UEFA could say that this is equivalent to a civil case, and that they are not bound by the law, because they are making the rules within a private organisation and that ‘football is special’what i cant figure is that if this was a 'criminal' case brought by the police, then the case would be thrown out of court as the 'evidence' was obtained illegally (hacked). So how can UEFA bring charges to us by the same means? We all know UEFA are corrupt, but to flaunt the law is just illegal ... isnt it?
I'm Irish and I think we're quite good.He’s Irish though, so praising anything or anyone in blue is obviously genetically impossible for him!
And unfortunately that's the truth about modern society.If your working for one of these papers work your bollocks of writing a positive article about City and get not many clicks then you write an article that takes the piss out of us and has a bingo like article and get 10 times more clicks/hits thats why the majority of articles about city mainly have a negative headline and write up it appeases the history club supporters. I only click on positive articles and block the clowns.
And unfortunately that's the truth about modern society.
Social media is instant gratification for the no nowt generation.
Hard to see how we win the propaganda war. In social media, once you start explaining you've lost.
The generation that lap it up have the attention span of a goldfish. Those that write it simply move on to further outrageous allegations without having to substantiate anything.
When you're explaining, you're always playing catch up.
I would hope so. If you think about the oft-used phrase "financial doping" which trips so lightly off the tongue of so many, the word "doping" is used specifically because of its connotations of dishonesty and cheating.
In fact, if you look at what we were punished for, it wasn't anything to do with cheating but everything to do with failing to live within our means (at the time). The two are different things.
I should imagine that the club would be issuing warnings that the use of words or phrases implying dishonesty would give a cause of action both for the individual concerned and the media providing the platform for the use of such words or phrases.
I'm also intrigued by suggestions that the next apparent charge is about "misleading" investigators. There are various ways of "misleading" investigators. There is the unintentional omission of something that should have been disclosed, for example because it wasn't asked for, or "intentionally misleading" investigators by, for example, lying about something you were specifically asked about. Proving "intention" is the hardest part of any allegation relating to dishonesty.
The distinction is important because it goes to proportionality of punishment. A ban from the CL would only be justified for an allegation that the club intentionally misled the investigators. That's a very hard allegation to sustain.
And then we come to materiality. Was the "misleading" of the investigators material. Given we were punished anyway, it's difficult to see how it could be, especially from the leaked "evidence".
We don't have the evidence, of course, but neither do the media making damaging allegations. I'd imagine their cards are well marked.
Daffy more likely.The sponsorship isn't inflated and there is no accusation from Uefa that it is.
They don't like the fact a stolen email insinuates that Etihad didn't pay all of it - which surprisingly isn't against the rules anyway. Its just they feel we should have told them although what its got to do with them I'm not sure. It keeps being referred to as backdoor funding by the owner although City are adamant we have broken no rules. Make of it what you will as a massive City fan with 7 posts in 2 years.
Oh and its got fuck all to do with the Premier League as FFP for the league came in years after Uefa introduced it. By then our commercial income was out of site of fucking FFP.
Usually on here if it walks like a duck, behaves like a duck & quacks like a duck you can bet your bottom dollar his first name is Donald.
What company is it that the city owner also owns??
No one says it's inflated though. It's been allowed already as fair value so even if it was related parties it wouldn't matter.
"He’s Irish though, so praising anything or anyone in blue is obviously genetically impossible for him!"I'm Irish and I think we're quite good.
Just found this article this morning...
https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/features/item/the-deficiency-of-fairness-in-financial-fair-play
The press reported it as being worth £400m over 10 seasons at the outset. So they must have had an inkling of the contract's worth. Now they report is as inflated and yet it's in the same ballpark as their original reports (£67.5m - one year).A misunderstanding, I think - I wasn't meaning it in that sense.
If a company can only afford £10M, but can pay £20M because it has £10M extra give to it, then it's been inflated (for a given definition of inflation).
Probably should have come up with a different term though!
No hint of irony from certain 'writers' who were more than happy to accept accreditation for Wembley and the automatic, guilt-by-association, hospitality, which comes from Emirates Airlines sponsoring said historic competition...
Each, who had the Emirates moniker proudly adorned around their chicken-shit necks...
I'm just glad they could leave their conscience at the Bobby Moore statue.
A friend of mine who is familiar with the dark web and dare I say hacking told me that the original FFP was a term used by G14 whoever they are and allegedly was to record their meetings and meant "Fences for Financial Planning". Again allegedly he saw memos where they decided on something called a "Barrier to Entry" to preserve their exclusive interests in future income from football.Maybe we need to start coming up with our own lexicon of phrases.
Like Post and Pre FFP doping. Or maybe Pre FFP doping could be Elite or Historical Doping.
Or maybe not call it FFP at all. How about Cartel Fund Management rules.
Regarding "misleading" investigators, our acounts are there for all to see. How misleading is having them in the Cayman Islands away from scrutiny.
That wouldn't be allowed would it, under CFM rules. (see above)
Would it?
I was talking in general terms - whether owning, or just giving them millions of ponds comes to much the same thing - owner investment.
Could have worded it better though.
Fair point. It was more to do with him being a Liverpool apologist and the sheer volume of red supporting Irishmen there are or seem to be. I appreciate I was guilty of generalising somewhat although there is data which does suggest that you are much more likely to bump into a red shirt wearing fan than a blue one.I'm Irish and I think we're quite good.
Fair point, as I have explained in a more recent post. Your criticism was somewhat justified but did it really need the 'is it genetically impossible for him/her not to put a little more thought into posts' line?"He’s Irish though, so praising anything or anyone in blue is obviously genetically impossible for him!"
A comment just as obnoxious, biased and ignorant as the comments by these "journalists" being criticised. There are many Blues followers in Ireland supporting City for over 50 years or more, many since long before the "takeover",many more since,there are also many City supporters clubs and now many youngsters thrilled by Pep's style of play. A blue minority growing bigger yearly. "The Light Was Yellow Sir " should put a little more thought into future posts if that's not genetically impossible for him/her. This is a City forum not a xenophobia forum.
Is there any way you can get your mate to leak this information to Football Leaks and / or the press?A friend of mine who is familiar with the dark web and dare I say hacking told me that the original FFP was a term used by G14 whoever they are and allegedly was to record their meetings and meant "Fences for Financial Planning". Again allegedly he saw memos where they decided on something called a "Barrier to Entry" to preserve their exclusive interests in future income from football.
This they allegedly then disguised as beneficial by changing its meaning to Financial Fair Play but allowing debt but strangling new investment.
Sorry about using "allegedly" but I once sat on a bus next to a chap who's auntie worked part time as a cleaner at the CAB and she claims this helps to make it sound more legit.