Football 19/20

[eastynh]

City did nothing wrong. They refused to co-operate with a biased and corrupt organisation, who were leaking sensitive information to their friends in the media. They were adamant from day one that they had done nothing wrong and would present a body of irrefutable evidence to an independent body. Upon doing so, City have been totally exonerated of any wrong doing.

So after nearly 2 years of our reputation being dragged through the mud and Neil talking utter shite on here, we have been totally exonerated.

 

[eFestivals]

got off on technicalities.  

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

City did nothing wrong.

 

Read the fucking judgement.

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

we have been totally exonerated.

£10M fine for doing nothing wrong.  

 

[eastynh]

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) announced the club were cleared of "disguising equity funds" on Monday.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

got off on technicalities.  

 

"UEFA takes note .... insufficient conclusive evidence to uphold all of the CFCB’s conclusions in this specific case and that many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5 year time period foreseen in the UEFA regulations."

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) announced the club were cleared of "disguising equity funds" on Monday.

No, CAS announced.,....

"the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred."

Meanwhile, Easty doubles-down on even more bollocks.

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

£10M fine for doing nothing wrong.  

 

The 10m fine is for refusing to co-operate with UEFA. We did not trust them and wished to seek an independent body. We were totally cleared of any financial wrong doing, as the club maintained throughout.

Stop digging Neil, you have made yourself look a dick on this subject for far too long.

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

No, CAS announced.,....

"the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred."

Meanwhile, Easty doubles-down on even more bollocks.

 

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

No, CAS announced.,....

"the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred."

Meanwhile, Easty doubles-down on even more bollocks.

So Uefa tried to fuck City over for offences they had either been punished for previously and had no evidence for any other wrong doing.

[eastynh]

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6785_Decision.pdf

 

City did nothing wrong

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The 10m fine is for refusing to co-operate with UEFA.

which is doing something wrong.

I've pointed this part of things out all the way thru. I even referenced it today as my very first comment (when I'd heard 'city has got off' but nothing more).

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

We did not trust them and wished to seek an independent body.

UEFA appointed an independent body, who found City guilty.  

 

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

We were totally cleared of any financial wrong doing, as the club maintained throughout.

No you weren't, it was not proven, a very different thing. 

Let's wait for the CAS detail, eh?

It might turn out that Cas wouldn't accept "stolen" emails as evidence and City gave Cas none of the "irrefutable evidence" they kept on claiming to have.

 

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Stop digging Neil, you have made yourself look a dick on this subject for far too long.

says the guy who says City did nothing wrong when they're counting out £10M to give to UEFA  

[The Nal]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

Are you not able to type? 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6785_Decision.pdf

 

City did nothing wrong

"a.) MCFC has contravened Article 56 of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations."

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by eFestivals

[eastynh]

Neil, I love how you take that quote and report it totally out of context with the rest of the announcement. You should get a job for UFEA.

Although maybe not as the corrupt bunch of cvnts have just come unstuck.

[eastynh]

You keep digging that hole you, you just look like a bitter Scouse prat.

[eastynh]

The reason we were banned was because UEFA suggested City had misled them over their sponsorship funding. CAS say and this is the main point on the whole report.

MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS BUT DID FAIL TO COOPERATE WITH THE UEFA AUTHORITIES

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Neil, I love how you take that quote and report it totally out of context with the rest of the announcement.

how is it out of context? It's a statement that stands up by itself.

It clearly says City did something wrong.

[eastynh]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

how is it out of context? It's a statement that stands up by itself.

It clearly says City did something wrong.

They failed to co-operate with UEFA as it did not trust them, who gives a fuck? They did not break FFP and have been shown to be innocent by an independent body.

MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS BUT DID FAIL TO COOPERATE WITH THE UEFA AUTHORITIES

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

The reason we were banned was because UEFA suggested City had misled them over their sponsorship funding. CAS say and this is the main point on the whole report.

MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS BUT DID FAIL TO COOPERATE WITH THE UEFA AUTHORITIES

And then later it makes clear: "the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred."

That is not "innocent" (apart from as a technicality).

Let's what and see what the reasons are, which CAs say will be published in a few days.

If City proved with their "irrifutable evidence" that they weren't guilty, I'll write that in big letters for you. 

If City gave no evidence and UEFA's evidence was deemed inadmissible &/or the charges were out of time, you can do your "I got it wrong" for me.  

[st dan]

I think part of the €10m fine and the wording of their statement is definitely an attempt from UEFA to save face as an organisation, as it clearly gives them some evidence of wrongdoing over the years from City, which shows the whole fiasco hasn’t been a witch-hunt and was conducted on the basis of some genuine concerns/issues.  

And they also know that City won’t challenge a ‘measly’ fine like that knowing that they’ve just essential won this case and got the CL football they wanted - so it is a conclusion where both sides have some form of positive outcome from. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by st dan

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

They did not break FFP and have been shown to be innocent by an independent body.

Cas haven't said that.  

[jyoung]

Top four it is then. All or bust. I expect United to continue their winning streak (wouldn't mind a favour from Ings tonight though) so here's hoping Leicester just absolutely plummet. Norwich, Liverpool and Wolves left for Chelsea. Final day could potentially be huge.

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

And then later it makes clear: "the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred."

That is not "innocent" (apart from as a technicality).

Let's what and see what the reasons are, which CAs say will be published in a few days.

If City proved with their "irrifutable evidence" that they weren't guilty, I'll write that in big letters for you. 

If City gave no evidence and UEFA's evidence was deemed inadmissible &/or the charges were out of time, you can do your "I got it wrong" for me.  

Neil why were they time barred? Not established means they had no evidence to prosecute City. City proved they had done nothing wrong.

 

[eastynh]

Article 56 – Responsibilities of the licensee

The licensee must: a) cooperate with the licensor and the Club Financial Control Panel in respect of their requests and enquiries; b) provide the licensor and the Club Financial Control Panel with all necessary information and/or relevant documents to fully demonstrate that the monitoring requirements are fulfilled, as well as any other document requested and deemed to be relevant for club monitoring decision-making (the reporting entity or combination of entities in respect of which information is required to be provided must be the same as for club licensing); c) promptly notify the licensor in writing about any subsequent events that constitute a significant change to the information previously submitted to the licensor.