UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[SWP's back]

see in The Times article UEFA are asking for the documents seized. If that’s the case I think that will prove to be a serious legal battleground.

Unlike documents seized from an alleged criminal that show criminal activity, these are documents seized by authorities allegedly as a result of hacking. The activities shown are unlikely to be illegal but possibly in breach of regulations of a spirting authority.

The question is then who owns the documents? Will someone have to rule on whether documents can be given to UEFA or returned to the clubs? There are likely to be volumes of documents done of which will be commercially sensitive, will these be given to UEFA. There are likely to be conflicts of interest as some UEFA board members (Mr Gill) are also board members of other clubs.

This is a very interesting and important point.

As they have been garnered through illegal activities, I don’t believe for a second that UEFA have any legal standing to request them or be provided with them from any legal entity (police/courts etc).

UEFA are essentially a private business.

 

[Sky Blue]

The BBC coverage has been sub-standard and appalling. They have simply repeated the Der Spiegel allegations repeatedly without any context. No mention of Rui Pinto, no mention of the ongoing legal challenges to FFP, no mention of the background ie the FFP designer Platini being suspended from football for corruption, or the battle between UEFA and FIFA over a new club competition. All we get for our licence fees is juvenile comments from fools like Simon Stones. It's truly pathetic.

And to think I've just paid my £150.50 licence for another year. BBC twats.

 

[manimanc]

No it doesn’t. It’s like apple and orange (pun intended)
You should be ashamed calling yourself a jurno when you can’t properly compare theses two. Your argument is baseless and amateur at best .Just stick with transfer thread with your fucking YouTube videos.

Ban hammer coming in 3....2....1.
Can't you see that @tolmie's hairdoo was saying we get bad press, which we do, to appease the lemmings wanting to read shit stories about us.
Trump gets shit press to appease all the trump haters.
It's not an apple and an orange it's a fuckoff big city bag of lemons the sad ****s are sucking every time they mention us.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I'd hope we're not like Trump tbh.

Otherwise we'll be in the shit.

Haha - true enough.

Here's an example. City build £200m training academy in a highly-deprived area? - accused of washing dirty money, curry favour to burnish Abu Dhabi's overseas image.

Trump pardons a black woman who has spent 20 years of her life for one mistake of drug dealing - accused of pandering to black voters and the celebrity of Kim and Kayne.

My comparison being, sometimes you really can't win, either way.

 

[nmc]

So what UEFA etc are saying is effectively, even though you are the owner of a club, you’re not allowed to put anymore money into it.
It’s like saying you want to improve your golf, but you’re not allowed to buy anymore golf sticks until you generate enough money from other sources.
Ridiculous.

That’s where their argument will ultimately fall down the original premise of FFP was to stop clubs borrowing recklessly and distorting the football industry on the basis of debt. There are numerous examples of this. With our owners all the investment has been equity based and results in almost zero debt. The elite clubs didn’t like this so they have created an anti-competition cartel that effectively outlaws equity investment- or certainly restricts it. That is in conflict with a whole range of EU directives including the Treaty of Rome that the whole premise of the EU is founded upon. The problem of course is that UEFA are not a nation state and have sat themselves in Switzerland but I still think they’ll find it difficult to defend what effectively is a restrictive practice in terms of FFP in any court or tribunal and our best defence might be to refuse any deals this time around and threaten to bring the whole house of cards down - you can be pretty certain UEFA will blink first; and we can put ourselves in a very powerful position going forward when we’ve got them by the balls.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

So what UEFA etc are saying is effectively, even though you are the owner of a club, you’re not allowed to put anymore money into it.
It’s like saying you want to improve your golf, but you’re not allowed to buy anymore golf sticks until you generate enough money from other sources.
Ridiculous.

No thats the translation, from 'how they want to protect clubs from going bankrupt' IE only spend what you earn, which leaves Utd/barca/RM/Bayern quite an advantage over the rest.

I have a slight feeling we could come out of this as heroes having blown up this self serving cartel... We just got to get the message out there about how FFP helps the establishment clubs have an advantage

 

[kalouk]

No it doesn’t. It’s like apple and orange (pun intended)
You should be ashamed calling yourself a jurno when you can’t properly compare theses two. Your argument is baseless and amateur at best .Just stick with transfer thread with your fucking YouTube videos.

Is this post a joke i'm not seeing? I thought Tolmies example of some journalism was spot on. I am not a Trump supporter but it's a relevant comparison.

 

[Neville Kneville]

This is a very interesting and important point.

As they have been garnered through illegal activities, I don’t believe for a second that UEFA have any legal standing to request them or be provided with them from any legal entity (police/courts etc).

UEFA are essentially a private business.

I was wondering about this, because surely the majority of emails have fuck all to do with any UEFA investigation anyhow & therefore are private under any circumstances ?

I would have thought that nobody anywhere has any right to be reading them, unless maybe there is evidence to suggest we have actually broken the law, as opposed to UEFA's bent fucking rules?

I am wondering if this is UEFA's preferred outcome.

They are prevented by law from using the emails, therefore can't investigate, which gets them off the hook with City, but they can make insinuations off the record, that they would otherwise have taken action. That keeps the cartel happy.

We get labelled as cheats, refs can shit on us as they like & Utd, Liverpool, & all the other bent fucks are the good guys.

 

[squirtyflower]

This is a very interesting and important point.

As they have been garnered through illegal activities, I don’t believe for a second that UEFA have any legal standing to request them or be provided with them from any legal entity (police/courts etc).

UEFA are essentially a private business.

Do you not think the Times know that too?

 

[The Riot Club]

For me, the bottom line is all I want as the outcome of this is that we can spend as much as we want on players, outbid the vermin or PSG and dominate football for years to come. Hopefully all the legal arguments, accusations and wrangling will ultimately lead to that end.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Ban hammer coming in 3....2....1.
Can't you see that @tolmie's hairdoo was saying we get bad press, which we do, to appease the lemmings wanting to read shit stories about us.
Trump gets shit press to appease all the trump haters.
It's not an apple and an orange it's a fuckoff big city bag of lemons the sad ****s are sucking every time they mention us.

Don't mate, it flew well over his head.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

A self-hating journalist. That's great. Just what the world needs.

Haters gotta hate ;)

 

[Neville Kneville]

Haha - true enough.

Here's an example. City build £200m training academy in a highly-deprived area? - accused of washing dirty money, curry favour to burnish Abu Dhabi's overseas image.

Trump pardons a black woman who has spent 20 years of her life for one mistake of drug dealing - accused of pandering to black voters and the celebrity of Kim and Kayne.

My comparison being, sometimes you really can't win, either way.

True enough.

But I struggle with this whole thing, as the big difference of course, is that even if we are 100% 'guilty' the only thing we have done, is try to get round rules which are quite clearly bent & have only been put in place to favour our competitors, some of whom have owners taking money out of football & all have benefitted from people & organisations putting money in, to get them where they are today.

At least Trump is actually doing stuff which is wrong.

We are just fighting against the effects of blatant corruption, but are labelled as the bad guys.

 

[Centurions]

Seriously no idea why anyone bothers with MSM nowadays...

Methylsulfonylmethane?

 

[aguero93:20]

Methylsulfonylmethane?

They're both a load of shite so yeah, basically :)

 

[M18CTID]

Pep answer to that Bbc C\/NT should of been ¥NITED selling rotten meat didnt tarnish there club.

Pep should just wade in and windmill any fucker trying to be clever

 

[Chi-town blues]

Haha - true enough.

Here's an example. City build £200m training academy in a highly-deprived area? - accused of washing dirty money, curry favour to burnish Abu Dhabi's overseas image.

Trump pardons a black woman who has spent 20 years of her life for one mistake of drug dealing - accused of pandering to black voters and the celebrity of Kim and Kayne.

My comparison being, sometimes you really can't win, either way.

I agreed with your racism card earlier few pages back and now you are comparing a racist in your argument.

 

[Sid C]

Just caught the tail end of an article on SSN saying that Chelsea will still have the transfer ban applied whilst they are in the process of appealing it. Looks like they have changed the rules again.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Is this post a joke i'm not seeing? I thought Tolmies example of some journalism was spot on. I am not a Trump supporter but it's a relevant comparison.

Neither am I, but it's amazing how much hysteria just writing Trump can cause these days!!

A bit like writing City on Rawk!

 

[aguero93:20]

Just caught the tail end of an article on SSN saying that Chelsea will still have the transfer ban applied whilst they are in the process of appealing it. Looks like they have changed the rules again.

By FIFA, yes. When they inevitably lose the FIFA appeal, they'll appeal to CAS and the ban will be suspended pending the outcome of that appeal.