Football 19/20

[Gnomicide]

 

[zahidf]

50 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

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.

Athletic madrid, lecister and spurs would like a word.

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, eastynh said:

The emails say that HH gave the money to Etihad.

no, they show that not-Etihad paid the money due from Etihad.

[pink_triangle]

7 hours ago, zahidf said:

Athletic madrid, lecister and spurs would like a word.

Which of those 3 can you see winning a league title anytime soon?

[eastynh]

9 hours ago, zahidf said:

Emails prove they have.

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

Emails don't prove anything. I have repeatedly asked you to show where emails prove any wrong doing from City and you are unable to do so. You keep saying emails prove City have done wrong. Please show me these emails and then show me which regulation they are proven to have broken. Surely if you are certain these emails prove what you are saying then that should not be a difficult request.

I was not using Heysel to disscuss FFP, I was using Heysel to highlight what despicable is. There is a massive difference. Now again I will ask you as you seem not to be able to counter one single valid point I have raised, which would would be considered mire despicable?

1) Killing football fans

2) An owner investing his own money into his own club.

Get one thing clear in your head, Liverpool are not the victims when it comes to Hysel. They tried to totally erase in from their history. If a Liverpool fan calls another club despicable for not breaking any laws then surely you can say hold on a minute, you should have a bit more self awareness. Heysel was a tragedy, but make no mistake, Liverpool fans were at fault for it. They deserve no sympathy for it. It took them decades to apologise for it and when they did, the Juventus fans turned their back on them.

City have not even been banned for breaking FFP regulations. They have been done for bending the rules and basically telling UEFA to fuck off.

[eastynh]

9 hours ago, zahidf said:

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

There is a massive difference with copying and pasting the opinion of certain journalists who know absolutely nothing about the facts associated with the case, than there is with copy and pasting the official statement from the accused football club who know every fact about the case and have seen all the evidence.

 

[eastynh]

9 hours ago, zahidf said:

 

Nope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have shown you direct quotes from Michelle Platini, the man behind FFP who says it was originally to stop debt.

[zahidf]

55 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Which of those 3 can you see winning a league title anytime soon?

2 of them have won it in recent yesrs

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Emails don't prove anything.

by themselves, nope.

But you do know that UEFA sent PwC to go and audit City, don't you...? And guess what...?

Have those wonderful honest geezers at City kept that nugget of info from you, when they've been been trying to ramp up the outrage in people like you? Perhaps ask yourself why?

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I have shown you direct quotes from Michelle Platini, the man behind FFP who says it was originally to stop debt.

doesn't matter what its purpose is. Rules is rules.

And City broke the rules.

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, eastynh said:

 it was originally to stop debt.

Clubs get in debt by more than one way.

One way clubs get in debt is by a rich owner spunking money on them, and then stop spunking money on them despite having some very big players wages to pay. Limiting the gap between income and spending means there's a limit to by how much an owner could leave a club high and dry.

Pretending it's only about debt in the way you want to think of it is talking bollocks.  

[pink_triangle]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

2 of them have won it in recent yesrs

Anyone who uses Leicester as an example is using an exception to prove a norm. Where Leicester is now is a better comparison. Are they more likely to transition from 3rd to 5th or 3rd to 1st? The second they get a top player the vultures arrive. Look at Athletico losing Griezmann to Barca.

Do we want a system where these teams can consistently compete for titles, or one where the status quo compete and the rest fight for scraps. To me there are only 2 ways of allowing new teams to compete, either allow massive investment or spending caps. Neither are however advantageous to the establishment.

[eastynh]

9 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

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

You are right in regards to Citys attitude, they have basically told UEFA to fuck off and we will see you in court.

That report is wrong though. City have not been accused of inflating the Etihad deal. The Etihad deal was approved as being fair value. 

What City have been accused of is decieving UEFA about where Etihad got its money from. Now UEFA are suggesting that emails prove that Etihad only paid 8 million per annum of the agreed sponsorship deal and the rest came from an individual named HH. Protocol in UAE suggests that this individual is the president of UAE. That is not Citys owner. Even if UEFA could prove that Citys owner paid the money to Etihad, it should not matter they were directly related as UEFA have already approved the deal as being of fair value. It is only the same as Bet 365 sponsoring Stoke or King Power sponsoring Leicester. You can have directly related sponsors as long as they are approved of being of fair value. 

There us absolutely no evidence Sheikh Mansour paid Etihad the money, the emails do not prove this. Even if he did, Uefa have already signed the deal off as being of fair value.

Make no mistake about this, it is nothing buy a witch hunt. UEFA are not saying City have broken any rules, they are upset City have told them to fuck off.

Put it into context. Clubs get fined 50K for racist chanting. Continued racist chanting gets you a game behind closed doors. Racist chanting is illegal in every single country. City have been banned for 2 years and fined 30 million. Do you think what City have done is worse than racist chanting?

 

[eastynh]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

by themselves, nope.

But you do know that UEFA sent PwC to go and audit City, don't you...? And guess what...?

Have those wonderful honest geezers at City kept that nugget of info from you, when they've been been trying to ramp up the outrage in people like you? Perhaps ask yourself why?

Neil the auditors have found no irregularities what so ever.  Not a single one.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The Etihad deal was approved as being fair value. 

it was only that on the basis of what City aid about it. Turns out that what City said was a crock of shit.

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

Neil the auditors have found no irregularities what so ever.  Not a single one.

odd, cos I've read different, and that an audit is the evidence the ban is based on.

[eastynh]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Clubs get in debt by more than one way.

One way clubs get in debt is by a rich owner spunking money on them, and then stop spunking money on them despite having some very big players wages to pay. Limiting the gap between income and spending means there's a limit to by how much an owner could leave a club high and dry.

Pretending it's only about debt in the way you want to think of it is talking bollocks.  

Neil I was asked what FFP was originally about. It was originally about debt. I have shown you direct quotes from Platini.

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

it was only that on the basis of what City aid about it. Turns out that what City said was a crock of shit.

No Neil its not. A sponsorship deal is either fair value or it is not. UEFA approved the deal. Where Etihad gets its finances from is none of UEFA's business. 

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

Neil I was asked what FFP was originally about. It was originally about debt. I have shown you direct quotes from Platini.

There's more than one way a club can end up debt-ridden. :rolleyes: 

What I just said was one of the specific reasons for why the FFP rules are structured as they are. What i said is one of the justifications put forwards by Patini and co when Platitin used the word 'debt'.

What you're saying Platini meant when he said 'debt' is false.

[eastynh]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

odd, cos I've read different, and that an audit is the evidence the ban is based on.

No its not. The ban is based on stolen emails. There is no accusation of any financial wrong doing what so ever.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

No Neil its not. A sponsorship deal is either fair value or it is not. UEFA approved the deal. Where Etihad gets its finances from is none of UEFA's business. 

 

A sponsorship deal can only be fair value to Etihad if Etihad are the ones funding that deal.

If they cannot afford the deal - and the emails show they couldn't (or wouldn't, doesn't matter which) - then it ceases to be fair value.

[eastynh]

Neil answer me this. What is worst. Racist chanting or what City have alkeged to have done? Remember City have not broken any laws and are not even alleged to have broken any FFP rules. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

No its not. The ban is based on stolen emails. There is no accusation of any financial wrong doing what so ever.

you're saying they've been banned under FFP rules but without an allegation of financial wrongdoing....?  

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

Neil answer me this. What is worst. Racist chanting or what City have alkeged to have done? Remember City have not broken any laws and are not even alleged to have broken any FFP rules. 

whataboutery.  

Either City have broken the FFP rules or they haven't.

And it seems they have.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

are not even alleged to have broken any FFP rules.