Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, AndyK said:

 

Thank you for letting me in - visitors to my club forums get treated a lot worse. Good luck with making the top 4.

Your club tried hard - you know claiming zero points from Chelsea and Man U. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

We're among the 9 clubs who wrote to CAS to get their ban upheld:

 

 

 

 

Not quite. Nine clubs wrote to ask CAS not to suspend the ban if Manchester City requested it. i.e. to stop the appeal process being used to compete next season under appeal. Manchester City didn't request a suspension, but instead wanted the appeal dealt with.

 

A lot of Manchester City fans have taken offence at the list, and hadn't realised that Newcastle were involved until today. I personally don't see a problem in anyone in with a sniff of a CL or EL place several months ago doing what they thought was best.

 

Oddly, Wolves were involved initially, but seem to have withdrawn at some point. Wolves fans seem quite annoyed with their own club for getting roped into it.

 

And that BBC article is ever so slightly one-eyed. Impartial it ain't.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AndyK said:

 

Not quite. Nine clubs wrote to ask CAS not to suspend the ban if Manchester City requested it. i.e. to stop the appeal process being used to compete next season under appeal. Manchester City didn't request a suspension, but instead wanted the appeal dealt with.

 

A lot of Manchester City fans have taken offence at the list, and hadn't realised that Newcastle were involved until today. I personally don't see a problem in anyone in with a sniff of a CL or EL place several months ago doing what they thought was best.

 

Oddly, Wolves were involved initially, but seem to have withdrawn at some point. Wolves fans seem quite annoyed with their own club for getting roped into it.

 

And that BBC article is ever so slightly one-eyed. Impartial it ain't.

I think the language used by CAS is interesting. Some very strong words, quite damning of MCFC. It's a legal body. They wouldn't use that language without consideration.

 

It seems quite clear they took the piss, and got away with it on a technicality, whatever your take on the rights and wrongs of FFP.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Plastik Man said:

I think the language used by CAS is interesting. Some very strong words, quite damning of MCFC. It's a legal body. They wouldn't use that language without consideration.

 

It seems quite clear they took the piss, and got away with it on a technicality, whatever your take on the rights and wrongs of FFP.

 

 

It's my team. FFP is a protectionist scheme, and sadly my lot are firmly behind the idea, now they've got past the implementation of it. Whichever PL club exec said "we don't want another Leicester" should be strung up.

 

MCFC certainly didn't co-operate, but that seems to have been based on an utter distrust of the leaky UEFA bunch (the ex-Liverpool Chief Exec Rick Parry who was on the investigatory committee being a prime example). It's a bit odd (and not great) seeing the suggestion in the CAS report made that it might all have gone away if they had co-operated, but I think relations had deteriorated by that point. It doesn't help when some excerpts quoted by professional journalists are actually from one side's arguments and not the CAS opinion (as far as I can tell, if it's in italics it's definitely an argument put forward by one side or the other).

 

As it's clear that MCFC did not cooperate, a fine in line with income doesn't seem unreasonable, albeit fairly meaningless.

 

I can see that it can be painted as a 'technicality', but I think that does ignore the lack of evidence provided - there was no evidence apart from some mostly internal emails, one of which was doctored by combining two into a single one of different meaning - 6 emails/documents from an apparent 5,500,000 hacked files (quite boggling that a football club would have that many stealable things, but if this was the best they had, it was a poor hand). Some payment numbers matched, and that was good enough for UEFA.

Put against auditors and audited accounts, statements from significant people, that was deemed insufficient for a 2 year ban.

Some of UEFA's allegations were thrown out because CAS disagreed with the UEFA timebar argument, viewing that it would stay open-ended permanently - UEFA clearly overreached with that. Having said that, CAS didn't agree with either side's timebar claims.

 

That dumb hacks have lied and misrepresented things has muddied things. As an example, many have repeated that "His Highness" in an email was the owner Sheikh Mansour - it wasn't, and apparently UEFA accepted that.

 

Overall, we'll always be tarred with this, despite an independent hearing finding the evidence unsupported or timebarred by UEFA's own rules. It's been appallingly reported by and large, and the guilty as sin image is what was desired by the G14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Plastik Man said:

I think the language used by CAS is interesting. Some very strong words, quite damning of MCFC. It's a legal body. They wouldn't use that language without consideration.

 

It seems quite clear they took the piss, and got away with it on a technicality, whatever your take on the rights and wrongs of FFP.

 

This is the point - because the charges were ‘out of time’ there was no evidence against them.  It’s such a nonsense. There was nothing for CAS to look into re the charges as they weren’t relevant. the only thing which was relevant was Man City not co operating with UEFA. And they were banged to rights on that.  UEFA have let european football down and conspiracy theorists might argue that the whole thing was a charade and the charges were deliberately brought out of time to make it look like UEFA cared without Man City actually being banned ....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

This is the point - because the charges were ‘out of time’ there was no evidence against them.  It’s such a nonsense. There was nothing for CAS to look into re the charges as they weren’t relevant. the only thing which was relevant was Man City not co operating with UEFA. And they were banged to rights on that.  UEFA have let european football down and conspiracy theorists might argue that the whole thing was a charade and the charges were deliberately brought out of time to make it look like UEFA cared without Man City actually being banned ....

 

 

Wouldn't that theory require MCFC to have gone along with it, knowing that it blackens the club name? I don't see that happening.

 

The other side is that UEFA is in a mess, and constantly under siege from the G14 sabre-rattling, to stop more people upsetting their applecart. It certainly looks like UEFA went for broke - 2 years or nothing, and can turn and shrug at the G14 - "we tried".

 

It certainly looks inept from UEFA to have gone with essentially some emails with no context, and I expect the CFCB (financial investigator) part to be re-built as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AndyK said:

Wouldn't that theory require MCFC to have gone along with it, knowing that it blackens the club name? I don't see that happening.

 

The other side is that UEFA is in a mess, and constantly under siege from the G14 sabre-rattling, to stop more people upsetting their applecart. It certainly looks like UEFA went for broke - 2 years or nothing, and can turn and shrug at the G14 - "we tried".

 

It certainly looks inept from UEFA to have gone with essentially some emails with no context, and I expect the CFCB (financial investigator) part to be re-built as a result.

I don’t agree with the theory I posted but it’s not so far fetched ......... not UEFA as a whole but elements within it - i suspect it’s a very ‘political’ establishment 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely UEFA have the right to Ban clubs from competitions . So the minute they refused to cooperate they should have been banned from competition. That would have brought them into line quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clever Fox said:

Surely UEFA have the right to Ban clubs from competitions . So the minute they refused to cooperate they should have been banned from competition. That would have brought them into line quickly.

 

That might be within the regs, I don't know whether they dictate sanction by offence.

 

There must be a reason they don't go for it. If they were allowed, I agree entirely with the last sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AndyK said:

The other side is that UEFA is in a mess, and constantly under siege from the G14 sabre-rattling, to stop more people upsetting their applecart. It certainly looks like UEFA went for broke - 2 years or nothing, and can turn and shrug at the G14 - "we tried".

I does appear to have been desperation by UEFA. They've clearly come under pressure from G14 trying to prop up FFP

 

The problem is when the next sponsorship deal is done, how do you judge if it's overinflated, if this deal was o.k?

 

£800m? £1.5bn? £30bn? O.K?

 

Even if the source of the sponsorship money is genuine, how can UEFA stop state (with links to a football club owner) loans to the sponsoring company and the money going full circle?

 

I think the answer is, they can't, and if they can't then FFP is dead.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Vestan Pance
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vestan Pance said:

I does appear to have been desperation by UEFA. They've clearly come under pressure from G14 trying to prop up FFP

 

The problem is when the next sponsorship deal is done, how do you judge if it's overinflated, if this deal was o.k?

 

£800m? £1.5bn? £30bn? O.K?

 

Even if the source of the sponsorship money is genuine, how can UEFA stop state (with links to a football club owner) loans to the sponsoring company and the money going full circle?

 

I think the answer is, they can't, and if they can't then FFP is dead.

 

I think any sponsorship from a 'related party' in accountancy terms will be reviewed for fair value.

 

For any other sponsorship, I don't think there is a way to limit it, or I've forgotten if there is one. That's if UEFA find out about any arrangement.

 

On that basis, certainly FFP as it is now looks as though can be got round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

So Man City, who bleated on about the investigation being biased, actually chose the chairman of the panel that investigated it and who had the deciding vote.

 

That’s not dodgy at all! 
 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/28/uefa-claim-against-manchester-city-over-sponsor-money-time-barred-cas-rules

MCFC nominated/recommended someone, UEFA and CAS saw no problem in it, so it was a mutually agreed appointment of the parties . 'Chose' implies that it was not open to being contested.

 

I have no idea how common such recommendations are - Conn's piece is written for effect, and is quite partisan to his perspective. Amazingly, he claims to be a MCFC fan!

 

My understanding was that it was to get the thing dealt with quickly. Presumably of CAS' 300 people, some are busy elsewhere and unavailable, or are more focussed on other fields like drug matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, AndyK said:

MCFC nominated/recommended someone, UEFA and CAS saw no problem in it, so it was a mutually agreed appointment of the parties . 'Chose' implies that it was not open to being contested.

 

I have no idea how common such recommendations are - Conn's piece is written for effect, and is quite partisan to his perspective. Amazingly, he claims to be a MCFC fan!

 

My understanding was that it was to get the thing dealt with quickly. Presumably of CAS' 300 people, some are busy elsewhere and unavailable, or are more focussed on other fields like drug matters.

I mean, he is. He has been all his life. If you've ever read or listened to the stuff he's put out over the years then you'll know there's nothing "amazing" about it. He's a fan.

 

I'm sorry that some Man City fans have principles, that some Man City fans can look past the blind loyalty you are all clearly showing. Diminishing someone's support for a football club just because they don't toe the party line is just a bit pathetic, really.

 

Then again, as much as a blast as this is, any other supporter's fans would do the same, so it's not a surprise he gets the pelters he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

I mean, he is. He has been all his life. If you've ever read or listened to the stuff he's put out over the years then you'll know there's nothing "amazing" about it. He's a fan.

 

I'm sorry that some Man City fans have principles, that some Man City fans can look past the blind loyalty you are all clearly showing. Diminishing someone's support for a football club just because they don't toe the party line is just a bit pathetic, really.

 

Then again, as much as a blast as this is, any other supporter's fans would do the same, so it's not a surprise he gets the pelters he does.

 

That was intended to be tongue in cheek. I'm aware of his history, but he's been wrong on things over this matter.

 

It doesn't require 'blind loyalty' to view a piece as partisan and not acknowledging alternative views and facts. I find it odd and discouraging that a journalist specialising in the business side hasn't - the original piece he put out yesterday has been toned down a fair bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now they sign Torres from Valencia for a bargain fee.

 

It's funny because we were linked with him last year and nearly had CL money this summer and we desperately need a right winger because they already bought ours but Mahrez and Sterling and Foden isn't sufficient and now we have Congerton and no money hahahaahaah I love football at the moment 

Edited by sdb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When teams like man city blatantly break all the financial rules implemented in the game then it starts to become whats the point.

 

I would quite happily let the likes of them Man Utd, Chelsea etc all **** off into their own european super league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite interested to see how the next case between CAS, UEFA and Trabzonspor goes.
 

UEFA have lost three cases of FFP - PSG, Manchester City and AC Milan......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Quite interested to see how the next case between CAS, UEFA and Trabzonspor goes.
 

UEFA have lost three cases of FFP - PSG, Manchester City and AC Milan......

..you know Trabzonspor are going to get nailed....!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Quite interested to see how the next case between CAS, UEFA and Trabzonspor goes.
 

UEFA have lost three cases of FFP - PSG, Manchester City and AC Milan......

Have they qualified for the UCL? Perhaps we can have their place as Man City have taken ours on a technicality. 

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's this kind of thing that really doesn't bother me so much if we get relegated to the Championship. 

If you want to have a football club that is your state-sponsored plaything that you just pump money into - fine. But don't do it in our league. The EPL need to have the backbone to just put in some basic rules 

- number of players a team can have physically on the books (so none of this 25 man squad with 20 out on loan)
- squad salary cap 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...