FIFA investigation: No transfer ban

[KS55]

Yeah, I don't think so either. Maybe within UEFA member nations, but I doubt it.

IMO with the latest revelations regarding PSG avoiding FFP punishment, however, I can't see us avoiding a CL ban.

I know there's the "legal" argument against it, but politically, for City to go to court over it I would think it cost a lot of money. This hurts the club's bottom line and therefore ability to meet FFP. The political fallout for the club could also be rather harmful.

For CFG to go to court on a technicality when you know you actually did something that is clearly wrong is risky to the club's reputation. Yes even if we believe FFP is designed to get "us" we are well aware that most of the public does not agree with us and sees us as the big bad boogie man that's "state owned" and "ruining football."

Average football fans may dislike UEFA, and feel they are corrupt, but they are the governing body who they are aware can punish us. They saw PSG get away with it and now know they really did get off on a technicality that reeks of corruption. If they feel that can happen, then UEFA also gets political capital to cover their mistakes, and fans an arguably false sense of satisfaction for once about City and PSG who most hate more than any club, despite the hypocrisy of this for RM, Barca, Utd...we all get that.

Feels to me we have to be the club that falls on the sword or is made an example of by UEFA to maintain what flimsy respect they have left.

See my post #759

 

[Sheriff Fatman]

No they aren't

They're fewwwwmin'

It's spelt vermin.

 

[KS55]

Er, can we please adjourn to the correct thread for ffp and uefa This is Fifa and transfers .

 

[BlueRockape]

Er, can we please adjourn to the correct thread for ffp and uefa This is Fifa and transfers .

How can we expect other people to understand the difference between the two it would seem a lot of city fans are too ; )

 

[petrusha]

We could very well have felt FFP was unfair and were like, "You play dirty? Well, so can we and get away with it because you're getting away with your own nonsense."

Problem is we got caught.

Not clear what ["out of context"] means though. "Out of context" can also mean regarding the club's and our feelings about the injustice of FFP or UEFA's general treatment of the club.

Isn't that often what we say and why we boo them?

We're all entitled to an opinion, and you've expressed yours at length. Mine is that I disagree with most of what you write, primarily because it seems underpinned by two main beliefs, exemplified by the above, neither of which I share.

1. You say "we got caught", thus meriting punishment. Having pored over the Der Spiegel leaks that form the basis of the current UEFA proceedings against us, I see nothing that conclusively proves your assertion. Even the material presented by DS as apparently the most damning is, on an objective reading, consistent not only with the possibility of wrongdoing on MCFC's part but also with the alternative prospect of the club looking for a way to achieve its objectives while meeting the letter of the regulations. There's nothing wrong with the latter: millions of reputable businesses worldwide seek every day to find ways to operate legitimately within awkward regulatory regimes.

2. I believe that it's pretty clear what "out of context" means. The leaked material so far in the public domain doesn't allow for a proper judgement as to whether City deserve the punishment we potentially face. Only with additional material can a valid assessment be made. In other words, the absence of such additional material doesn't give us the proper context to form an authoritative view, meaning that the information thus far presented has, as City have said, been given out of context.

Er, can we please adjourn to the correct thread for ffp and uefa This is Fifa and transfers .

Fair comment. But in whichever thread they appear, comments such as those made by the poster I've quoted at the start of this posting IMO need to be challenged.

 

[FootballSense]

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

 

[foggy1974]

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

Would those 7 sources include Parry, Tebas, Gill, Fsg, Wenger Howson and Goldridge

 

[Machiavelli]

We're all entitled to an opinion, and you've expressed yours at length. Mine is that I disagree with most of what you write, primarily because it seems underpinned by two main beliefs, exemplified by the above, neither of which I share.

1. You say "we got caught", thus meriting punishment. Having pored over the Der Spiegel leaks that form the basis of the current UEFA proceedings against us, I see nothing that conclusively proves your assertion. Even the material presented by DS as apparently the most damning is, on an objective reading, consistent not only with the possibility of wrongdoing on MCFC's part but also with the alternative prospect of the club looking for a way to achieve its objectives while meeting the letter of the regulations. There's nothing wrong with the latter: millions of reputable businesses worldwide seek every day to find ways to operate legitimately within awkward regulatory regimes.

2. I believe that it's pretty clear what "out of context" means. The leaked material so far in the public domain doesn't allow for a proper judgement as to whether City deserve the punishment we potentially face. Only with additional material can a valid assessment be made. In other words, the absence of such additional material doesn't give us the proper context to form an authoritative view, meaning that the information thus far presented has, as City have said, been given out of context.



Fair comment. But in whichever thread they appear, comments such as those made by the poster I've quoted at the start of this posting IMO need to be challenged.

Great post Peter.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Would those 7 sources include Parry, Tebas, Gill, Fsg, Wenger Howson and Goldridge

It is just another hatchet job. Shoddy journalism from a journalist who is not interested in balance. It is a legitimate story but he has made no attempt to get both sides of the story. Has he approached City for comment or FIFA? Why no mention of the crucial fact Chelsea's offence was much more serious. He is so desperate to get the angle attacking City he ends up quoting a lawyer based in Norfolk. It is just embarrassing. This is why mainstream newspapers are dying. Ben Rumsby has made a fool of himself.

 

[PrezIke]

Yep, @PrezIke seems quite happy to believe we're guilty as charged regardless. Strange...

Mate, that's not a fair claim now is it? I can't read your mind, nor can you mine. I can empathize with concerns from our fans about the club being treated poorly, but that doesn't mean I am one of those groups or individuals.

Is it not okay to ask a few questions and play out a few scenarios of what could happen without being labeled a traitor and sent to the City supporter gulag?

Is the test of a fan of a club to believe 100% and never raise questions about what comes out of the mouth of "the club?"

I've challenged Delaney, Ronay and a few others on Twitter and many other critics of the club in other settings. Go see all of my posts supporting the club and the team on the pitch here and on ManCityFans. You may not know this, but isn't that part of the problem with making swift judgements, which I can get due to legitimate concern stemming from the general treatment that City gets in the media by UEFA, etc., but in this case, i.e. me, it is really just not accurate.

I don't think it's a good look for our fans to immediately question the loyalty of other City supporters who simply wish to play out scenarios and ask questions that don't exclusively follow the hard line perspective of whatever "the club" says in the public, which can anyone being honest with themselves be certain is ever true of any public entity with interests they wish to protect? Saying this or pondering this, doesn't make me or anyone else like me anti-City, a Utd or Liverpool fan or even David Conn.

CTID is a real thing, but that can mean different things to different fans.

I respectfully ask some to reconsider this treatment as fellow City supporters. We are really on the same side.

Peace and Respect.

 

[jrb]

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

• TWEET
• SHARE
• x
• COMMENT

Manchester City escaped a transfer ban for the same youth-related infractions as Chelsea. This is hypocrisy manifest.

 

[BlueAnorak]

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

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.

 

[laserblue]

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.

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]

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

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

Fame at last :-)

 

[oakiecokie]

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

• TWEET
• SHARE
• x
• COMMENT

Manchester City escaped a transfer ban for the same youth-related infractions as Chelsea. This is hypocrisy manifest.

He`s not thought it through has he,when he talks about hypocrisy ?

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

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.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

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.

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.

 

[Blue Mist]

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.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

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

• TWEET
• SHARE
• x
• COMMENT

Manchester City escaped a transfer ban for the same youth-related infractions as Chelsea. This is hypocrisy manifest.

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.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

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