Jump to content

Football 19/20


thetime
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, eastynh said:

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.

Yeah, but they cant refuse to cooperate with UEFA and play in the champs league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, eastynh said:

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.

I don't agree with everything about the murder laws either but that doesn't mean I think all murderers should get a free pass. :rolleyes: 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

Neil I have run rings round you all morning and still not resorted to personal slights. 

You have not proven anything, you are not subject to any of the details in this case. You are arguing in favour of something you don't agree with. How can anyone take you seriously?

Edited by eastynh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

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?

Easty relax. Youre up to 90 here. 

Own your club's issues. It'll be easier. I know the money has brought pressure but deary me calm down

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eastynh said:

You have not proven anything,

I have proven that city's claim (a claim you posted) about the chief investigator having prejudged the case is a lie.

If you don't understand simple sentences - and you've already posted that you don't - there is little point in a discussion with you.

 

Just now, eastynh said:

you are not subject to any of the details in this case.

One of the details of the case is that press release.

You know, the one with a big BIG whopper in it about what the chief investigator said.

 

Just now, eastynh said:

You are arguing in favour of something you don't agree with. How can anyone take you seriously?

I can understand the rules, whether or not I agree with them.
I can understand what is within and outside of those rules, whether or not I agree with them.

It's how brains work, if they work. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Easty relax. Youre up to 90 here. 

Own your club's issues. It'll be easier. I know the money has brought pressure but deary me calm down

 

Do you realise how hypocritical you sound mate? You taking digs at the club I support is allowed  but I can't point out things your club has done? How does that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eFestivals said:

I have proven that city's claim (a claim you posted) about the chief investigator having prejudged the case is a lie.

If you don't understand simple sentences - and you've already posted that you don't - there is little point in a discussion with you.

 

One of the details of the case is that press release.

You know, the one with a big BIG whopper in it about what the chief investigator said.

 

I can understand the rules, whether or not I agree with them.
I can understand what is within and outside of those rules, whether or not I agree with them.

It's how brains work, if they work. :) 

I love the way you are an expert on politics, football finance & regulation and how the brain works. You are truly wasted to society being the owner of a festival website.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

I love the way you are an expert on politics, football finance & regulation and how the brain works. You are truly wasted to society being the owner of a festival website.

and you're the smart guy because you think I shouldn't be able to understand rules I don't agree with...? :lol: 

The rules are the rules. You've said you accept those rules.

And yet you have to keep saying the rules shouldn't count as your default defence of City. There's a reason why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Do you realise how hypocritical you sound mate? You taking digs at the club I support is allowed  but I can't point out things your club has done? How does that work?

Emmm. I already told you. LFC and the individuals concerned accepted wrongdoing, were punished and served punishment. Thats kind of how the system works. Your Brexit-style denial of systemic reality has really taken hold. Gawd the 25 points must really hurt.

I realise youre dead busy taking shots at people (the one at Neil was cheap) but cmon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

and you're the smart guy because you think I shouldn't be able to understand rules I don't agree with...? :lol: 

The rules are the rules. You've said you accept those rules.

And yet you have to keep saying the rules shouldn't count as your default defence of City. There's a reason why.

I am saying I don't agree with the rules. I am not Manchester City nor do I speak for them. City are saying that they have not broken any rule and have an irrefutable body of evidence to prove their innocence . City are not using we don't agree with the rules, they are saying they have not broken any, which is entirely different to what I am saying.

Now I don't know whether City have broken any rules. I don't know the facts, I have not seen the evidence. None of us have. Do I think I have broken the rules? No is the answer to that. Do I think they have bent them a little? Yes I do. But bending them is not breaking them and the punishment they have been given is totally disproportionate to what you get for bending rules, especially when you look at the punishments given for offences like racist chanting, which is illegal.

Now if you believe what you read in the media, the Athletic suggested late last year that City would not get any ban and that UEFA were trying to negotiate a deal with City on a technical breach. This is pure speculation based on media reports. Now I take what the media say with a pinch of salt as they all have their own agendas. None of them are impartial. But Aleksander Cerefin was at the Etihad for consecutive games against Atalanta and Shaktar. The Athletic suggest he was there to try and strike a deal. City refused and UEFA say in their statement that City have been uncooperative.  City believe they are totally innocent and are prepared to fight it all the way.

What ever you think, a 2 year ban and 30 million pound fine is totally disproportionate to the offence. Such a punishment is an attempt to try and totally ruin City. City say they are not guilty and will fight it all the way.

What City are guilty of is poor cyber security. To allow confidential emails to be stolen is farcical really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Emmm. I already told you. LFC and the individuals concerned accepted wrongdoing, were punished and served punishment. Thats kind of how the system works. Your Brexit-style denial of systemic reality has really taken hold. Gawd the 25 points must really hurt.

I realise youre dead busy taking shots at people (the one at Neil was cheap) but cmon.

What shot did I take at Neil???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Emmm. I already told you. LFC and the individuals concerned accepted wrongdoing, were punished and served punishment. Thats kind of how the system works. Your Brexit-style denial of systemic reality has really taken hold. Gawd the 25 points must really hurt.

I realise youre dead busy taking shots at people (the one at Neil was cheap) but cmon.

Wooderson - City are a despicable little club

Me-  Hold on a minute your club performed a far more despicable act and you should have some self awareness.

Wooderson - You can't say that,  blah, blah, blah, excuse, excuse, excuse

Wooderson - City are are grotty little oil funded plaything (paraphrased as I can't remember what you exactly said

Me - Your club accepts money from terrorist money launderers, you should have more self awareness.

Wooderson - You can't say that,  blah, blah, blah, excuse, excuse, excuse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Do I think they have bent them a little? Yes I do. But bending them is not breaking them

:lol: 

The "bending" of the rules City have done is a bending of the rules specifically designed to take the piss out of the rules and the specifics for those rules. City are certainly not working to the spirit of those rules (the emails make that abundantly clear), which disallows owner investments via the back door.

It'd be a very confident person to claim City aren't going to be nailed for the 'bending' those rules in light of the spirit for those rules.

But who knows, maybe CAS will rule City bent the rules but didn't break them; and maybe CAS will rule that City broke them.

And if CAS say City broke them, will you come back to post that the city owners mugged you with bullshit, and that they're lying scum who are fucking over your club?

I'll look forwards to it,. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eFestivals said:

:lol: 

The "bending" of the rules City have done is a bending of the rules specifically designed to take the piss out of the rules and the specifics for those rules. City are certainly not working to the spirit of those rules (the emails make that abundantly clear), which disallows owner investments via the back door.

It'd be a very confident person to claim City aren't going to be nailed for the 'bending' those rules in light of the spirit for those rules.

But who knows, maybe CAS will rule City bent the rules but didn't break them; and maybe CAS will rule that City broke them.

And if CAS say City broke them, will you come back to post that the city owners mugged you with bullshit, and that they're lying scum who are fucking over your club?

I'll look forwards to it,. :) 

Neil I am not sure you understand what CAS do, they can only rule on the process, not the specifics of the case. 

Even if City get off at CAS on a process issue, it seems City are going to pursue UEFA in the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

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!:-/

They will never regulate the FFP rules. The big clubs don't want to give up their share. Why do we want to protect the big clubs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Neil I am not sure you understand what CAS do, they can only rule on the process, not the specifics of the case. 

didn't know that, but if that's the case (and based on what you've said)...

Do you think CAS are going to rule that UEFA got the process wrong in expelling City from the CL when City had signed up the rules but then wouldn't abide by the rules (by cooperating with UEFA's investigation)?

To me, that's guaranteed to go only one way - against City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

They will never regulate the FFP rules. The big clubs don't want to give up their share. Why do we want to protect the big clubs?

I don't, but I think protecting the integrity of the rules is far more important than an attitude of the rules shouldn't count if we don't agree with them.

Because the rules not counting won't do anything to benefit smaller clubs either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

didn't know that, but if that's the case (and based on what you've said)...

Do you think CAS are going to rule that UEFA got the process wrong in expelling City from the CL when City had signed up the rules but then wouldn't abide by the rules (by cooperating with UEFA's investigation)?

To me, that's guaranteed to go only one way - against City.

They are not going to rule on whether City are innocent or guilty. They are going to arbitrate on whether due process has been followed. That is why City went to CAS before any judgement was made, as due process was not being followed. They are not a court, they are an arbitration service.

City are saying that process was not followed correctly. The head investigator should not have been commenting on any possible punishment before an investigation is undertaken. UEFA then have two separate investigative bodies. The first UEFA body pushed it upstairs to the second body, the day before a 5 year time limit passed where UEFA would not have been able to act. City are saying that they issued a 200 page document to the first body which shows irrefutable evidence that they had not done anything wrong. In a desperate attempt to meet the 5 year deadline, UEFA have not even looked at or considered the 200 page document that City say proves their innocence. The 2nd body can only deal with what has been passed to them, so can not act on the evidence City have provided. UEFA have not followed their own procedures. Then there are the leaks that have emerged. Under any investigation there should not be any comment made on the proceedings. CAS have already stated these are worrisome and due process has not been adhered to. Because of this, City have then refused to co operate with UEFA when they tried to strike a deal.

UEFA are stuck between a rock and a hard place. It looks like they were being pressurised to punish City regardless. I don't think UEFA wanted to ban City, hence the alleged attempt at making a deal. I think CAS will throw it out on a process technicality. PSG were up for far worse offences than City are alleged to have done and CAS threw it out. UEFA can then turn round to the G14 and say look we tried, but CAS threw it out.

The problem UEFA have now is that it seems from their statement is that City will not just accept it being threw out on a process technicality and will be gunning for them in an actual court of law. They say CAS is the first step.

Edited by eastynh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...