Jump to content

Football 19/20


thetime
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

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.

:lol: 

What's incorrect about someone saying "if the rules have been broken it can lead to the heaviest punishment"? 

It's prejudging fuck all, and this is guff that Trump would be proud of.

 

 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eastynh said:

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.

so what you're saying is that UEFA have to follow due process, but that City should get off scott-free for not following due process? :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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. 

Any rule brought in to take power or money in the direction of the establishment, i will happily see broken.I have zero care for the integrity in these cases. The big clubs have huge influence over UEFA rules and i don't think always act with integrity in mind.

To me the 2 biggest losers from the rises of Chelsea and City are Arsenal and Man U who have lost regular champions league football. I dont think many smaller clubs have been significantly impacted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

so what you're saying is that UEFA have to follow due process, but that City should get off scott-free for not following due process? :lol: 

Thats how it works in any legal system Neil. If due process is not followed then the case is thrown out. That is exactly why PSG and Galatasaray got off scott-free. The difference between City and the other 2 clubs is that City are saying they are totally innocent and will take it even further than CAS, regardless of the result at CAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

 

To me the 2 biggest losers from the rises of Chelsea and City are Arsenal and Man U 

No it isn't, its because we are shite. Dont think united missed out on champions league with the rise of chelsea or the rise of city. In fact quite the opposite, especially with Chelsea. 

We miss out because united are miss managed and are poor.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL. :lol: 

CAS will only hear the case if City agree that CAS is the final step.

CAS will not accept a case on any other basis.

Thats not the case Neil. City will pursue this even further, firstly in the Swiss national courts and the ECJ. They can then also seek damages from UEFA by litigation. It seems City will challenge FFP. CAS can not stop City doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Nal said:

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?

The Barcelona players didn’t look bothered - as if they knew they were better than Getafe and would win - which they did without getting out of 2nd gear. I’m happy I’ve now seen Messi live, even if he didn’t have the greatest game (albeit he did assist one of the goals). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Thats not the case Neil. City will pursue this even further, firstly in the Swiss national courts and the ECJ.

Just googled it. I see the rules have changed.

No chance in the ECJ tho, based on the decision of that German court.

 

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

They can then also seek damages from UEFA by litigation. It seems City will challenge FFP. CAS can not stop City doing that.

yeah, i know, City would rather make UEFA bankrupt than follow the rules City agreed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eFestivals said:

Just googled it. I see the rules have changed.

No chance in the ECJ tho, based on the decision of that German court.

 

yeah, i know, City would rather make UEFA bankrupt than follow the rules City agreed to.

Neil you are not a lawyer or a solicitor. You have absolutely no idea whether City will win or lose anything. City are being advised by the best legal representatives in the game. Why do you think they have been so bullish from the off. You don't tell someone to basically fuck off unless you are extremely confident in your stance.

As for UEFA, fuck therm. Corrupt bunch of bastards. Let them rot. No sympathy from me. City taking them on is imo good for football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

No offence Neil but you have already admitted you don't  know what CAS actually do. How are you supposed to know what they will and not rule on?

CAS used to only accept cases on the basis it was the final appeal and couldn't go to a further court.  That's changed, but it's still pretty much how it's working in reality. 

A German court wouldn't accept itself as having the jurisdiction to over-rule a CAS decision, and the Switz courts have only once ruled on the merits of a case (rather than process by CAS).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

Neil you are not a lawyer or a solicitor. You have absolutely no idea whether City will win or lose anything.

and nor do you.

However, you have stated that you believe City have bent the rules - which is your own admission of City's bad faith.

But apparently, if someone at UEFA farted in the wrong room, that makes City innocent. :lol: 

 

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

City are being advised by the best legal representatives in the game. Why do you think they have been so bullish from the off. You don't tell someone to basically fuck off unless you are extremely confident in your stance.

or you're a c**t.

"One down, six to go".

c**t!

 

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

As for UEFA, fuck therm. Corrupt bunch of bastards. Let them rot. No sympathy from me. City taking them on is imo good for football.

Because of course the glorious medieval kingdom is honest as the day is long.

Even when they bend - make bent - the rules. :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

CAS used to only accept cases on the basis it was the final appeal and couldn't go to a further court.  That's changed, but it's still pretty much how it's working in reality. 

A German court wouldn't accept itself as having the jurisdiction to over-rule a CAS decision, and the Switz courts have only once ruled on the merits of a case (rather than process by CAS).

Thats fine Neil. None of us know which way it will go though. It has not been tested though with a case brought by someone with the financial power of City.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and nor do you.

However, you have stated that you believe City have bent the rules - which is your own admission of City's bad faith.

But apparently, if someone at UEFA farted in the wrong room, that makes City innocent. :lol: 

 

or you're a c**t.

"One down, six to go".

c**t!

 

Because of course the glorious medieval kingdom is honest as the day is long.

Even when they bend - make bent - the rules. :lol: 

Problem is Neil that my opinion is only my opinion,I have absolutely no idea, just like yourself. I am not the one stating City have no chance at Cas, or ECJ or that CAS will not hear the case, which is what you have done. I have absolutely no idea if city have broken or bent any rules, or whether any body will judge in their favour. All I can go off is City saying they have done nothing wrong and have irrefutable evidence to prove they have not. UEFA have not produced any evidence as of yet to prove City have broken any rule.

 Even so bending the rules is not breaking the rules. Totally ruining a football club is totally disproportionate for bending rules.

If City go after the concept of FFP and FFP is ruled to be illegal then City have not broken or bent any rules have they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

To me the 2 biggest losers from the rises of Chelsea and City are Arsenal and Man U who have lost regular champions league football. I dont think many smaller clubs have been significantly impacted.

If anything I think it improved Utd. Made them step up. Chelsea/Mourinho came on the scene, won 2 leagues. The Fergie era was over etc but then Utd went on to win 3 leagues in a row and make 3 Champions League finals in 4 years. 

Then City came into the picture, won the league and hammered Utd 6-1 at home but Utd reacted (RVP) and walked the league the following year. 

But since then, its been all Utds fault. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

hey calm down kaos, if Ashley isn't lying your lot are set to become the worst of the lot.

(lucky Ashley's a liar, then :P )

It's funny how these stories about a new buyer always appear over the transfer window.

But yeah, the Saudis would be awful on the front of rich plaything sportswashing. Not that Ashley is a humanitarian, or investing in the club instead of endlessly loaning money and taking free sponsorship.

I'm just saying City aren't as much of a poster child for oil-fuelled financial doping as another club. And at least the owners are spending the money for said financial doping, not saddling it with loans, or breaking various laws around recruiting kids. Of the ways for a rich twat to abuse running a football club, I don't think City's owners have been bad for or within the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

To me the 2 biggest losers from the rises of Chelsea and City are Arsenal and Man U who have lost regular champions league football. I dont think many smaller clubs have been significantly impacted.

I would argue it's most hurt clubs like Everton, Newcastle, and Villa, who before (or at the beginning of) the Chelsea/City rise flirted with European football and trophy challenges. The big boys that were already reliably there remained big and relevant, the ones that were trying to break in and occasionally looked competitive could no longer challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil ask yourself this. How would you feel if someone accused you of a crime that you did not commit? Then the person who accused you was also the judge and jury in your case. This person then ignored the evidence you provided, that you say proves your innocence. This person then passes judgement and gives you a sentence which is totally disproportionate to the crime you have allegedly committed. You would be sat there thinking what the fuck is going on here.

Edited by eastynh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I don't think City's owners have been bad for or within the game.

Outside the game too. I believe the Etihad tieup has resulted in a shit load of investment in and around Manchester Airport which is why I don't believe these rules make any sense as they wouldn't be applied to any other industry.

If someone can prove that other investment is being threatened then I can't see uefa have a leg to stand on. The only thing is football is unique as in people think a rule will benefit the billion dollar corporation they have decided to support so they are happy for cartels to exist when they wouldn't accept them in any other market.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, eastynh said:

All I can go off is City saying they have done nothing wrong

The guilty always claim they're innocent. 

And you're repeating City's claims as gospel, when I've already shown you that part of their claim is a lie (that the chief investigator pre-judged the case).

And we've seen the emails, and it doesn't take a genius to realise they clearly show that City was attempting to circumvent the FFP rules.

They've very definitely done things wrong against the spirit of the FFP rules. 

And if they get off on a technicality, that doesn't make them innocent of going against the spirit of the FFP rules.

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...