I don't think human rights were ever an issue with the proposed Newcastle takeover.(with regards to the nufc takeover) Does Qatar have a clean human rights record? I mean they're embedded in football quite a lot, seat on the uefa council, buy and sell the PL product around the world . Is this a double standard thing?
Bingo.They have to keep the pretence going that we are sustaining our spending contrary to the rules because if we are doing it within the rules, then the natural assumption would be, why can't the other 'big' clubs, with all their history and big fan bases, match or even do better than us? The answer isn't very palatable for them, but is in plain sight - those clubs are run by poor business people whose only object is to take money out.
Some of the redactions involved amounts and some names, so I assume mainly it was to protect commercially sensitive information and inviduals who didn't need to be named, as they weren't directly part of this.@Prestwich_Blue Do we have any idea what was redacted and what attachment was with held in the emails we provided for CAS and why that was allowed ? Could have said virtually anything in that section of the email. I thought things would only be redacted if they where commercially sensitive and even then CAS would see them just would not be in the report but that is not how I read it I read it as no one saw the redacted and missing attachment. Is that correct ?
Which is of course, a very good reason to introduce some kind of financial regulation to prevent this kind of thing.They have to keep the pretence going that we are sustaining our spending contrary to the rules because if we are doing it within the rules, then the natural assumption would be, why can't the other 'big' clubs, with all their history and big fan bases, match or even do better than us? The answer isn't very palatable for them, but is in plain sight - those clubs are run by poor business people whose only object is to take money out.
There is a very simple solution for UEFA to implement, but because of those clubs of the G14, they will never implement it. The proposal that I would like to see UEFA implement, is that any clubs with a deficit of more than £100 million, or equivalent in Euros. Will not be able to partake in either the Champions League or the Europa League, until that deficit is brought below that level.In
Once any club brings it below that level they will be able to partake from the following season. As long as the club keeps it below that level so much the better for the club. Will UEFA do this not a chance, after all you can't have the Champions League being played without the likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid, Manchester United etc..
Some of the redactions involved amounts and some names, so I assume mainly it was to protect commercially sensitive information and inviduals who didn't need to be named, as they weren't directly part of this.
As far as I read the judgement, everything we didn't supply was agreed by UEFA. There was a run of emails they'd asked for, connected to one of the emails Der Spiegel published. We refused to supply that initially to UEFA & CAS criticised them for not insisting we did that before rushing through the charge and sanctions. When it came to CAS, they asked for them again and we said it would take too long to retrieve them. It looks to have been a fishing expedition by the CFCB in my view and again, in their haster to get this done, they agreed that these weren't really necessary after all.The redactions in the report yes I agree but I thought I read in the report that we provided the emails requested but not an attachment and one of the emails was redacted or am I mistaken I would have thought that CAS would not have allowed us to do that
Quite possibly we saw them coming in this respect and set up the the inevitable gambit that they had no choice but to take. Bit like watching David turn a rookie CM to leave himself with n acres of space.As far as I read the judgement, everything we didn't supply was agreed by UEFA. There was a run of emails they'd asked for, connected to one of the emails Der Spiegel published. We refused to supply that initially to UEFA & CAS criticised them for not insisting we did that before rushing through the charge and sanctions. When it came to CAS, they asked for them again and we said it would take too long to retrieve them. It looks to have been a fishing expedition by the CFCB in my view and again, in their haster to get this done, they agreed that these weren't really necessary after all.
Actually works in our favour, teams defending with 11 men can’t bring on fresh legs after they’ve been chasing us for an hour. We often start to put teams to the sword around 60-70 minutesSo FIFA rules are going to be used for the new season re VAR (BBC sport website). However the leagues were allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to continue with 5 subs.
Seemingly the EPL thought differently to UEFA by taking into consideration those clubs who would have been at a disadvantage & giving further advantage to the rich.
"In terms of the extra substitutions, many members are believed to have felt having five was unfairly benefiting the major clubs, despite Fifa allowing the continued use of the rule if leagues wanted."
Better late than never.
Actually works in our favour, teams defending with 11 men can’t bring on fresh legs after they’ve been chasing us for an hour. We often start to put teams to the sword around 60-70 minutes
Very much agree. Bad enough watching Burnley take 5 mins for every throw and goal kick without them stringing 5 subs one after the other.
On the right lines, probably stop tactical substitutions earlier than that.Better rule would be to stop all subs after 80 mins.
I've assumed if it's 2-0 without the chair having to use his casting vote then it's deemed majority. Therefore, a 3-0 vote is technically impossible.Going back to the majority terminology in the CAS report and whether majority means 2-1 or 3-0
Must admit to only skim reading it but do they ever use the term 'unanimous' in this or any other report?
Impossible, when subs were first introduced in the 60s the one substitution was supposed to be for injury but that soon went by the board as teams manipulated the system. If a player says he's injured are we going to have a medical time-out to confirm it?On the right lines, probably stop tactical substitutions earlier than that.
That doesn't tie in with the CAS document, they use "the Panel finds..." and " the majority of the Panel finds..." at different points and in para 216 it explicitly states thatI've assumed if it's 2-0 without the chair having to use his casting vote then it's deemed majority. Therefore, a 3-0 vote is technically impossible.
Impossible, when subs were first introduced in the 60s the one substitution was supposed to be for injury but that soon went by the board as teams manipulated the system. If a player says he's injured are we going to have a medical time-out to confirm it?