Football 19/20

[eFestivals]

5 hours ago, eastynh said:

So you are calling Manchester City cheats and Liars?

I'm saying that from what is currently in the public domain you'd have to be stupidly biased to conclude anything different.

[eFestivals]

3 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

That's a gross exaggeration and/or a lack of understanding/knowledge of the time. John Moores' bankrolling of Everton was the major factor behind their change in fortunes. 

Yes, Forest had Clough & Taylor, but they were also financed - Trevor Francis signing for them as the first £1m player for example. 

There isn't a domestic football club to get any kind of sustained success without an injection of money for decades.

Happy to agree I might be stretching things a bit, but it was much more of a possibility back then for the average owner to invest a bit and get results from it.

Nowadays it's for the mega-rich exceptions only. 

[thetime]

36 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

As a neutral I'm in 2 minds. From one perspective I think there are already enough southern teams in the league, however I have never found WBA to be that interesting when they have been in the league.

Although I have a soft spot for WBA, would be nice to see someone new like a Brentford in. Will also be good to see Leeds back up, A proper rivalry for Man utd as I can not stand them as much as Liverpool. 

[eastynh]

 

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'm saying that from what is currently in the public domain you'd have to be stupidly biased to conclude anything different.

The only thing with any clarity in the public domain at the moment, is the part of the CAS statement that states Manchester City did not disguise owner investment as Equity. Anything else is just subjective.

You are so entrenched in your City are guilty no matter stance, that you can't be objective. Problem is, you no longer know what they are guilty of, you are just determined to find them guilty of something.

The CAS statement categorically states that City did not disguise owner investment as sponsorship. That is what you have been saying the stolen emails proved.  

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The only thing with any clarity in the public domain at the moment, is the part of the CAS statement that states Manchester City did not disguise owner investment as Equity.

Firstly, there's the emails in the public domain. They're clear in what they're saying - and it seems hugely unlikely the City execs were writing bollocks, don't you think...?

There's the official verdict - the headline of what Cas released - of not guilty over owner investment.

Then there's also "failed to prove" and "out of time" (or whatever the exact wordings were) - not included for no reason.

You're shit at this game. 

 

Quote

Anything else is just subjective.

The emails are clear in what they say.

To pretend they don't is no-brain biased.

 

Quote

You are so entrenched in your City are guilty no matter stance, that you can't be objective.

says the guy who's failed all objectivity tests on what those emails say. :lol: 

 

Quote

Problem is, you no longer know what they are guilty of, you are just determined to find them guilty of something.

they're guilty of breaking UEFA's rules, of not co-operating with the enquiry as they're obliged to do.

It's a bit like when a driver refuses a breath test. They don't refuse if they're sober.

Fuck's sake. :lol: 

 

Quote

The CAS statement categorically states that City did not disguise owner investment as sponsorship. That is what you have been saying the stolen emails proved.  

The Cas statement states the official verdict. 

A bit too complicated for you, I know.

Edited July 16, 2020 by eFestivals

[eastynh]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Firstly, there's the emails in the public domain. They're clear in what they're saying - and it seems hugely unlikely the City execs were writing bollocks, don't you think...?

There's the official verdict - the headline of what Cas released - of not guilty over owner investment.

Then there's also "failed to prove" and "out of time" (or whatever the exact wordings were) - not included for no reason.

You're shit at this game. 

 

The emails are clear in what they say.

To pretend they don't is no-brain biased.

 

says the guy who's failed all objectivity tests on what those emails say. :lol: 

 

they're guilty of breaking UEFA's rules, of not co-operating with the enquiry as they're obliged to do.

It's a bit like when a driver refuses a breath test. They don't refuse if they're sober.

Fuck's sake. :lol: 

 

The Cas statement states the official verdict. 

A bit too complicated for you, I know.

Neil if the emails were clear in what they suggest, then City would be banned from the Champions League. Now they are in next seasons champions league and CAS stated unequivocally that City did not disguise owner investment as sponsorship. Therefore the emails were not clear.

You have no idea what was time barred, you have no idea what could not be proven. The only thing that is clear from the CAS statement is that City did not disguise owner investment as sponsorship and they will be playing in next year champions league.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

Neil if the emails were clear in what they suggest, then City would be banned from the Champions League.

Not necessarily, you numpty. City might have got off because of "out of time" or the emails deemed inadmissible. Or other possibilities.

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

CAS stated unequivocally that City did not disguise owner investment as sponsorship

the official verdict isn't necessarily what happened.  

The murderer who gets off is still a murderer.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You have no idea what was time barred

True, and nor do you. Which I why I've said this is best continued when we know, which should be soon.

In the meantime: do the emails (just by themselves) clearly suggest that City are taking the piss out of the FFP rules*? Yes or no?
(*on the basis that they say something different to what City had submitted to Uefa as the case).

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by eFestivals

[eastynh]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the official verdict isn't necessarily what happened.  

The murderer who gets off is still a murderer.

You are just making yourself look silly now and just confirming that you were determined to find City guilty, regardless of the possibility of them being cleared.

Might have, could have or maybe does not matter.

I will put things simply for you.

List below the offences that were time barred:

 

 

List below the offences that could not be established:

 

In your own words, explain what Manchester City did not disguise owner investment as sponsorship means:

Edited July 16, 2020 by eastynh

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You are just making yourself look silly now and just confirming that you were determined to find City guilty, regardless of the possibility of them being cleared.

you're presuming they've been 'cleared'.  

The further detail that Cas will release might say something entirely different. They might (for example) say that everything was out of time and Cas didn't even look at any evidence.

If the detail says "City proved to Cas's satisfaction that things happened in a completely different way to what those emails suggests" then, yes, they've been cleared.

Anything else might be something less than cleared even tho the verdict is technically not guilty. The murderer who gets off is still a murderer.

But let's what and see, eh? Unlike you I haven't made up my mind without knowing.

[st dan]

Surely the high level overview of the UEFA vs City case is:

- City have probably acted suspiciously somewhere along the way, and some of their books/records don’t quite match up as they should. Not saying it was cheating or abusing the FFP rules as such, more probably just some tweaking and bending of the loopholes (which probably happens with most of the big clubs).  

- UEFA discovered this and launched an investigation and subsequent suspension, which now appears they did not have the sufficient evidence they needed to do so. Whether they had a vendetta against City, who knows .. it’s certainly possible. City were quite right to appeal this and were always going on given the severity  

- City knew UEFA acres without having all the evidence they needed, and spent a fortune hiring the best lawyers in the business to rip apart the claims to CAS. They were so confident because they knew it would not hold up based on UEFA’s own rulings e.g. 5 year records.  

Now this does not mean City are necessarily innocent or guilty of wrongdoing - the case just proves that UEFA can’t actually prove anything. Which is what you would expect with a club like City and how they can operate without blatantly breaking any rules.  

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, st dan said:

Surely the high level overview of the UEFA vs City case is:

- City have probably acted suspiciously somewhere along the way, and some of their books/records don’t quite match up as they should. Not saying it was cheating or abusing the FFP rules as such, more probably just some tweaking and bending of the loopholes (which probably happens with most of the big clubs).  

- UEFA discovered this and launched an investigation and subsequent suspension, which now appears they did not have the sufficient evidence they needed to do so. Whether they had a vendetta against City, who knows .. it’s certainly possible. City were quite right to appeal this and were always going on given the severity  

- City knew UEFA acres without having all the evidence they needed, and spent a fortune hiring the best lawyers in the business to rip apart the claims to CAS. They were so confident because they knew it would not hold up based on UEFA’s own rulings e.g. 5 year records.  

Now this does not mean City are necessarily innocent or guilty of wrongdoing - the case just proves that UEFA can’t actually prove anything. Which is what you would expect with a club like City and how they can operate without blatantly breaking any rules.  

the emails are certainly exceeding strong grounds to suspect City of having broken the rules.

Given how public they were, UEFA didn't really have any option but to follow thru. 

Beyond that we'll have to wait for Cas to release their reasons for their verdicts.

[thetime]

United and Leicester to play out a 0-0, consigning Chelsea to 5th. 😄

[pryce]

1 more point, 2 more points for the League title .... I so so want to celebrate winning something, was only 2 when leeds won the top league

Leeds have hurt me too much for me to think its over, but its so so close now

[The Nal]

2 hours ago, pryce said:

1 more point, 2 more points for the League title .... I so so want to celebrate winning something, was only 2 when leeds won the top league

Leeds have hurt me too much for me to think its over, but its so so close now

Surely even Leeds can't mess it up now?!

Between endless replays of players baby toes being offside or not, I actually managed to squeeze in some football last night. La Liga won by a very average Madrid side and thrown away by a very average Barca side. Zidane defo has some sort of magic mind you.

Theres always Messi though.

 

 

[squirrelarmy]

6 hours ago, The Nal said:

Theres always Messi though.

Can't wait for him to put on a Leeds shirt

[thetime]

Scummy leeds up... 

[OG]

Just now, thetime said:

Scummy leeds up... 

I think you mean mighty Leeds 😉

[thetime]

Just now, OG said:

I think you mean mighty Leeds 😉

Think I was right first time. 😃

Hopefully Brentford get 4 points, will be nice having someone different in the league.

[OG]

2 minutes ago, thetime said:

Think I was right first time. 😃

Hopefully Brentford get 4 points, will be nice having someone different in the league.

Yeah definitely would be nice to see Brentford in the prem. Hudersfield safe from relegation as well with that win

[squirrelarmy]

We've fucking done it, I can't describe the emotions going through my head right now!!!!!

 

[jyoung]

Squeaky bum time @Hugh Jass

[TheGayTent]

Great to see Bielsa in the top flight finally. 

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, jyoung said:

Squeaky bum time @Hugh Jass

I am beyond angry, the way we have fucking bottled this is beyond a joke.

Football can fuck the fuck off.