You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)
- Thread starter jimharri
- Start date
Blueprint Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2020
- Messages
- 258
- Team supported
- Manchester City
If ever I wanted an article to have a comments section it would be this one. The salty, venemous bile would have been a joy to see. Great article btw.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I like him, how do I vote for him?
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 57,736
I am sure they’ll take a donation in exchange for a vote.I like him, how do I vote for him?
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Soon(ish), more or less.When's the full decision out?
Should be next week unless there's more back & forth between the 3 parties on what gets published.
Mancity1980
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Messages
- 11,308
https://imgflip.com/i/1metvpMerely quoting the standard advice on the "Off Topic" thread.
BTW. Who's Keith Lemon?
crazyg
Well-Known Member
Oh.
That pillock!
I take it you don't go into Off Topic for advice, then?
Suits us. Luvverly debt.Wow, that sounds like we are the only viable big club for the foreseeable future.
Was listening to talk sport a few days ago and they had a lawyer on discussing the verdict who said he was acting for a club that UEFA where going after or had in there sights made me think of PSG or us but must be someone else since. We have been cleared and PSG are on the inside now and have just been cleared also.
On the one had he was not as bitter as some he did not say we got off on a technicality/ time bar he did seem to think we had found loop holes and even said that everyone knows the loop hole is that the rules do not prevent clubs from being sponsored by there owners companies and basically said thats what we have done with Etihad. I was shocked leaving aside this is not the case. Why can an owner not do this so long as it fair value it was as if he completely ignored this. If an alleged lawyer who is allegedly working in this field can come in with so much bias and lack of comprehension then what hope have we got with the media and fans? I use allegedly because how can he not know the facts but be working on potentially such a big case in this area.
On the one had he was not as bitter as some he did not say we got off on a technicality/ time bar he did seem to think we had found loop holes and even said that everyone knows the loop hole is that the rules do not prevent clubs from being sponsored by there owners companies and basically said thats what we have done with Etihad. I was shocked leaving aside this is not the case. Why can an owner not do this so long as it fair value it was as if he completely ignored this. If an alleged lawyer who is allegedly working in this field can come in with so much bias and lack of comprehension then what hope have we got with the media and fans? I use allegedly because how can he not know the facts but be working on potentially such a big case in this area.
Mancity1980
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Messages
- 11,308
Maybe I should, but no.Oh.
That pillock!
I take it you don't go into Off Topic for advice, then?
Do you not understand, read the judgement, CAS say we have not breached simple as, the time bar matter is a side issue
I know but I am talking about my interpretation of what Simon Jordan said of the CAS verdict He said there is more to this than meets the eye I took that as mean he think we got off and we need to find out how, why, the poster I was responding to took it in a more positive way Simon wondering if we had been persecuted. To be clear I do not think we got off I agree the time bar is a side issue we did not breach the rules.
WE ARE NOT GUILTY
WE DID NOT COVER ANYTHING UP
UEFA FUCKED UP THEIR OWN TIMINGS ,AMONGST OTHER MANY THINGS
Just in case anyone is still not sure
I know but I am talking about my interpretation of what Simon Jordan said of the CAS verdict He said there is more to this than meets the eye I took that as mean he think we got off and we need to find out how, why, the poster I was responding to took it in a more positive way Simon wondering if we had been persecuted. To be clear I do not think we got off I agree the time bar is a side issue we did not breach the rules.
Mancity1980
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Messages
- 11,308
I think the hateful 8 have extinguished any lingering hopes of ever having Pep for themselves and baring in mind his previous travels the only club with a chance is Juventus. Personally if I was him I would give City 10 years then look at international management.And the best thing is Pep is not going to decamp to a club that's got no money, and that seems like most of them!!! He knows where he is best off.
I think the hateful 8 have extinguished any lingering hopes of ever having Pep for themselves and baring in mind his previous travels the only club with a chance is Juventus. Personally if I was him I would give City another 10 years then look at international management.
Edited for accuracy!
Mancity1980
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Messages
- 11,308
I almost put that word in! I decided to err on the side of caution.Edited for accuracy!
Centurions
Well-Known Member
First off, Simon Jordan is a dick so take no notice of what he says.Was listening to talk sport a few days ago and they had a lawyer on discussing the verdict who said he was acting for a club that UEFA where going after or had in there sights made me think of PSG or us but must be someone else since. We have been cleared and PSG are on the inside now and have just been cleared also.
On the one had he was not as bitter as some he did not say we got off on a technicality/ time bar he did seem to think we had found loop holes and even said that everyone knows the loop hole is that the rules do not prevent clubs from being sponsored by there owners companies and basically said thats what we have done with Etihad. I was shocked leaving aside this is not the case. Why can an owner not do this so long as it fair value it was as if he completely ignored this. If an alleged lawyer who is allegedly working in this field can come in with so much bias and lack of comprehension then what hope have we got with the media and fans? I use allegedly because how can he not know the facts but be working on potentially such a big case in this area.
Secondly, you can sponsor a club with your own company but it has to be declared as a related party. UEFA will take a closer look to see it the money involved is 'fair market value'. They did that with all of the AD companies involved (including Etihad I think even though Etihad aren't related) and concluded that they were close enough for government work. We were asked to not increase a couple of the smaller ones for 2 or 3 seasons from memory.
Was listening to talk sport a few days ago and they had a lawyer on discussing the verdict who said he was acting for a club that UEFA where going after or had in there sights made me think of PSG or us but must be someone else since. We have been cleared and PSG are on the inside now and have just been cleared also.
On the one had he was not as bitter as some he did not say we got off on a technicality/ time bar he did seem to think we had found loop holes and even said that everyone knows the loop hole is that the rules do not prevent clubs from being sponsored by there owners companies and basically said thats what we have done with Etihad. I was shocked leaving aside this is not the case. Why can an owner not do this so long as it fair value it was as if he completely ignored this. If an alleged lawyer who is allegedly working in this field can come in with so much bias and lack of comprehension then what hope have we got with the media and fans? I use allegedly because how can he not know the facts but be working on potentially such a big case in this area.
I work for a company and that companies boss also owns a football club, they have always sponsored the football club and currently one of the stands is named after the place I work at.
Smaller scale but just the same at the end of the day.
BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
Was listening to talk sport a few days ago and they had a lawyer on discussing the verdict who said he was acting for a club that UEFA where going after or had in there sights made me think of PSG or us but must be someone else since. We have been cleared and PSG are on the inside now and have just been cleared also.
On the one had he was not as bitter as some he did not say we got off on a technicality/ time bar he did seem to think we had found loop holes and even said that everyone knows the loop hole is that the rules do not prevent clubs from being sponsored by there owners companies and basically said thats what we have done with Etihad. I was shocked leaving aside this is not the case. Why can an owner not do this so long as it fair value it was as if he completely ignored this. If an alleged lawyer who is allegedly working in this field can come in with so much bias and lack of comprehension then what hope have we got with the media and fans? I use allegedly because how can he not know the facts but be working on potentially such a big case in this area.
He may well not have been thinking of City at all when talking about loopholes which mean that clubs can be sponsored by their owners - the case of Juventus and their deal with Jeep is one which comes to mind as are Bayern's (very valuable) sponsorships from their 8 (eight) biggest shareholders. Then there's PSG whose deals were worth a small frtion of their actual value when UEFA established "fair value" - until Leterme put the record straight. If he stated that City are sponsored by their owner's companies he isn't a sports lawyer and the club in question would be well advised to give him the boot right now.
Is Simon Jordan a lawyer? is he a financial expert? is he a expert on business law?I know but I am talking about my interpretation of what Simon Jordan said of the CAS verdict He said there is more to this than meets the eye I took that as mean he think we got off and we need to find out how, why, the poster I was responding to took it in a more positive way Simon wondering if we had been persecuted. To be clear I do not think we got off I agree the time bar is a side issue we did not breach the rules.
Is Simon a fool, yes, is Simon simple?, yes, is Simon a failed business man?, yes, is Simon a failed Football club owner? yes, is Simon now trying to make a living on an ailing radio Station? YES
In other words Simple Simon is a prick and whatever comes out of his repulsive mouth I would ignore, or better still turn off Talk Sport and get a life.