g. a sponsorship contract), or of a disciplinary nature following a decision by a sports organisation (e.g. a doping case).

Who can refer a case to the CAS ?
Any individual or legal entity with capacity to act may have recourse to the services of the CAS. These include athletes, clubs, sports federations, organisers of sports events, sponsors or television companies.

Under what conditions will the CAS intervene ?
For a dispute to be submitted to arbitration by the CAS, the parties must agree to this in writing. Such agreement may be on a one-off basis or appear in a contract or the statutes or regulations of a sports organization. Parties may agree in advance to submit any future dispute to arbitration by the CAS, or they can agree to have recourse to the CAS after a dispute has arisen.

What are the working languages of the CAS ?
The procedures are conducted in French or English. Under certain conditions, another language may be used.

What are the CAS procedures ?
For disputes resulting from contractual relations or torts, the ordinary arbitration procedure or the mediation procedure is applicable.
For disputes resulting from decisions taken by the internal bodies of sports organisations, the appeals arbitration procedure is applicable.

How does one set the arbitration in motion ?
The party wishing to submit a dispute to the CAS must send the CAS Court Office a request for arbitration (ordinary procedure) or a statement of appeal (appeals procedure), the contents of which are specified by the Code of Sports-related Arbitration.
In the case of the appeals procedure, a party may lodge an appeal only if it has exhausted all the internal remedies of the sports organisation concerned.

Can one be represented during the proceedings ?
The parties may appear alone. They may also be represented or assisted at CAS hearings by a person of their choice, not necessarily a lawyer.

How are the arbitrators chosen ?
Generally speaking, the arbitration is submitted to a panel of three arbitrators.
Under the ordinary procedure, each party chooses one arbitrator from the CAS list, then the two designated arbitrators agree on who will be the president of the panel. Failing such agreement, the President of the Ordinary Arbitration Division makes this selection instead of the two arbitrators.

Under the appeals procedure, each party chooses an arbitrator, and the president of the panel is selected by the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division.
If the parties agree, or if the CAS deems this appropriate, a sole arbitrator may be appointed, depending on the nature and importance of the case.

The arbitrators must be independent, that is to say have no particular connection with any of the parties, and must not have played any role in the case in question.

How does CAS arbitration procedure work ?
Once the arbitration request or statement of appeal is filed, the respondent submits a reply to the CAS.
After any additional exchange of statements of case, the parties are summoned to a hearing to be heard, produce evidence and argue their case.

The final award is communicated to the parties some weeks later, unless it is pronounced the same day (under the appeals procedure).

What law do the arbitrators apply ?

In the context of ordinary arbitration, the parties are free to agree on the law applicable to the merits of the dispute. Failing such agreement, Swiss law applies.
In the context of the appeals procedure, the arbitrators rule on the basis of the regulations of the body concerned by the appeal and, subsidiarily, the law of the country in which the body is domiciled. The procedure itself is governed by the Code of Sports-related Arbitration.

How much does the arbitration cost ?
The ordinary procedure involves paying the relatively modest costs and fees of the arbitrators, calculated on the basis of a fixed scale of charges, plus a share of the costs of the CAS.

The disciplinary cases of an international nature ruled in appeal are free, except for an initial Court Office fee of CHF 1000.-.


How long does CAS arbitration last ?
The ordinary procedure lasts between 6 and 12 months.
For the appeals procedure, an award must be pronounced within three months after the transfer of the file to the Panel.
In urgent cases and upon request, the CAS may, within a very short time, order interim measures or suspend the execution of a decision appealed against.

Are the arbitration proceedings confidential ?
The ordinary arbitration procedure is confidential. The parties, arbitrators and CAS staff are obliged not to disclose any information connected with the dispute. In principle, awards are not published.
The appeals arbitration procedure does not specify particular rules of confidentiality, but the arbitrators and CAS staff have a similar duty of confidentiality during the proceedings. Generally speaking, unless the parties agree otherwise, the award may be published by the CAS.

What is the scope of an award pronounced by the CAS ?

An award pronounced by the CAS is final and binding on the parties from the moment it is communicated. It may in particular be enforced in accordance with the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, which more than 125 countries have signed.

Is it possible to appeal against a CAS award ?

Judicial recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal is allowed on a very limited number of grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing) or incompatibility with public policy.
What is CAS mediation ?
Mediation is a non-binding and informal procedure, based on a mediation agreement in which each party undertakes to attempt in good faith to negotiate with the other party, and with the assistance of a CAS mediator, with a view to settling a sports-related dispute.

How does CAS mediation work ?
The party wishing to institute mediation proceedings addresses a request in writing to the CAS Court Office. Then, a mediator is appointed by the parties from among the list of CAS mediators or, in the absence of any agreement, by the CAS President after consultation with the parties.
The mediation procedure is conducted in the manner agreed by the parties. Failing such agreement, the mediator determines the manner in which the mediation will be conducted. The mediator promotes the settlement of the issues in dispute in any way that he believes to be appropriate. To achieve this, he will propose solutions. However, the mediator may not impose a solution of the dispute on either party. If successful, the mediation is terminated by the signing of a settlement by the parties.

Where is the CAS based ?
The CAS head office is in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Two decentralized offices are also available to the parties: one in Sydney, Australia, the other in New York, United States
see General Information/Addresses & Contact
 
" The ordinary procedure lasts between 6 and 12 months. "

If as I have been told Man City expect this process to take closer to 12 months than 6, that almost certainly means they will be in the CL next season.

That scuppers all changes of 5th being a CL qualifying place.

A club CEO I know, believes that there is no chance or this being resolved within the next 6 months.

So it's 4th or nothing for us to qualify for next season CL.
 
" The ordinary procedure lasts between 6 and 12 months. "

If as I have been told Man City expect this process to take closer to 12 months than 6, that almost certainly means they will be in the CL next season.

That scuppers all changes of 5th being a CL qualifying place.

A club CEO I know, believes that there is no chance or this being resolved within the next 6 months.

So it's 4th or nothing for us to qualify for next season CL.

These next few weeks will be intriguing. The 3 scenarios of (1) 4th (2) EL places (3) No Europe become very real at the business end of the season. They all have their strengths and weaknesses as we look forward.

It's always about the capability and quality of our squad to deal with the capacity of games. That has been horrible this season and I'm not convinced it corrects itself in one summer.
 
These next few weeks will be intriguing. The 3 scenarios of (1) 4th (2) EL places (3) No Europe become very real at the business end of the season. They all have their strengths and weaknesses as we look forward.

It's always about the capability and quality of our squad to deal with the capacity of games. That has been horrible this season and I'm not convinced it corrects itself in one summer.

The key to a good summer will be no new season affecting injuries due to international commitments.

- NOT any of our player's Countries getting to the final stages - as then they can then attend the pre-season camp the same time as everyone else.

Making key decisions right to finally clear all deadwood from our books and try and get our business done as early as we can.

Not too much to ask, is it? LOL!
 
The key to a good summer will be no new season affecting injuries due to international commitments.

- NOT any of our player's Countries getting to the final stages - as then they can then attend the pre-season camp the same time as everyone else.

Making key decisions right to finally clear all deadwood from our books and try and get our business done as early as we can.

Not too much to ask, is it? LOL!

For me, the dilemma is knowing that no European football reduces revenue but does allow us to completely clear all of that deadwood. There's no logic to keeping anyone around for 38 league games and domestic cup coverage. Just look at what Leicester have achieved with mostly 16 players. If we were to buy at the quality we've done for the last 2 windows, I'd be shocked if we couldn't make a CL place given that narrow focus.

However, all those home EL games are way more lucrative than they were at the old WHL, last time we were in it and it is a trophy.

I still think City's punishment being deferred might end up the best result for Spurs. We'll be able to gain more advantage in the future.
 
For me, the dilemma is knowing that no European football reduces revenue but does allow us to completely clear all of that deadwood. There's no logic to keeping anyone around for 38 league games and domestic cup coverage. Just look at what Leicester have achieved with mostly 16 players. If we were to buy at the quality we've done for the last 2 windows, I'd be shocked if we couldn't make a CL place given that narrow focus.

However, all those home EL games are way more lucrative than they were at the old WHL, last time we were in it and it is a trophy.

I still think City's punishment being deferred might end up the best result for Spurs. We'll be able to gain more advantage in the future.

Shortly we'll be able to see the impact all those CL games and the run itself has contributed to our coffers - hell, it's paid for N'Dombele lol!

Fortunately, we moved quickly to secure loCo, even if it was all contrived.

Like you, it drove me nuts holding onto players who weren't good enough, wouldn't sign new deals or clearly just couldn't care except for the odd game here or there, it was was a derogation of duty by both the board and ultimately Poch.

But of course, progress is rarely linear and if this is our only truly rotten season and a miss of the CL then it won't hurt too badly, my fear is that we'll end up 'doing an arsenal and suffer both revenue-wise and struggle to re-aquire a top 4 finish.

I still hope/pray for a miracle this season and Jose shows why he once was the coach to have.
 
Shortly we'll be able to see the impact all those CL games and the run itself has contributed to our coffers - hell, it's paid for N'Dombele lol!

Fortunately, we moved quickly to secure loCo, even if it was all contrived.

Like you, it drove me nuts holding onto players who weren't good enough, wouldn't sign new deals or clearly just couldn't care except for the odd game here or there, it was was a derogation of duty by both the board and ultimately Poch.

But of course, progress is rarely linear and if this is our only truly rotten season and a miss of the CL then it won't hurt too badly, my fear is that we'll end up 'doing an arsenal and suffer both revenue-wise and struggle to re-aquire a top 4 finish.

I still hope/pray for a miracle this season and Jose shows why he once was the coach to have.
It sure is becoming a rotten season. Should we not achieve Europe then getting back to the top four the following season would have to be a definite investment , not a hopeful investment.


Just an aside Ex , is there a line missing In your “signature “ ?