Jump to content

Football 19/20


thetime
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

Are emails evidence something happened? They are evidence an email was sent, but they are not evidence that an actual event has taken place.

so alongside your own bullshit, you reckon the City execs are all bullshitters too, sending bullshit emails to each other? :lol: 

Priceless. :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Neil said:

so alongside your own bullshit, you reckon the City execs are all bullshitters too, sending bullshit emails to each other? :lol: 

Priceless. :P 

Are emails evidence that an event happened?

Thats a yes or no question.

Edited by eastynh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Are emails evidence that an event happened?

Yes. :rolleyes: 

They're not proof.

Then again, the 'crime' is hiding financial stuff from UEFA that City are obliged to disclose, so those execs saying what they did in the emails could quite possibly be enough proof to be guilty, no matter who actually paid the sponsorship money to City &/or whether it's allowed via that route.

What we do know with absolute certainty is that what is said in the emails is different to what City told UEFA, so City are proven bullshitters whichever way the verdict goes.

 

Quote

Thats a yes or no question.

It's a yes.

Sadly you don't know what the word 'evidence' means, despite having already had it explained to you.

Edited by Neil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Neil said:

Yes. :rolleyes: 

They're not proof.

Then again, the 'crime' is hiding financial stuff from UEFA that City are obliged to disclose, so those execs saying what they did in the emails could quite possibly be enough proof to be guilty, no matter who actually paid the sponsorship money to City &/or whether it's allowed via that route.

What we do know with absolute certainty is that what is said in the emails is different to what City told UEFA, so City are proven bullshitters whichever way the verdict goes.

 

It's a yes.

Sadly you don't know what the word 'evidence' means, despite having already had it explained to you.

City have fully audited accounts. They are proof that an event actually took place, emails are not proof anything has taken place.

The irony out of all this is that City have not even benefited from any alleged breach. The Etihad deal was signed off as fair value. UEFA believe that City could have received a similar amount from a different company.

UEFA have already said that the Etihad deal was fair value, they also said that Etihad was a related party. City disagreed with that. If City had agreed that Etihad was a related party, then Sheikh Mansour could have paid the entire amount directly to City. That is allowed under ffp. As long as any sponsorship deal is fair value then it can be funded by a related party. It happens at Leicester, it happens at Stoke and god knows where else. It makes absolutely no sense for City not to accept Etihad were a related party and then for Sheikh Mansour to pay all the money himself.

 

If City had accepted Etihad were a related party, as UFA said they were, then Sheikh Mansour could have paid every penny directly to City and they would not have broken FFP.

 

If Sheikh Mansour has paid most of the money for the deal and funnelled it through ETIHAD, then apparently that is breaking FFP. It just makes absolutely no sense for City to do that, considering UEFA believe the Etihad deal as fair value and that both parties are related anyway.

 

What ever direction the money has gone, City have not benefited,as they could have been expected to get a similar amount from a different source.

 

Uefa City 30 million for their owner allegedly investing his own money, into his own football club, yet fine clubs 40K Euros for racist abuse. That tells me everything I need to know about UEFA.

Edited by eastynh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

City have fully audited accounts. They are proof that an event actually took place, emails are not proof anything has taken place.

because no one ever does dodgy accounts to hide wrong-doing, right? :lol: 

 

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

The Etihad deal was signed off as fair value.

... on the basis of what City told UEFA, that Etihad were funding it all directly.

Oh dear, cos that's not what the emails say, is it? Those emails show the execs know it to be a different set-up to what those execs told UEFA.

 

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

UEFA have already said that the Etihad deal was fair value

Irrelevant. :rolleyes: 

The 'crime' is not whether it's fair value or not, it's what City told UEFA about the set-up of the deal. City are obliged by UEFA's rules to be truthful!

 

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

That is allowed under ffp.

it may or may not be ("related interests") but that's an irrelevance anyway. It's not what City were found guilty of.

City were found guilty of making false submissions to UEFA about the structure of the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the general public are always likely to say it’s too soon as football has a bad reputation anyway so will take any opportunity to slag it off.

Personally, I think it’s the right time due to the precautions they’re taking. They have tested thousands of people (anyone involved in any capacity) with very low positive results. If they were considering it with fans it would be a no from me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, zahidf said:

The general public think it's still too soon for the Premier league to return, and the fans themselves are divided

Public: Too soon 48% / Right time 26%
PL fans: Too soon 39% / Right time 47%

bread and circuses, innit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

I’d delay the start until it’s safe for fans to return. Depending on the time that takes I’d consider a 19 league game season in 2020/21. Or scrapping next season altogether. 

Theres no chance most clubs could survive without a year and a half of income. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I have seen bits of a few behind closed door games and haven’t enjoyed it at all.

I thought I'd be used to it - for my sins, I've attended Checkatrade Trophy games with only 1 stand full of people and thought I would be used to it. But I've tried watching Bundesliga and Portuguese league matches, and not really gelled with either.

Not sure yet if I'll feel any different when the PL belatedly gets back into action. Though it'll certainly be strange to watch things like the FA Cup Final with all its ceremony take place with nobody there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

I’d delay the start until it’s safe for fans to return. Depending on the time that takes I’d consider a 19 league game season in 2020/21. Or scrapping next season altogether. 

I guess the issue is what happens if you start letting fans back in but a further wave of the virus means it has to go back behind closed doors or off altogether. But we're in uncharted territory in general and it has felt like a lot of situation's resolution has been just to make shit up.

6 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I also think it's a bit random playing the play off finals at Wembley with empty crowd.

You could argue the play-offs in general are a bit random this time, but tbf with the Euros off, at least Wembley is available as a neutral venue with the Premier League and Championship stadiums out of action.

Though I'm aware there's a different argument behind had if you support Peterborough United, given I've seen people connected with them already talking up the idea of next year being a "vengeance mission".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

Same here. Will give it a go next week but not convinced I’ll watch as many games as I normally would.

i tried a german match and it was alright but it didn't grab me.

I reckon they'll be more appealling with teams & players I care about a bit more than the German stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Neil said:

i tried a german match and it was alright but it didn't grab me.

I reckon they'll be more appealling with teams & players I care about a bit more than the German stuff.

Yeah that’s my hope too.

With no atmosphere and ongoing VAR “issues” they’ll be keen not to damage the “ brand “.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it will undoubtedly be better with it being a league with teams and players we care more about.

Loving that one of the first games back is a big match, too. City v Arsenal will be a good one to start with rather than a mid table clash with very little on the line.

 

EDIT: Just checked and that's the second game. Point stands though as the first game is Villa (fighting relegation) v Sheffield United (chasing Europe)

Edited by DareToDibble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

True. I don’t see that as an issue. 

I'm sorry but how is this not an issue? If a load of clubs go under how are be ever going to get back to a sense of normal?

The other issue being how this would affect fans. If my club ceased to exist i'd be devastated, and as a Yeovil Town fan there's a chance that might happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Gromite said:

I'm sorry but how is this not an issue? If a load of clubs go under how are be ever going to get back to a sense of normal?

Maybe, just maybe, the FA and Premier League would have to take action to change the way in which teams are funded. 

20 hours ago, Gromite said:

The other issue being how this would affect fans. If my club ceased to exist i'd be devastated, and as a Yeovil Town fan there's a chance that might happen.

This is a prime example. If we take the date upon which most of these executives love to tell us football started - 1992 - look at the percentage income difference between the big boys in the top flight and clubs in the 4th tier then, and compare to now. 
 

The size of the gap and the speed at which it’s grown is ridiculous. The model is wrong. Whilst everyone shrugs the their shoulders and keeps paying their Sky/BT subscriptions nothing will change. 
 

Coronavirus, and a large number of football clubs in trouble, might focus people’s minds. 

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...