Jump to content

Football 19/20


thetime
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

:lol: - I love how it's all about City's financial power, and not about the rights and wrongs of what City have done. 

Again Neil you have no evidence City have done anything wrong. You already admit that you do not agree with FFP. If City can show that FFP is restrictive and anti competitive then why would you not be favour of that? If City can show that FFP is wrong and illegal then by default City have not done anything wrong have they?

Surely as someone who is against FFP you should want someone with City's financial power to take on UEFA over them?

Edited by eastynh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, eastynh said:

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

Do you think it's impossible that the City owners could ruin the football club?

Just for a minute consider this: that UEFA has the evidence to show beyond dispute that City broke the FFP. Should City be punished and the owners blamed for ruining the club, or would you still say "totally ruining a football club is totally disproportionate for breaking rules"?

Me, I'd bet money on the answer to that. :) 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Nal said:

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. 

LFC wouldnt have turned into the best statistical team in European history (trademark that shizz) without pacemaking from City's doping.

So - nice one City. Well in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Surely as someone who is against FFP you should want someone with City's financial power to take on UEFA over them?

PMSL :lol: 

I'd have to have the brains of the slug to think that the answer to wealthy clubs using their muscle to fuck over the game is for a wealthy club to fuck over the game by a greater extent than has happened so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

If City can show that FFP is wrong and illegal then by default City have not done anything wrong have they?

Surely as someone who is against FFP you should want someone with City's financial power to take on UEFA over them?

I have always believed that FFP would fall if someone with financial muscles challenged it. Im interesting to see how this plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

I will tell you something Neil, I got accused of a crime I did not commit, it could have ruined my entire life. I would be happy to provide you all the details by PM and you will sit there shaking your head saying wtf. Just because someone says you did something, it does not mean you did. Thats why we have impartial judges and juries. UEFA are neither.

Neil you have not even seen all the emails, you have not seen the context. You have no evidence to show City have done anything wrong.

Also going against the spirit of the rules is totally different to breaking rules. You forget that City have already been punished once for breaking the rules. This second punishment is for exactly the same offence they have previously been punished for. It is not a separate case. They are being punished twice for the same offence, with the punishment 5 years apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL :lol: 

I'd have to have the brains of the slug to think that the answer to wealthy clubs using their muscle to fuck over the game is for a wealthy club to fuck over the game by a greater extent than has happened so far.

Please explain why City taking on FFP is bad for the game. You have already said you don't agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Again Neil you have no evidence City have done anything wrong.

the emails make it 100% clear that the Etihad deal wasn't really an Etihad deal, and that a scheme was contrived to get around the FFP rules.

If city have succeeded in gaming the rules to nth degree without breaking them, I still think city are c**ts for that no different to how I regard a company that manipulates things to minimise its tax bill.

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You already admit that you do not agree with FFP.

which is something entirely different to me agreeing it's fine for city to break them. :rolleyes: 

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

If City can show that FFP is restrictive and anti competitive then why would you not be favour of that? 

because when clubs don't respect the rules there isn't a game worth having.

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

If City can show that FFP is wrong and illegal then by default City have not done anything wrong have they?

Yes. If nothing else they'll have broken an agreement they signed up to.

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Surely as someone who is against FFP you should want someone with City's financial power to take on UEFA over them?

A rich club being a c**t is a rich club being a c**t. 

The problem in football is rich clubs being c**ts. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the emails make it 100% clear that the Etihad deal wasn't really an Etihad deal, and that a scheme was contrived to get around the FFP rules.

If city have succeeded in gaming the rules to nth degree without breaking them, I still think city are c**ts for that no different to how I regard a company that manipulates things to minimise its tax bill.

 

which is something entirely different to me agreeing it's fine for city to break them. :rolleyes: 

 

because when clubs don't respect the rules there isn't a game worth having.

 

Yes. If nothing else they'll have broken an agreement they signed up to.

 

A rich club being a c**t is a rich club being a c**t. 

The problem in football is rich clubs being c**ts. ;) 

Neil you are tying yourself in knots. You yourself agree that FFP is wrong. If City challenge it and win then they have not broken any rule and your whole argument is null and void. Which you should want as you do not agree with the principal in the first place.

What City should have done is challenge the rules from the off. They stated from the off that they did not agree with them. They should not have accepted any pinch. I have stated many times on here that imo  City should not have accepted any punishment and gone after the rules.

Do you think Bosman should have challenged the rules? As the rules stated that no player could move for free even if he was out of contract. Those were the rules and Bosman agreed to those by signing his contract. By your reasoning, Bosman is a c**t as he did not play by the rules he agreed to even though the rules were unfair and unjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Neil you have not even seen all the emails, you have not seen the context. You have no evidence to show City have done anything wrong.

the emails are evidence. :rolleyes: 

They may or may not be absolute proof of a 'crime', but they are evidence.

 

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Also going against the spirit of the rules is totally different to breaking rules. You forget that City have already been punished once for breaking the rules. This second punishment is for exactly the same offence they have previously been punished for.

total untruth. :rolleyes: 

The first punishment was based on numbers City provided about owner funding. Those numbers did not include the extra owner funding that came via the Etihad sponsorship.

Guilty or not, It's a further offence of the same thing, and not a 2nd punishment. The geezer who steals cars doesn't get off for the 2nd car because he got punished for the first.

 

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

It is not a separate case. They are being punished twice for the same offence, with the punishment 5 years apart.

Nope, see above.

If it was the same offence, the money that came via the Etihad sponsorship would be included in the owners over-spend they were punished for the first time. They were punished for a specific-amount overspend which didn't include money (what is being claimed as owners money) via the Etihad sponsorship.

You can reasonably (ha!) hold the opinion that they gamed the rules but stayed on the right side of them, but it's laughable to claim (and alleged) new extra amount of overspend is the same overspend as they were done for in the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Do you think Bosman should have challenged the rules? As the rules stated that no player could move for free even if he was out of contract. Those were the rules and Bosman agreed to those by signing his contract. By your reasoning, Bosman is a c**t as he did not play by the rules he agreed to even though the rules were unfair and unjust.

personal restraint of trade is something different to voluntarily signing up to the rules of a competition.

I know more than enough law to know they're nothing remotely similar. :) 

You do realise that City would be on extremely shaky ground suing UEFA for lost income (if they're banned) don't you? Cos UEFA is allowed to have a competition or not, and rules or not, without that acting as restraint on anyone's trade. City are free to trade where ever they like that will have them and UEFA is not obliged to have them as a customer or business partner.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil you are totally wrong about the lead investigator talking about the case before the investigation had even began. CAS have already said that City's take on this is not without merit.

Have a read of this and then do me a favour, go read the actual CAS report which was published last week as you are talking a load of cobblers to be truthful to you.

Just for some context, Dan Roan is banned from the Etihad and is pretty much always negative regarding City. Yet he has had to be balanced here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51528427

 

Also City will argue FFP is a restraint of trade and protects a cartel. 

Edited by eastynh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Neil you are totally wrong about the lead investigator talking about the case before the investigation had even began. CAS have already said that City's take on this is not without merit.

Have a read of this and then do me a favour, go read the actual CAS report which was published last week as you are talking a load of cobblers to be truthful to you.

Just for some context, Dan Roan is banned from the Etihad and is pretty much always negative regarding City. Yet he has had to be balanced here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51528427

 

Also City will argue FFP is a restraint of trade and protects a cartel. 

I guess a football ref should be ignored, because he's been appointed to operate the rules by that football competition. :P 

(Perhaps that gives away where you're going wrong? No? Then you probably won't ever get it.)

One thing here (and with what you said about Bosman): that you're confusing the rights of an individual with the rights of a commercial entity. No one has the right to deny an individual the right to ply their trade no matter what contract they've signed, while the agreements made by a commercial entity have legal weight.

And "just because we can" holds no weight to invalidate agreed rules between commercial entities. The fact that City can spend excessive money on players doesn't mean they've a right to when they've agreed not to in order for a wider commercial agreement (entry into the CL) to be made.

BTW, I do agree that a 2 year ban is probably on the excessive side, but I said what i think of that - that it's 2 years in order for it to be reduced to one year.  A one year ban that got reduced would mean that City got a free pass for breaking the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lost said:

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.

I mean, outside the game you can start to question the morality of the financial source, the Abu Dhabi funding group, etc. Pointing to the investment in Manchester that surrounds the club improvement doesn't mean the the source of the money isn't shitty.

But yes, in general I agree. The attitude to cartels/corporations is very unique in football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

But yes, in general I agree. The attitude to cartels/corporations is very unique in football.

but not necessarily wrong. Football (and other sports) are meant to be about the competition of the sport, and not about the competition of money.

It's not just football that takes this attitude. There's similar but different rules in both of Rugby and American Football (probably others too) which are designed to undermine financial muscle and create a more-level playing field for the sport.

We can probably all find bits of the FFP rules we'd change, but I reckon few of us would want nothing at all - unless you think the likes of Bury should suffer and die from having unfit owners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but not necessarily wrong. Football (and other sports) are meant to be about the competition of the sport, and not about the competition of money.

The trouble is the inbuilt advantage the big clubs built up before financial fair play. The idea of "sporting competition" is great, but i dont see at present how a middle ranking club could consistently compete for league titles without obscene investment.

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

It's not just football that takes this attitude. There's similar but different rules in both of Rugby and American Football (probably others too) which are designed to undermine financial muscle and create a more-level playing field for the sport.

 

Im all for a salary cap, the big boys would never agree, they dont want fairness.

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

We can probably all find bits of the FFP rules we'd change, but I reckon few of us would want nothing at all - unless you think the likes of Bury should suffer and die from having unfit owners?

Surely an effective financial fair play would have stopped Bury collapsing in the first place? I dont see how no FFP would cause bury to die. Bury is a town and if they want to have a football club they can. If one dies another can be born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil I find it a bit worrying that you have found City guilty for breaking rules even though you have not seen any evidence put forward from either side. All you have seen is stolen emails. I am under the impression you want City to be banned regardless of anything else. 

The only impartial body to have seen anything to do with the case is CAS. For them to come out and state before City had even been punished that Citys case is and I quote "not without merit" and that lapses in the procedure are "worrisome" Should have alarm bells ringing as that is totally unprecedented.

City have maintained their innocence all along and say they have been subjected to a kanagroo court who were determined to find them guilty before an investigation had even been started.

The press have been baying for Citys blood from the off. The negative reporting of City with often racist undertones us absolutely disgusting. The g14 want City knocking down a peg or two as City are a threat to their revenue streams. The way City have approached their ascent is the perfect model of how a successful business should operate and in any other industry it would be celebrated.

As for your views on FFP, they are totally mystifying. You don't agree with them in principal yet you do not want City to challenge them. That is utterly ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

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.

  • From 1995 to 2003 Chelsea qualified for Europe 6 out of 8 times.
  • During those years Everton finished 6, 15, 17, 14, 13, 16, 15 and 7 (so that's a load of rubbish).
  • Newcastle finished top four 4 times (first two seasons and last two seasons) and bottom half 4 times so they're a hard one to pin down.
  • Villa you have a point as they were consistently in the top 8 but some bad decisions at the top saw them fall away.

Hardly Chelsea's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The trouble is the inbuilt advantage the big clubs built up before financial fair play. The idea of "sporting competition" is great, but i dont see at present how a middle ranking club could consistently compete for league titles without obscene investment.

yup, I don't disagree that it protects the already-big clubs, but at the same time it still doesn't stop a club like City getting to the top via a rich owner (and even if they stick to the rules :P ).

I'd say it's more the case that the rules need tweaking than abandoning, but they'll probably never be perfect when a single set of rules if applied across many different situations. 

 

52 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Surely an effective financial fair play would have stopped Bury collapsing in the first place? I dont see how no FFP would cause bury to die. Bury is a town and if they want to have a football club they can. If one dies another can be born.

just because the current set-up isn't fully-effective doesn't mean we should throw all of those rules away and have nothing, it means we should improve the rules ... or otherwise we should accept the demise of Bury and there's no need to mention it at all.

(remember, I'm the only fan here of a league club that did actually die!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Neil I find it a bit worrying that you have found City guilty for breaking rules even though you have not seen any evidence put forward from either side.

The emails are evidence and I've seen some of them. What I and others have taken from what those emails say isn't an outrageous conclusion.

Fuck's sake, can you stop with the 'no evidence' bollocks now? The emails *are* evidence.

 

41 minutes ago, eastynh said:

All you have seen is stolen emails. I am under the impression you want City to be banned regardless of anything else. 

if they've taken the piss against the rules I want to see a meaningful punishment.

It's hardly an outrageous idea to have. 

 

41 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The only impartial body to have seen anything to do with the case is CAS. For them to come out and state before City had even been punished that Citys case is and I quote "not without merit" and that lapses in the procedure are "worrisome" Should have alarm bells ringing as that is totally unprecedented.

it's just lawyers seeing a mega-payday and making sure they get it.

 

41 minutes ago, eastynh said:

City have maintained their innocence all along and say they have been subjected to a kanagroo court who were determined to find them guilty before an investigation had even been started.

and the guilty never lie, right? :P 

 

41 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The press have been baying for Citys blood from the off. The negative reporting of City with often racist undertones us absolutely disgusting.

Oh, the irony :lol: 

 

41 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The g14 want City knocking down a peg or two as City are a threat to their revenue streams. The way City have approached their ascent is the perfect model of how a successful business should operate and in any other industry it would be celebrated.

I dunno about that. Barclays got the perfect capitalist bail-out, but it turns out that banks aren't allowed to chase the money before everything else after all.

Who knew? Perhaps someone should have read and understood the rules a bit better. :P 

 

41 minutes ago, eastynh said:

As for your views on FFP, they are totally mystifying. You don't agree with them in principal yet you do not want City to challenge them. That is utterly ridiculous.

PMSL at poor little City taking on the might of the corrupt world. :lol: 

(it's almost like there's anti-City conspiracy. Is anyone spotting a theme here? :lol: )

I want football where the rich clubs don't act the bully and fuck everyone else. Why would I support the very worst of football?  I'll leave that to the Trumpers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, jyoung said:
  • From 1995 to 2003 Chelsea qualified for Europe 6 out of 8 times.
  • During those years Everton finished 6, 15, 17, 14, 13, 16, 15 and 7 (so that's a load of rubbish).
  • Newcastle finished top four 4 times (first two seasons and last two seasons) and bottom half 4 times so they're a hard one to pin down.
  • Villa you have a point as they were consistently in the top 8 but some bad decisions at the top saw them fall away.

Hardly Chelsea's fault.

as Man Utd have been proving for the last few years, big spending clubs only win if they spend the money well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

I mean, outside the game you can start to question the morality of the financial source, the Abu Dhabi funding group, etc. Pointing to the investment in Manchester that surrounds the club improvement doesn't mean the the source of the money isn't shitty.

But yes, in general I agree. The attitude to cartels/corporations is very unique in football.

B-but ISIS sponsors LFC.

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...