Chippy_boy said:
That's an over-simplification. The only thing UEFA have said (actually the CFCB have said, to be more accurate) is in the document linked above. When you read it, as I have done many times, it lists a number of sanction, some of which are listed after one year if we meet certain criteria. There is no over-arching statement that they are all suspended after one year. People assuming this are reading into the document, terms that simply do not exist.
A completely separate debate is, what level is the 2nd year spending restriction set at, and how much of a problem is it for us. So it may be that the restriction is not too bad and doesn't cause us too many isues. Let's hope so.
I agree with you!
That was my point... the document is quite ambiguous in places and vague in others. Generally it's ok, but there's a couple of places where it's not at all clear what restricting will remain. The Chairman's made statements that we hope to be without restriction, and that's fine, but we've been there before haven't we?
The is definitely 'seeming' contradictions.
There's also the issues that suggest players salaries and bonuses cannot be increased, and yet we are also lead to believe players have dropped their salaries in favour of larger bonuses. Again, this seems contradictory.
My over simplification was simply to illustrate the smoke and mirrors way of operating in UEFA. A 3 year financial penalty with 2 years suspended if we behave, a 2 year embargo with 1 year suspended if we behave, it's just over complicating things. They could just have easily said it's a one year punishment and we'll look again next year to see if it needs repeating.
The caveat was that UEFA wanted sanctions to sound bigger... so they shouted about overall sanctions, and whispered about the suspensions. Ergo the headlines were 2 year embargo... huge fine.... etc etc.