Football 19/20

[RarerThanDandyB]

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The main point from the CAS ruling. CAS who are a totally independent body. This following sentence is not a difficult concept to understand.

MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS 

Arguing aside about dids or dids nots you are right. I am bitter about it, wait till the CAS ruling and I’m sure some loop hole will be taken advantage of. The main point is you didn’t apparently breach and that’s the ruling. 

EDIT: the edit on the other post was because of spelling, no added point

Edited July 13, 2020 by RarerThanDandyB

[eastynh]

2 minutes ago, RarerThanDandyB said:

Arguing aside about dids or dids nots you are right. I am bitter about it, wait till the CAS ruling and I’m sure some loop hole will be taken advantage of. The main point is you didn’t apparently breach and that’s the ruling. 

EDIT: the edit on the other post was because of spelling, no added point

How are you sure of wrong doing but CAS are not? 

 

 

[RarerThanDandyB]

3 hours ago, eastynh said:

How are you sure of wrong doing but CAS are not? 

 

 

Reading properly into it, you were right to be exonerated and tbf 9m seems harsh. Sorry about my salty and naive arse. 

[eFestivals]

17 hours ago, eastynh said:

Neil can you show me once in this entire thread when you said they will get off on a technicality or that the ban would be reduced?

PMSL.  

When you don't pay attention to the conversations you have, no wonder you talk utter utter bollocks constantly.

Ban reduced: -

On 2/15/2020 at 8:11 AM, eFestivals said:

my guess is they've gone for two years because if the sentence gets reduced it gets reduced to one year.

On 2/17/2020 at 4:10 PM, eFestivals said:

it's 2 years in order for it to be reduced to one year. 

On 7/9/2020 at 10:16 AM, eFestivals said:

yeah, to me it always looked like a 2 year ban so that it could be reduced on appeal. If they'd have given a 1 year ban it probably would get reduced to a fine.

on a technicality:-

On 2/18/2020 at 8:34 AM, eFestivals said:

It may turn out that City get of on a technicality

On 2/18/2020 at 10:02 AM, eFestivals said:

City get off on a technicality.

On 2/19/2020 at 6:15 PM, eFestivals said:

the case thrown out on a technicality

On 5/21/2020 at 8:52 AM, Neil said:

I wouldn't be too surprised if CAS rules in City's favour on some sort of technicality because technicalities get the guilty off fairly often in legal processes everywhere. 

 

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, eastynh said:

UEFA hired top lawyers to help win this case when they should’ve hired rival fans and @eFestivals because they know the ins & outs of City’s finances better than anyone. Rookie mistake

if you're right, the top bosses at your beyond-perfect club are mindless idiots like me, what with them trolling the club by writing bollocks emails.  

One thing you've proved: you're unable to retain and contextualise information. Brains of a goldfish.

Edited July 14, 2020 by eFestivals

[eastynh]

42 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if you're right, the top bosses at your beyond-perfect club are mindless idiots like me, what with them trolling the club by writing bollocks emails.  

One thing you've proved: you're unable to retain and contextualise information. Brains of a goldfish.

You talk that much shite and are constantly wrong, that I had to turn off for my own sanity.

Well you were wrong about the decreased ban and you were wrong about getting off on a technicality.

You can pontificate as much as you want, but the simple fact remains, you were wrong and I was right.

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Well you were wrong about the decreased ban

I was wroing about what the decreased ban would be - tho those were clearly about Cas upholding the guilt for both charges.

 

19 minutes ago, eastynh said:

and you were wrong about getting off on a technicality.

 - 'Out of time' is a technicality. Cas made a point of including that in yesterday's statement, and not for no reason.

Just that part of things shows you're talking shit. 

As for the rest, we've yet to see. Save it for when we have seen.

 

19 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You can pontificate as much as you want, but the simple fact remains, you were wrong and I was right.

No, you claimed they did nothing wrong. Cas upheld that they did wrong.

[zahidf]

Ha ha ha

 

[eastynh]

43 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I was wroing about what the decreased ban would be - tho those were clearly about Cas upholding the guilt for both charges.

 

 - 'Out of time' is a technicality. Cas made a point of including that in yesterday's statement, and not for no reason.

Just that part of things shows you're talking shit. 

As for the rest, we've yet to see. Save it for when we have seen.

 

No, you claimed they did nothing wrong. Cas upheld that they did wrong.

Who's the goldfish now? I quite clearly stated in this thread that I did not know whether City had done anything wrong on numerous occasions, due to me having not seen any of the evidence. I also stated that I would hold my hands up if they were proven to have done anything wrong. My confidence that the ban would be rescinded was due to City's  very strong statements, where they totally dismissed they had done anything wrong. I had absolutely no reason to not believe them. Their confidence has been totally vindicated.

You mention the time barred aspect but totally disregard the not established bit.  That means their evidence was a load of shite. You have to ask yourself why UEFA tried to sanction City over issue's that were time barred. These are UEFA's own rules. UEFA broke their own rules by trying to sanction City over issues that they were not allowed to do so. Surely they must have known this before hand, so why did they try to do it?  Looking at the rest of the case, it is highly doutful they had any proof to sanction City for the issues that were time barred anyway.

The only aspect of the CAS statement that is matrer of fact, unequivocal and not vague in the slighest is that City did not disguise sponsorship as owner investment. That is what the whole case was about and what Der Spiegel were insinuating. CAS quite clearly highlight in the opening gambit of their statement that this did not happen. All the rest of it is just noise.

Edited July 14, 2020 by eastynh

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I quite clearly stated in this thread that I did not know whether City had done anything wrong on numerous occasions

You kept on screaming that they were innocent of everything. You refused, even, to accept that the emails were a very strong indicator of guilt.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I also stated that I would hold my hands up if they were proven to have done anything wrong.

then why are we still waiting...?  

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You mention the time barred aspect but totally disregard the not established bit. 

No I haven't.

I've said that it might be the case that Cas refused to accept 'stolen' emails as evidence - which would cause the 'not established' bit.

But i've also said (several times) ....

50 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As for the rest, we've yet to see. Save it for when we have seen.

 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You have to ask yourself why UEFA tried to sanction City over issue's that were time barred.

does a rape victim feel less of a rape victim once the perpetrator has a free pass via the statue of limitations?  

[Wooderson]

13 hours ago, eastynh said:

So why have you commented then, if you don't care?

Was this you, this morning?

 

Easty your increasingly ranty presence on here is being ignored. You went all caps and toe to toe with Neil whilst the rest of us shrugged. We all know the story with City. Tiny club oil doped to the tonsils with bitter deluded fans.

 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, eastynh said:

so why did they try to do it?

I believe it goes like this....

UEFA had new evidence, that made a mockery of City's submissions the last time City were found guilty of breaking the FFP rules, and a period of less than 5 years had passed since City had made those revised submissions.

Is the 5 years to do with the date of the action, or the date of submission?

-----

You see conspiracy, I see UEFA testing (perhaps stretching, as you would against someone taking the piss) what their rules actually mean.

Edited July 14, 2020 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

This is *NOT* fake news....

 

(tho it's probably worth reading the follow-up ...  )

[Wooderson]

Akinfenwa is a cool fella. Well in.

[jyoung]

38 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Akinfenwa is a cool fella. Well in.

 Very wholesome stuff. I wonder if he will stay on with Wycombe and get a chance in the Championship.

[eastynh]

2 hours ago, Wooderson said:

Easty your increasingly ranty presence on here is being ignored. You went all caps and toe to toe with Neil whilst the rest of us shrugged. We all know the story with City. Tiny club oil doped to the tonsils with bitter deluded fans.

 

Rather be bitter and deluded than murderous. You don't get banged up for being bitter or deluded.

My presence is being ignored but you constantly pipe up. No one cares but you constantly comment. City fans are deluded and bitter but is seems its only the Liverpool fans being bitter. I was going to say Scousers but that is an insult to Everton fans. None of you are actually Scousers.

Edited July 14, 2020 by eastynh

[thetime]

17 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Rather be bitter and deluded than murderous. You don't get banged up for being bitter or deluded.

 

Easty you come accross like a 12 year old, you sound like a right idiot with posts like that.

[Andeeroo]

3 hours ago, Wooderson said:

Akinfenwa is a cool fella. Well in.

 

2 hours ago, jyoung said:

 Very wholesome stuff. I wonder if he will stay on with Wycombe and get a chance in the Championship.

Even though they've been one of the ugliest sides to watch in the bottom two tiers over the past 5 years, I did have a smile on my face when they went up last night. Good for them. Shame Akinfenwa probably won't get to enjoy the Championship as he'll undoubtedly be off.

[eastynh]

43 minutes ago, thetime said:

Easty you come accross like a 12 year old, you sound like a right idiot with posts like that.

So its alright for Wooderson to call City fans bitter and deluded and the club tiny and oil doped? Do you not think that is childish?

Just look at the flow of conversation on this thread since the judgement. Yes there has been debate between me and Neil.We don't agree with each others opinion but such is life. Surely the point of a forum is discussion? FFP and the City case is therefore a valid topic for discussion on a football forum. Not posters don't have to join in the discussion, they can ignore it and I would have though each individual has the capability to block posters who they don't want to read.

Then look at the 2 posters who have jumped in. Both of them are Liverpool fans. Neither of them have contributed anything of note to the topic of FFP or the CAS decision. Both of them have just dished out totally uncalled for insults. Yet City fans are bitter and deluded, you could not make it up.

So in your opinion, the insults directed towards City are allowable, but if I respond then I am childish. Thinly veiled racism in respects to the oil doped and dirty oil money  comments that litter this thread are accepted, but if I call Liverpool fans out for their behaviour then I am in the wrong.

I would much rather stick to discussing football and the issues surrounding it. The play ground stuff is a little juvenile, I agree. Yet, I am continually responding to insults from Liverpool fans. 

Its quite simple, don't give it out if you can't take it. I have never initiated any insults, they have always been in response to Liverpool fans funnily enough.

[kaosmark2]

10 minutes ago, eastynh said:

So its alright for Wooderson to call City fans bitter and deluded and the club tiny and oil doped? Do you not think that is childish?

Just look at the flow of conversation on this thread since the judgement. Yes there has been debate between me and Neil.We don't agree with each others opinion but such is life. Surely the point of a forum is discussion? FFP and the City case is therefore a valid topic for discussion on a football forum. Not posters don't have to join in the discussion, they can ignore it and I would have though each individual has the capability to block posters who they don't want to read.

Then look at the 2 posters who have jumped in. Both of them are Liverpool fans. Neither of them have contributed anything of note to the topic of FFP or the CAS decision. Both of them have just dished out totally uncalled for insults. Yet City fans are bitter and deluded, you could not make it up.

So in your opinion, the insults directed towards City are allowable, but if I respond then I am childish. Thinly veiled racism in respects to the oil doped and dirty oil money  comments that litter this thread are accepted, but if I call Liverpool fans out for their behaviour then I am in the wrong.

I would much rather stick to discussing football and the issues surrounding it. The play ground stuff is a little juvenile, I agree. Yet, I am continually responding to insults from Liverpool fans. 

Its quite simple, don't give it out if you can't take it. I have never initiated any insults, they have always been in response to Liverpool fans funnily enough.

But mum, he started it! 

[Wooderson]

Easty no one cares about City.

[eastynh]

1 hour ago, Wooderson said:

Easty no one cares about City.

Yet you continually comment about them and their fans 🤷‍♂️