Football 19/20

[eastynh]

1 hour ago, Wooderson said:

Easty i genuinely think youre a sound lad. Peace.

I forgive you mate, its ok and I will still buy you a pint.

Football is tribal and I would not expect anything but ridicule and derision from oppo fans after the announcement on Friday. All I have tried to do is get across that everything in this case is not black and white. None of us know the facts in this case, not a single one of us.

Have City broken the rules? I honestly don't know. They are adamant that they have not and I will believe them before I pay any attention to the journalists who have had the knives out for City since 2008.

City have pretty much fucked UEFA off and it seems like they have refused to co-operate with the investigation. It seems UEFA wanted to strike a deal, which City have totally rebuffed. In my opinion, this is the stance City should have taken from the off, when they first breached FFP. They should not have taken any pinch. 

Now if we have agreed to the rules and broken them, maybe there is a case to answer. The problem there is that I do not agree with the rules in the first place. There is nothing fair about financial fair play. Any rule that protects the establishments at the top of the tree is anti competitive and not fair. No team has a divine right to stay at the top. All City have done is invest money. The Glazers are taking millions out of the game every season for themselves and this is allowed, yet Citys owners investing into the game is seen as bad. FFP would not be allowed in any other industry, why is it allowed in football?

As for your despicable little club dig, it was totally uncalled for. I have followed that club for years, home and away, on my own for a lot of it as all my mates are rags. I have supported them through the divisions, even when things have been atrociously bad. The worse thing City have done is used their owners money to try and progress. That does not justify being called a despicable little club.

It will all come out in the wash and there will be a lot of fireworks before it comes to a conclusion. Lets discuss it in a dignified manner. We might not agree with each other but there is no need for sly digs from wither side.

[zahidf]

Dude if you're saying that city have breached the FFP rules set by the organisation in charge of the champions league, then I dont understand your issue. That's why they are banned for 2 years in the champs league. If they didnt want to play in the champs league, no one forced them to sign up to the rules 

 

Also, saying we all need to be civil when YOU bought up hershel is a bit rich

Edited February 16, 2020 by zahidf

[thetime]

Why was FFP introduced in the first place? Genuine question, was it to protect the big clubs or clubs in general?

[eastynh]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Dude if you're saying that city have breached the FFP rules set by the organisation in charge of the champions league, then I dont understand your issue. That's why they are banned for 2 years in the champs league. If they didnt want to play in the champs league, no one forced them to sign up to the rules 

 

Also, saying we all need to be civil when YOU bought up hershel is a bit rich

There is no evidence City have breached anything. They have totally denied every accusation and said they have irrefutable evidence to prove their innocence.

As for Heysel, it was a valid point to make. Liverpool were banned for what can only be called a despicable act. Make no bones about it. City have been banned for allegedly misleading UEFA about where Etihad got its money from. It shows a total lack of self awareness for a Liverpool fan to call any club despicable considering the circumstances in which his own team were banned from Europe. Surely thats a valid point?

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

Any rule that protects the establishments at the top of the tree is anti competitive and not fair. No team has a divine right to stay at the top. 

I agree. A lot of people say that clubs should be willing to try and grow a bit slower. The trouble with this strategy is if you go gradual the big boys will cut you off and stop the momentum. I honestly believe the City approach is the only way of challenging at the top for a club who wasnt there before.

Edited February 16, 2020 by pink_triangle

[pink_triangle]

17 minutes ago, zahidf said:

If they didnt want to play in the champs league, no one forced them to sign up to the rules 

 

What choice do they have? There isnt an alternative that they could compete instead.

[pink_triangle]

10 minutes ago, thetime said:

Why was FFP introduced in the first place? Genuine question, was it to protect the big clubs or clubs in general?

I get the impression it was brought in for the right reasons, but the big clubs habe twisted it to protect themselves. As Easty says it should be about protecting Bury not punishing City. If an owner wants to pump money into a club why shouldn't he/she be allowed. As football fans why do we want a closed shop?

[eastynh]

5 minutes ago, thetime said:

Why was FFP introduced in the first place? Genuine question, was it to protect the big clubs or clubs in general?

It was originally planned to stop clubs getting into debt and to stop leveraged buy outs. It was then hi jacked by the G14 clubs in an attempt to stop City and PSG. This has been admitted to by Platini. The whole point of FFP is to protect the elite clubs at the top, nothing more, nothing less.

It would not be allowed in any other industry as it is anti competitive.

[thetime]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

I get the impression it was brought in for the right reasons, but the big clubs habe twisted it to protect themselves. As Easty says it should be about protecting Bury not punishing City. If an owner wants to pump money into a club why shouldn't he/she be allowed. As football fans why do we want a closed shop?

I have said numerous times on here there shouldn't be FFP.

Wasn't the idea of the champions league to protect the big boys anyway. 

[pink_triangle]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

It was originally planned to stop clubs getting into debt and to stop leveraged buy outs. It was then hi jacked by the G14 clubs in an attempt to stop City and PSG. This has been admitted to by Platini. The whole point of FFP is to protect the elite clubs at the top, nothing more, nothing less.

It would not be allowed in any other industry as it is anti competitive.

The question you need to ask is if it disadvantaged the G14, would it still exist? We all know the answer to that.

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

I get the impression it was brought in for the right reasons, but the big clubs habe twisted it to protect themselves. As Easty says it should be about protecting Bury not punishing City. If an owner wants to pump money into a club why shouldn't he/she be allowed. As football fans why do we want a closed shop?

I have said this many times on this site, I am all for a level playing field. Every team is allowed to spend a set amount on transfers and wages. Even it right up so it is the same for every team and totally level. That would be fair. The problem is that teams at the top don't ant fair, they want the odds skewed in their favour.

[eastynh]

It was originally about debt

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/nov/03/michel-platini-uefa-english-debt

[eastynh]

why was the Premier League FFP wage increase rule quietly dropped during the summer?

Because United were fucked if it wasn't, thats why.

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/new-financial-fair-play-rule-change-will-completely-change-how-next-seasons-premier-league

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-clubs-huge-transfer-17299775

The whole thing is a sham.

Why are United and Liverpool getting to vet prospective new chief executive prospects?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7988919/Premier-League-rivals-furious-Liverpool-Man-United-allowed-vet-league-CEO-candidates.html

[eastynh]

In May 2019 City issued the following statement.

Manchester City Football Club is disappointed, but regrettably not surprised, by the sudden announcement of the referral to be made by the CFCB IC Chief Investigator Yves Leterme.
The leaks to media over the last week are indicative of the process that has been overseen by Mr. Leterme.

Manchester City is entirely confident of a positive outcome when the matter is considered by an independent judicial body.

The accusation of financial irregularities remains entirely false and the CFCB IC referral ignores a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence provided by Manchester City FC to the Chamber.

The decision contains mistakes, misinterpretations and confusions fundamentally borne out of a basic lack of due process and there remain significant unresolved matters raised by Manchester City FC as part of what the Club has found to be a wholly unsatisfactory, curtailed, and hostile process.


Then 2 days ago in relation to the ban


Manchester City is disappointed but not surprised by today’s announcement by the UEFA Adjudicatory Chamber. The Club has always anticipated the ultimate need to seek out an independent body and process to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence in support of its position.
In December 2018, the UEFA Chief Investigator publicly previewed the outcome and sanction he intended to be delivered to Manchester City, before any investigation had even begun. The subsequent flawed and consistently leaked UEFA process he oversaw has meant that there was little doubt in the result that he would deliver. The Club has formally complained to the UEFA Disciplinary body, a complaint which was validated by a CAS ruling.

Simply put, this is a case initiated by UEFA, prosecuted by UEFA and judged by UEFA. With this prejudicial process now over, the Club will pursue an impartial judgment as quickly as possible and will therefore, in the first instance, commence proceedings with the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the earliest opportunity.


It's not just that City will challenge the process with CAS but more so they will be given the chance to present their irrefutable evidence that they are entirely confident will result in a positive outcome.

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

There is no evidence City have breached anything. They have totally denied every accusation and said they have irrefutable evidence to prove their innocence.

As for Heysel, it was a valid point to make. Liverpool were banned for what can only be called a despicable act. Make no bones about it. City have been banned for allegedly misleading UEFA about where Etihad got its money from. It shows a total lack of self awareness for a Liverpool fan to call any club despicable considering the circumstances in which his own team were banned from Europe. Surely thats a valid point?

Emails prove they have.

Nope. Heysel isn't a valid point  to make when  discussing FFP rules 

[zahidf]

46 minutes ago, eastynh said:

In May 2019 City issued the following statement.

Manchester City Football Club is disappointed, but regrettably not surprised, by the sudden announcement of the referral to be made by the CFCB IC Chief Investigator Yves Leterme.
The leaks to media over the last week are indicative of the process that has been overseen by Mr. Leterme.

Manchester City is entirely confident of a positive outcome when the matter is considered by an independent judicial body.

The accusation of financial irregularities remains entirely false and the CFCB IC referral ignores a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence provided by Manchester City FC to the Chamber.

The decision contains mistakes, misinterpretations and confusions fundamentally borne out of a basic lack of due process and there remain significant unresolved matters raised by Manchester City FC as part of what the Club has found to be a wholly unsatisfactory, curtailed, and hostile process.


Then 2 days ago in relation to the ban


Manchester City is disappointed but not surprised by today’s announcement by the UEFA Adjudicatory Chamber. The Club has always anticipated the ultimate need to seek out an independent body and process to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence in support of its position.
In December 2018, the UEFA Chief Investigator publicly previewed the outcome and sanction he intended to be delivered to Manchester City, before any investigation had even begun. The subsequent flawed and consistently leaked UEFA process he oversaw has meant that there was little doubt in the result that he would deliver. The Club has formally complained to the UEFA Disciplinary body, a complaint which was validated by a CAS ruling.

Simply put, this is a case initiated by UEFA, prosecuted by UEFA and judged by UEFA. With this prejudicial process now over, the Club will pursue an impartial judgment as quickly as possible and will therefore, in the first instance, commence proceedings with the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the earliest opportunity.


It's not just that City will challenge the process with CAS but more so they will be given the chance to present their irrefutable evidence that they are entirely confident will result in a positive outcome.

So I cut and paste Twitter but you're ok cutting and pasting man city press releases?:-/

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

What choice do they have? There isnt an alternative that they could compete instead.

Dont play in the champs league...

 

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

I agree. A lot of people say that clubs should be willing to try and grow a bit slower. The trouble with this strategy is if you go gradual the big boys will cut you off and stop the momentum. I honestly believe the City approach is the only way of challenging at the top for a club who wasnt there before.

Why? What's the rush? City and Mansour dont have a right to be an elite club.

[pink_triangle]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Dont play in the champs league...

 

And dont compete to sign the best players which means you can only do so well in the league. I agree with Easty equal spending for all clubs and make it a level playing field.

[zahidf]

13 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

And dont compete to sign the best players which means you can only do so well in the league. I agree with Easty equal spending for all clubs and make it a level playing field.

Then wage caps. Sheik Mansour whinging about FFP is rubbish 

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, thetime said:

Why was FFP introduced in the first place? Genuine question, was it to protect the big clubs 

 

Nope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by zahidf

[pink_triangle]

14 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Why? What's the rush? City and Mansour dont have a right to be an elite club.

Nobody has a right to be an elite, but the current system facilitates the current elite staying as the elite.

The gradual improvement you talk about wouldn't work. As soon as you started succeeding the big boys would swoop and take your best players by paying more wages and short term success.

For a team to trouble the elite they generally need to overpay in transfer fees and wages. As i have said i would have no issue with a spending Cap so there would be no need to do this.

[Gnomicide]

Is it City's attitude that's put them in this position?

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/man-city-champions-league-ban-fine-uefa-appeal-latest-points-deduction-a9337326.html

[pink_triangle]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Then wage caps. Sheik Mansour whinging about FFP is rubbish 

Who do you think will be the main people against wage caps, the elite clubs most in favour of FFP. Try and think why that may be the case.

[Wooderson]

City's players sang about Sean Cox on a flight and the club didnt apologise. I stand over everything ive said on here. 

Only two clubs matter. Night all.