CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

[blue ranger]

Jordan spouted the same shite today too, despite Sinclair's attempt to rubbish it

Sinclair was awful though in terms of his ability to challenge. Needed someone with half a brain to do it.

 

[citizen_maine]

Sinclair was awful though in terms of his ability to challenge. Needed someone with half a brain to do it.

would someone with half a brain be working for talkshit?

 

[Blue Mist]

I'm interested in the sale of Chelsea and in particular the loans that RA made to the club. I understand that the club never broke the break even rule and that they never had to pay a penny in interest on these interest-free loans. What I find problematic is that RA has said many times that he does not want one penny of the £1.65 billion he "loaned" the club back. In what way then were they loans? They appear to be that most hideous of threats to the game, disguised owner investment. Or perhaps one of our accountants could put me right?

I'm with you all the way. If you don't want paying back its a gift....... and yet silence for 10-15 years from every hack going

 

[Corky]

Thanks for the replies. What interests/puzzles me is how these loans square with FFP. Is it that FFP permits all kinds of investment such as new stadia and that if these loans are used for permissible purposes and that the break even rule identifies any revenue used for the improper purpose of player acquisition? Because what interests me are the stories of £150 million "loaned" to Spurs for use in the transfer market. How does this square with FFP. Or is this money to help pay some of the capital and all of the interest on the new stadium to allow some spending on players?

Loans were before FFP, and owner investment is encouraged under FFP. After FFP you just gifted the money to the club and it was fine up to the permissible amount.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Its different because alleged breaches of Premier League rules have no right of appeal to CAS.
Like being banned at your local golf club for farting in front of the Captain.

A bit like Suarez alleged calling Evra a racist name, he was charged even though there was no evidence, most believe he was found guilty, but he was voted guilty of what was essentially lying to the panel, without evidence you can not be found guilty in Britain, the FA has the same problem that UEFA has, FFP is illegal and the thought of recompense for all those points deductions and fines does not bare thinking about, unless you intend to dump the league.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

A bit like Suarez alleged calling Evra a racist name, he was charged even though there was no evidence, most believe he was found guilty, but he was voted guilty of what was essentially lying to the panel, without evidence you can not be found guilty in Britain, the FA has the same problem that UEFA has, FFP is illegal and the thought of recompense for all those points deductions and fines does not bare thinking about, unless you intend to dump the league.

"Without evidence, you cannot be found guilty in Britian." You don't really believe that, surely?

 

[Shaelumstash]

A bit like Suarez alleged calling Evra a racist name, he was charged even though there was no evidence, most believe he was found guilty, but he was voted guilty of what was essentially lying to the panel, without evidence you can not be found guilty in Britain, the FA has the same problem that UEFA has, FFP is illegal and the thought of recompense for all those points deductions and fines does not bare thinking about, unless you intend to dump the league.

That's not actually true.

Suarez admitted calling Evra "Negrito" - his defence was in South America it's not an offensive or racist term.

He even called a South American Spanish linguistic expert in to argue his case, but the panel found that his intent was to be racist and that's why he was banned.

 

[Tomblue]

Lets not all forget that 'FFP' is a load of old bollocks anyway. In what other industry is the owner of a business not allowed to invest his/her own money in order to improve the functionality and profitability of that business. The whole concept is completely ant-competitive and against the principles and foundations that Western society is built upon.

That being said we have had to deal with it given this is a market where anyone can make any old thing up and enforce it in order to maintain the status quo, unfortunately for those moaning like little piggies it hasn't worked and City have evidenced their compliance via the courts which is still not accepted and never will be. The whole debate is one that will never be settled and will always be the fall back for those who support clubs that are run like piggy banks for their owners rather than ran in a way that allows the club itself to thrive. This i am afraid is the truth that is just too much to bear for predominantly the dippers and historically United although they are a meaningless as Salford City are to us these days.

Case closed.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

That's not actually true.

Suarez admitted calling Evra "Negrito" - his defence was in South America it's not an offensive or racist term.

He even called a South American Spanish linguistic expert in to argue his case, but the panel found that his intent was to be racist and that's why he was banned.

The panel Voted 2 to 1 that his defense was ( i have forgotten the word incontestable or something like that)

 

[salfordbluetrue]

"Without evidence, you cannot be found guilty in Britian." You don't really believe that, surely?

I do for the entitled, if it was me or you the law is not there to serve just to fine.