I'm not sure that's a mistake as para 248 quotes Simon Pearce's witness statement which details the same three seasons, omitting 2014/15.It looks like there's a mistake in para 12, where it talks about the Etihad sponsorship being £220.575m plus $1.75m over the contracted period. It mentions 2012/13, 2013/14 then 2015/16 but misses out 2014/15. Yet that period is covered by the agreements mentioned.
So that works out at £55m a year instead of nearer £75m a year.
This prick stated we were banged to rights with no chance of overturning the ban and then extolled the virtues of UEFA and now this paragon of vertue is circling his wagon with the last of the media trash.Just read Conns pile of shit in the Guardian and it’s basically questioning the impartiality of CAS, even though UEFA agreed to the appointments. It also harps on about time barred stuff in great detail, I mean if it’s time barred it’s time barred! A lot of these media wankers will have had their next career steps mapped out basically picking over the bones of City but they lost, now they are trying to salvage their shitty careers. You even get the distinct impression UEFA were strong armed into banning City even though they probably knew it would be overturned.
So, basically the same as anything negatively reported about City.The Santos thing is quite strange, especially as nobody had a problem with it. It's full of implied dodginess while avoiding actually saying it.
It's basically been rewritten, I agree. Roan's comments at the end have definitely been added, but the rest has been recast totally.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53571659
There’s a fair few thoughts going through my head I won’t post right now but you get the gist.Quite a few blues will be knocking about pre-Madrid for the Silva lining. Coincidentally don’t the media park up at the Campus where the team will be setting off from?
Would be absolutely awful if people went looking for them
No point expecting Kloss to say anything, she will probably leave it to Pep, again
CheersOn how to deal with the UEFA investigation. I'd say we were advised that we were within our rights not to co-operate.
Why would they not pay us for a year? I'd suggest they just took Pearce's statement at face value, when he could have made a mistake. Or something else could have happened in 2014/15 whcih meant that it didn't fit the payment pattern referred to in the email.I'm not sure that's a mistake as para 248 quotes Simon Pearce's witness statement which details the same three seasons, omitting 2014/15.
Does anyone have the original post?This bit in the headline was added
but didn't breach FFP says Cas
Plus they re wrote the article and ‘softened’ it, also adding Dan Moans ‘Analysis’
Don’t be ridiculous, she does her job as instructed.Kloss is a fucking disgrace
Someone pages back has a scanDoes anyone have the original post?
Manchester City showed 'blatant disregard' in Uefa FFP case, but didn't breach FFP says Cas
Interesting how the BBC third rate hack sees it as more important to have the 'blatant disregard' element as the lead (the minor and welded on additional charge), and tags on the non-breach (the main charge) as a bit of an afterthought. Anyone reading that would be led to believe that blatantly disregarding a process is more heinous than cooking the books.
Pmsl. I doff my hat to you.Don't put astericks on a tweet pal, Liverpool fans will get giddy thinking it's about their PL title.
It looks like there's a mistake in para 12, where it talks about the Etihad sponsorship being £220.575m plus $1.75m over the contracted period. It mentions 2012/13, 2013/14 then 2015/16 but misses out 2014/15. Yet that period is covered by the agreements mentioned.
So that works out at £55m a year instead of nearer £75m a year.