Football 19/20

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

If UEFA judged that it fair value then the related party is allowed to put the money in.

Did UEFA judge it fair value when they knew the "sponsorship deal" was really an owners cash injection?

Nope, because City lied about it being an owners cash injection.

[eastynh]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

City's statement as posted by easty...

 

 

I have no idea what  point you are trying to make here.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

So try again, what regulation have City broke? 

the one about fair value.  

[eastynh]

Just now, eFestivals said:

Did UEFA judge it fair value when they knew the "sponsorship deal" was really an owners cash injection?

Nope, because City lied about it being an owners cash injection.

Neil this is the crucial point you are missing. If UEFA judge it to be a fair value then then owner is allowed to supply the money.

It does not matter as it was not the owner who pumped the money in, it was in fact the Abu Dhabi executive committee, who by UEFA's own definition is not a related party.

So City have still not broken any regulation.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I have no idea what  point you are trying to make here.

that City's statement is a lie.  

Words are easy for people to understand.

Unless you've drunk the Man City kool aid (which is really the owners piss).

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

If UEFA judge it to be a fair value then then owner is allowed to supply the money.

PMSL  

Bullshit.

If the sponsor doesn't think the fee is fair value enough to pay it then it cannot be fair value.

If you refuse to pay £1000 for a big mac but someone else buys that £1000 big mac for you, the £1000 big mac does not become fair value to you.

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

It does not matter as it was not the owner who pumped the money in, it was in fact the Abu Dhabi executive committee, who by UEFA's own definition is not a related party.

So City have still not broken any regulation.

want to tell me how come City lied to UEFA and the PL about where the money was coming from, then? 

If it was all above board, like.

Jeeez.  

[eastynh]

Just now, eFestivals said:

that City's statement is a lie.  

Words are easy for people to understand.

Unless you've drunk the Man City kool aid (which is really the owners piss).

 

City have not said anything though. They have said the process that UEFA have followed is not correct and CAS will judge on that in the first instance. CAS have already stated there are worrisome aspects to the UEFA case and that was even before UEFA revealed their verdict.

City have said nothing apart from they have irrefutable evidence on no wrong doing and will take UEFA to court.

 

[eastynh]

Just now, eFestivals said:

PMSL  

Bullshit.

If the sponsor doesn't think the fee is fair value enough to pay it then it cannot be fair value.

If you refuse to pay £1000 for a big mac but someone else buys that £1000 big mac for you, the £1000 big mac does not become fair value to you.

want to tell me how come City lied to UEFA and the PL about where the money was coming from, then? 

If it was all above board, like.

Jeeez.  

City have not lied, they have not said anything. They refused to cooperate with UEFA and said we will see you in court. You have no evidence to suggest City have lied. not even UEFA have said that.

[eastynh]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL  

Bullshit.

If the sponsor doesn't think the fee is fair value enough to pay it then it cannot be fair value.

If you refuse to pay £1000 for a big mac but someone else buys that £1000 big mac for you, the £1000 big mac does not become fair value to you.

want to tell me how come City lied to UEFA and the PL about where the money was coming from, then? 

If it was all above board, like.

Jeeez.  

The sponsor did think it was fair value and so did its guarantor, the Abu Dhabi executive commission. The Abu Dhabi executive commission wanted to promote its national airline on the international stage. Premier league football is the ideal place to promote your product. 

So what you are saying is that it is within UEFA's jurisdiction to decide whether a national government is allowed to use its money to promote it's national airline? In that case the emirates deal with Arsenal should not be allowed as Emirates are heavily propped up by their national government. It also calls into question the Emirates sponsorship deal with the FA.

Abu Dhabi used its money to prop up its national airline. That is totally out of UEFA's remit. The money was used to promote Etihad on the national stage so it could increase customer share. Surely that is the principal of sponsorship.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, eastynh said:

City have not said anything though.

*YOU* posted their lying press release about it, easty.  

they said the geezer prejudged it, when it's clear from the "if" that he wasn't prejudging anything.  

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You have no evidence to suggest City have lied

City claim: 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 words that city are referring to, what the UEFA chief investigator said are these: “If it is true what has been written, there might be a serious problem,” he said to questions about the Der Spiegel coverage. “This can lead to the heaviest punishment: exclusion from the Uefa competitions. If the information is correct, this possibly goes against truthful reporting.

What are you having difficulty with, easty?

[zahidf]

18 minutes ago, eastynh said:

City have not lied, they have not said anything. They refused to cooperate with UEFA and said we will see you in court. You have no evidence to suggest City have lied. not even UEFA have said that.

That in itself is reason to exclude them from the champs league. Its UEFAs competition and it's up to them to regulate the FFP rules. Refusing to cooperate is like someone refusing to cooperate with a steroids test!:-/

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

*YOU* posted their lying press release about it, easty.  

they said the geezer prejudged it, when it's clear from the "if" that he wasn't prejudging anything.  

Yes Neil but you have absolutely no evidence to prove City have lied about anything. Not one single piece of evidence.

Here are the facts:

UEFA seen some hacked emails published in a paper that had admitted to releasing fabricated news stories.

They then carried out an investigation. They were the accusers, judge, jury and executioners.

City approached CAS before a judgement had been made. CAS said they could not deal with it yet as no judgement had been made but agreed with City that there are worrying aspects to the process UEFA have followed.

UEFA then find City guilty and ban them. UEFA state that City have been totally uncooperative.

City then release a statement saying they refused to deal with UEFA, they will only deal with the facts and will not comment on stolen material. They have a irrefutable body of evidence which proves their innocence and they look forward to taking the issues to independent bodies, where they believe they will be found totally innocent of breaking any rules.

Those are the only facts in this entire episode. There is absolutely no proof of any wrong doing by City.

[eastynh]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

City claim: 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 words that city are referring to, what the UEFA chief investigator said are these: “If it is true what has been written, there might be a serious problem,” he said to questions about the Der Spiegel coverage. “This can lead to the heaviest punishment: exclusion from the Uefa competitions. If the information is correct, this possibly goes against truthful reporting.

What are you having difficulty with, easty?

That to me says that City believe that UEFA had decided to ban City before they had even started any investigation. That backs up City and not UEFA. CAS have already called this and the leaks worrisome about the process. It seems you are having difficulty with that statement.

City are saying in that statement that UEFA were determined to find City guilty of something before they had even started an investigation.

[The Nal]

2 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Some photos of my trip. 
Barcelona vocal support was poor, Leganes much noisier despite obviously being a much smaller ground. Clearly tourists like me don’t help matters. I enjoyed Celta’s late equaliser against Real Madrid. 

Oooh nice. Barca are fairly poor at the moment aren't they? As blunt as Ive seen them in years and their defence is a bit of a shambles.

Yeah chuckled at Celtas goal myself. Some pass from Denis Suarez though. Were the white hankies out?

Edited February 17, 2020 by The Nal

[eastynh]

City have basically said that they do not trust UEFA, their process was biased, they refuse to deal with them and are prepared to fight UEFA in any court which will be independent, while they prove themselves innocent of breaking any regulation. They have said in their statement that CAS is just a first step and they will continue fighting.

[eastynh]

I would not mind Neil but you don't even agree with FFP. You are arguing totally blindly without any facts or knowledge for City to be banned for something you don't even agree with. Just think about that.

You should be hoping City fight this and try to bring FFP down.Unfortunately you seem to have a very anti Manchester City stance and have done on everything, be that ffp or playing style. Your posting is always  negatively slanted towards City. 

[Wooderson]

51 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Wooderson started calling City a despicable little club. I just stated hold on a minute, City have been banned for apparently creative accounting and refusing to be co operative with UEFA. I just asked what was the more despicable act, what City have been banned for or what Liverpool got banned for. Surely that is a valid point to make and I would have expected Wooderson to have a little more self awareness.

Heysel was 35 years ago. Club and "fans" concerned have been punished. Dispicable? 100% - its a permanent stain on the club's history.

Your club is the poster boy for grotty oil-funded financial doping. Thats the topic at hand. Own it.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Yes Neil but you have absolutely no evidence to prove City have lied about anything. Not one single piece of evidence.

they lied about what matey said, and I've just posted the evidence of what he *actually* said. 

[eastynh]

Just now, eFestivals said:

they lied about what matey said, and I've just posted the evidence of what he *actually* said. 

You have posted nothing which proves City lied. Not a single thing. There is absolutely no evidence in the public domain. Not one single piece that City lied.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, eastynh said:

City approached CAS before a judgement had been made. CAS said they could not deal with it yet as no judgement had been made but agreed with City that there are worrying aspects to the process UEFA have followed.

that's not correct.  

CAS said that *if* UEFA have pre-judged it as City have claimed that's worrying.

I just proved that it wasn't pre-judged, and therefore CAS have no concerns.

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

You have posted nothing which proves City lied. Not a single thing.

it's a lie that the case was prejudged. City's claim is based on the words I quoted.  

[eastynh]

3 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Heysel was 35 years ago. Club and "fans" concerned have been punished. Dispicable? 100% - its a permanent stain on the club's history.

Your club is the poster boy for grotty oil-funded financial doping. Thats the topic at hand. Own it.

Thats fine, but it is not despicable is it. Liverpool are sponsored by terrorist money launderers. Not exactly something to be proud about is it?

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, eastynh said:

That to me says that City believe that UEFA had decided to ban City before they had even started any investigation.

well, that explains everything you're posting, then. If you don't understand what "if" means, I bet you're having problems with other words too.

[eastynh]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's not correct.  

CAS said that *if* UEFA have pre-judged it as City have claimed that's worrying.

I just proved that it wasn't pre-judged, and therefore CAS have no concerns.

You have not proved anything. You have absolutely no idea what has gone on and nor have you seen any evidence. You have probably not even read the cas report.