FIFA investigation: No transfer ban

The Pride Of London.

A Chelsea fan website.

Chelsea: Man City rich enough to buy a new level of FIFA hypocrisy

by Nate Hofmann58 minutes ago
Manchester City escaped a transfer ban for the same youth-related infractions as Chelsea. This is hypocrisy manifest.
 
FootballSense said:
The author of this piece

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...ng-leniency-fining-manchester-city-breaching/

in a separate tweet said he approached 7 sources for their opinion before he wrote his article. Only one source - the lawyer and agent acting against City was used / obtained. It is reasonable to conclude that they very much had a vested interest. The thrust of the article and the click bait heading is based on their perspective. It is not a rounded, balanced report.

The author`s tweet also said one person who he approached declined to comment due to a "conflict of interest". Allegedly, there are a lot of those in football.

When are readers likely to see an investigative piece on the interests of a prominent, current Director of a major football club located in the borough adjacent to Manchester, who also plays significant roles and has key influencing power on the rules and regulations drawn up by UEFA, the FA and FIFA ?

In relation to the proportionate penalty City have received following an evidence based and transparent process, and as another person has succinctly explained elsewhere, this is clear and straightforward as follows : -

(a) Admit exceeding speed limit - get three points on your licence - City

(b) Exceed speed limit lots of times but still argue case - get a ban - Chelsea

(c) Exceed speed limit lots of times, have bald tyres and no MOT - get a ban - Barca/Real Madrid
Click to expand...

Ben Rumsby a dyed in the wool Chelsea fan or is that Telegraph Chelsea cheerleader? He seems to think all article 18 and 19 offences are capital offences. Sadly for him there's a huge difference between investigating 98 transfers with proven unadmitted guilt in 29 cases and investigating 9 cases with only 2 self admitted guilty cases.
 
Last edited:
BlueAnorak said:
Ben Rumsby a dyed in the wool Chelsea fan or is that Telegraph Chelsea cheerleader? He seems to think all article 18 and 19 offences are capital offences. Sadly for him there's a huge difference between investigating 98 transfers with proven unadmitted guilt in 29 cases and investigating 9 cases with only 2 self admitted guilty cases.
Click to expand...

Or that the lads City were involved with only trained with the club and played in friendlies while Chelsea fielded at least some of the lads they were involved with in competitive games.
 
Bandofblues said:
Use this simple analogy to to explain to dumb rags, dippers and "journalists" :

If you exceed the speed limit you get three points on your licence - City
If you exceed the speed limit lots of times you get a ban - Chelsea
If you exceed the speed limit lots of times, have bald tyres and no MOT then you get a ban - Barca/Real Madrid
Click to expand...

FootballSense said:
The author of this piece

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...ng-leniency-fining-manchester-city-breaching/

in a separate tweet said he approached 7 sources for their opinion before he wrote his article. Only one source - the lawyer and agent acting against City was used / obtained. It is reasonable to conclude that they very much had a vested interest. The thrust of the article and the click bait heading is based on their perspective. It is not a rounded, balanced report.

The author`s tweet also said one person who he approached declined to comment due to a "conflict of interest". Allegedly, there are a lot of those in football.

When are readers likely to see an investigative piece on the interests of a prominent, current Director of a major football club located in the borough adjacent to Manchester, who also plays significant roles and has key influencing power on the rules and regulations drawn up by UEFA, the FA and FIFA ?

In relation to the proportionate penalty City have received following an evidence based and transparent process, and as another person has succinctly explained elsewhere, this is clear and straightforward as follows : -

(a) Admit exceeding speed limit - get three points on your licence - City

(b) Exceed speed limit lots of times but still argue case - get a ban - Chelsea

(c) Exceed speed limit lots of times, have bald tyres and no MOT - get a ban - Barca/Real Madrid
Click to expand...



Fame at last :-)
 
jrb said:
The Pride Of London.

A Chelsea fan website.

Chelsea: Man City rich enough to buy a new level of FIFA hypocrisy

by Nate Hofmann58 minutes ago
Manchester City escaped a transfer ban for the same youth-related infractions as Chelsea. This is hypocrisy manifest.
Click to expand...
He`s not thought it through has he,when he talks about hypocrisy ?
 
If you commit a crime and plead guilty you get a reduced sentence , if you make a plea of not guilty and lose you get f*cked , we pleaded quilty with mitigating circumstances and got a fine , the Chavs didnt admit they were at fault appealed to CAS and were found guilty and they got f*cked.

No brown envelopes were involved , we just have very clever people running our football club and i am sure they have any FFP accusations covered as well. The ex-G14 clubs are gonna be frothing at the mouth when UEFA back down and slap us with another fine.
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
If you commit a crime and plead guilty you get a reduced sentence , if you make a plea of not guilty and lose you get f*cked , we pleaded quilty with mitigating circumstances and got a fine , the Chavs didnt admit they were at fault appealed to CAS and were found guilty and they got f*cked.

No brown envelopes were involved , we just have very clever people running our football club and i am sure they have any FFP accusations covered as well. The ex-G14 clubs are gonna be frothing at the mouth when UEFA back down and slap us with another fine.
Click to expand...
Why would we accept another fine?
We took a pinch last time.
This time they’ve been told to stick to the facts or else.
 
Right, I've had a couple of days to think about this and I am madder than mad about this. Who do FIFA think they are not banning us ? Do they think we are some small poxy club (like Stoke) who couldn't handle a ban ? Well fuck them, 12 month ban, I laugh in your face, 2 years, do it standing on our heads. We should insist on a 3 year ban just to show them. And as for the fine (never start a sentence with And) what's that all about ? we could pay that in loose change from down the back of someone's sofa. If you are going to fine us do it properly, I insist on at least a million and even that is pocket money to us. I say City should make a stand, self ban themselves and pay 3 million, Bloody FIFA.
 
jrb said:
The Pride Of London.

A Chelsea fan website.

Chelsea: Man City rich enough to buy a new level of FIFA hypocrisy

by Nate Hofmann58 minutes ago
Manchester City escaped a transfer ban for the same youth-related infractions as Chelsea. This is hypocrisy manifest.
Click to expand...
I was about to get all cross about this until I realised it's on a chelsea fan site. You might as well go hunting on rawk for something nice about Raz.
 
It must be hard for Chelsea fans after all these years of splashing the cash to understand they are still not a G14 team and exempt from rules and regulations
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.