this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Main

138 readers
1 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There's a rule clubs owned by the same owners cannot be in the same UEFA competition, and Girona and Manchester City are both owned by the same football group owned by a Qatari. So, would Girona not be allowed or would neither be allowed? Or would they be given an exception like RB Leipzig and RB salzburg?

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

They would do some bureaucratic tricks to make sure both participate.

A few seasons back both Energy Drink FC teams were not only in the same competition, but even in the same group.

So if that was allowed, I don’t see any issues with any of these types of situations in the future.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Energy Drink FC… I love it

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

There was some creative restructuring of the ownership model with the RB clubs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I used to manage both club in fm for tough fixtures, these fxkers are doing that irl

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Toulouse and AC milan, leipzig and salzbourg all play in european football despite having the same owners. They can definetly if they are willing to change their administrative structure.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Toulouse and AC Milan have the same owner but they don’t play in the same european competition so it’s allowed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

But potentially they can easily play in same competition but nobody will stop them anyway. Same applies for Brighton and Royale Union already, dirty cheaters.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Neither are owned by a Qatari btw…

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

They were already cleared no?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Milan + OGC Nice -- same owners but both allowed this season, so...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Mate mayb check out your facts before making a claim…. They are not the same people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

They meant Toulouse but yeah

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My bad got mixed up between Toulouse & Milan

And on the other side Ineos (owners of Nice) were interesting in buying a minority stake in United. But the point stands re- multi club ownership and participation in UCL

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

No problem…honest mistake. In the case of Nice and United… seems Ineos would owe nice while Ratcliffe who is an individual would have a share in Utd which is a way around.

However, you are right about multi club ownership, it’s up to UEFA to stop this but however it’s all about money and city will find a way:

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Brighton & Union are both in the EL so it looks that way

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Or maybe they will allow Girona and not City to compete

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I think they'd get away with it the same way Manchester City have gotten away with the 100+ violations of FFP.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Why not, as long aw MC doesn't qualify

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

A little payment to the UEFA executive pension pot would resolve any potential issue

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Its City. They'll get away with it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

If they can get away with 115 charges they can get away with having their feeder club play in the UCL. Depressing but true.