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

[DrBlueBob]

There is no fucking way in this wide world that Spitty wrote that. And that last paragraph is totally risible; social and mainstream media need absolutely no encouragement from anyone to perpetuate "juvenile spats".

Jamie Carragher actually having the temerity to lecture anybody on behavioural standards is laughable in the extreme. Talk about a lack of awareness.

 

[mccity]

Can anyone tell me what the 'obstruction' was from City that I keep seeing being referred to?

Basically if it's the same obstruction I've been reading about, people are suggesting City filibusterd UEFA and didn't play along so that by the time they made their ruling they would have been time-barred on all fronts.

This is wrong of course, but that doesn't matter.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Littlecitymatters.

Italian Lives Matter.

 

[Barcon]

I have a question. When does "new money" become "old money"?

We know that the rags were on the verge of bankruptcy twice, in 1901 & 1931, and were bailed out by 'sugar daddies', So when did Gibson's money, which paid their wages, bought players and rebuilt their stadium, become 'organically generated'? Or the loans they took out to finance Baconface's team building?

We know that Danny Fiszman put money into Arsenal in the mid 1990's. I asked Tony Adams that at the FA Cup draw when it was held at the Etihad and he said that was what he'd been told. When did that stop being 'new money'?

We know that the Moore's family financed Liverpool's success in the 1970's and beyond. When did that stop being 'new money'?

Spurs raised a load of money on the Stock Market in the 1980's. Prior to that they were crippled by what was the largest debt in football, after a rebuild of parts of WHL. That money came from investors, not from success in the CL or commercial sponsorship. When did that become 'old money'?

We all know about Chelsea and they actually give us the answer to the question I think. Taken over in 2003 by Abramovich and now they're an 'old money' club, despite the fact their owner still bankrolls them.

The answer is that 'new money' clearly became 'old money' when our takeover happened, which was 23rd September 2008.

If we go by the Chelsea money, another 5 years and everyone will accept us and let us into their hearts.

 

[DrBlueBob]

Got his words mixed up in the final sentence...
When he said ‘juvenile spats’ does he actually mean ‘I spat at a juvenile’?

Superb.

 

[nmc]

Or they’ll refinance the debt again and again as they struggle to service it, after receiving tax forgiveness and favourable capital valuations from municipal authorities, before selling several parcels of land for said over-valuations and purchasing them back for a fraction of the sell price.

Your and my scenarios are further illustrations of the point I was making. Barca will be carried even despite their poor management, as they have been numerous times in the past, and FFP (current state) will have very little issue with it.

Other, smaller clubs have no hope of ever catching up (especially in Spain), which is by design.


Exactly my point, mate. And there is already municipal funding, in various forms — they’ll be supported because they are “too big to fail” and the other clubs slowly folding even after many years of sustainable growth and competent management will be told to **** off when they look for assistance. Then some will attempt the ‘finance via cheap debt’ strategy, only to fail some time later, anyway, at which point the club can be purchased for a fraction of actual value and the new owners can start again.

That is the world FFP has really further enabled, rather than reformed.

With the Goldman Sachs loan - Barca are effectively managing a debt of £1.5 billion! The interest payment alone on that is going to be circa £75 per season - then they have to pay the capital off too over 20 years on the £800m from Goldman's (another circa £40m a year) . I'm sure Barca have a wildly optimistic business case showing a whole range of new revenues streams from the new stadium etc. but often these are never realised. This venture will end in a local government bale out or bankruptcy - which as the OP has said will just mean the debtors get a few pence and Barca will carry on afresh without sanction. And where is FFP in all of this?

 

[City_Sean]

Put it this way when Pep signs a new contract, Sam’s next article will be “Pep stays for now - but who will replace him?”.

My point isn’t a lie and it’s down to his general stance since Monday that we still don’t know if City were actually guilty or not.

The CAS award clearly stated that City did not disguise sponsorship.

I think it's probably for the best that you admit that you just can't stand the bloke because he's a United fan.

Some people are so ridiculously entrenched in tribalism that they can't see how ridiculous they sound.

Sam is one of the good guys out there. And one of the few who actually defends City.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Jamie Carragher actually having the temerity to lecture anybody on behavioural standards is laughable in the extreme. Talk about a lack of awareness.

I presume it was ghost-written, probably by Paul Hayward, who recently produced this nauseating partisan drivel https://www.independent.ie/sport/so...lk-alone-is-most-beautiful-song-39321604.html

Hayward seems to be working for both the Telegraph and the Irish Independent at present. Obviously not written by Carragher in any event.

 

[DAGW]

If we go by the Chelsea money, another 5 years and everyone will accept us and let us into their hearts.

I’ve been thinking this, I just hope WE don’t treat Newcastle the way we’ve been treated if that time comes

 

[OrigamiNinja]

I’ve been thinking this, I just hope WE don’t Newcastle the way we’ve been treated if that time comes

I would love the Newcastle takeover to happen. I don't agree with FFP and more importantly, anyone who can come in and take some of the heat off City is more than welcome.