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

jaigurugoat

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 Mar 2011
Messages
3,383
I don't understand why Der Spiegel didn't provide all the e-mails to UEFA during the investigation. It seems pointless to publish new ones now.
 

Nightmare Walking

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 May 2014
Messages
2,477
The problem is the smear campaign is working .

Why is it? We are still in the Champions League and it does not seem to be affecting our sponsorship deals, or limit high profile establishments wanting to invest in us.

Who really gives a fuck what a few Irish dippers or jornalists from decaying rags think?
 

doobyedoobye

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Jul 2009
Messages
2,791
Why is it? We are still in the Champions League and it does not seem to be affecting our sponsorship deals, or limit high profile establishments wanting to invest in us.

Who really gives a fuck what a few Irish dippers or jornalists from decaying rags think?
Agreed
As much as its annoying and tedious to the fans it doesn't seem to be impacting investment in the club.
Saying that I would prefer a more deliberate legal response to the usual suspects
 

The perfect fumble

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 Jun 2012
Messages
17,036
Irony is that it’s the main perpetrators in G14 who win their league every year; are in debt yet are still splashing the cash.

Hence Martin Samuel in the Mail.......

If a club can only spend what it generates then Manchester United and Liverpool, Real Madrid and Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Juventus will always have the most money in their domestic leagues. Here’s Bayern chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge on the future. ‘When we passed FFP 10 years ago, it was said you must not spend more money than you earn, this must again become the starting point.’


To the fuckwits and those that choose not to see, that makes perfect sense, spend more than you earn leads to debt, it's easily understandable family economics.

But if a business wants to grow, it must speculate to accumulate, but the cartel has declared that verboten.

If FFP was fit for purpose. it would concentrate almost entirely on debt, allowing owners to speculate if they want, with some caveats to prevent the likes of Jeff Bezos blowing everyone and everybody out the water, but with the primary purpose of preventing owners dumping the cost of their speculative spending on to their clubs.

The message to owners should be, spend if you want, but at your risk, it's on your tab not the club's
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CC1

Jam Tomorrow

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Feb 2013
Messages
204
Morning all, just did a quick circuit of the papers and none have picked up the Guardians latest piece of shit from Der Nazi. The tossers at Nazi have basically been made to look cuunts, they had the mother load that turned into a damp squib. The world moves on, fuck off Nazi.
 

bulldogblue

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Aug 2015
Messages
374
Der Spiegel are being used as a puppet yet again. The "show" drops in performance and then up it pops again. Do any of you journos out there know anyone in or have contacts with the German media? Perhaps it's time for BM to do some investigation of its own.
 

Blueal73

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2019
Messages
8
Team supported
MCFC
Hence Martin Samuel in the Mail.......

If a club can only spend what it generates then Manchester United and Liverpool, Real Madrid and Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Juventus will always have the most money in their domestic leagues. Here’s Bayern chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge on the future. ‘When we passed FFP 10 years ago, it was said you must not spend more money than you earn, this must again become the starting point.’


To the fuckwits and those that choose not to see, that makes perfect sense, spend more than you earn leads to debt, it's easily understandable family economics.

But if a business wants to grow, it must speculate to accumulate, but the cartel has declared that verboten.

These clubs are also used as cash cows for the owners. More competition means they have to spend more, meaning less $ for them. They want a closed shop where they decide who can and can't, vetting the new PL guy was scandalous and just goes to show who is really ruuning this leauge!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cheekybids

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Sep 2009
Messages
2,264
Agreed
As much as its annoying and tedious to the fans it doesn't seem to be impacting investment in the club.
Saying that I would prefer a more deliberate legal response to the usual suspects

well that’s because the sheik pays all the sponsorship, lies about attendances, have you not learnt anything from Der Spiegel ;)
 

Pablo ZZZ Peroni

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 May 2014
Messages
1,354
@projectriver not doing a write up. He has no need. I've not said it recently but thanks for your brilliant work on this. Saw yesterday that some on here yesterday were having a pop as well. Pathetic.



From the linked article the final section is brilliant and particularly the last paragraph I've bolded:

Significance of the CAS Decision

Following the release of the CAS Decision news reporters and fans were decrying “the end of FFP”. The CAS Decision does not signify that. More particularly, despite the CAS Panel’s comments on the drafting of the limitation period stated in article 37 PRCFCB, there is nothing negative stated about UEFA’s CLFFPR or its procedures. The CAS Decision, if anything, is a rousing call for clubs to give greater support and cooperation to the CFCB when it is the subject of an investigation or charge under the CLFFPR and PRCFCB.

On the point of article 37 PRCFCB – although UEFA will not see it this way considering the overall outcome – it is welcomed that there is now some clear authority on the interpretation of the same. Whilst I would agree with Professor Jack Anderson’s comment that the CAS Panel’s interpretation of article 37 PRCFCB included ‘no reference to previous CAS cases, Swiss law or comparative law’, the interpretation provided by the CAS Panel, in this author’s opinion, is fitting. UEFA may adopt such an interpretation in future editions of the PRCFCB, or may draft a limitation clause to reflect the AC Decision and UEFA’s submissions to the CAS Panel (i.e. that time stops on the date the IC opens its investigation, not when a referral decision is issued as decided by the CAS Panel).

Nevertheless, in this author’s opinion, having now read the CAS Decision, this entire dispute appears over-hyped and demonstrative of an element of desperation from UEFA to pin a charge on MCFC. The absence of cogent evidence from UEFA / the CFCB is astounding and this author is in disbelief that the AC Decision, let alone the Referral Decision, was made on the basis of the evidence available. Neither the CAS nor the purpose and aim of the CLFFPR should be undermined for the CFCB’s decision to proceed with a case that could not be properly proved. Admittedly, however, one upshot of that could be that clubs will be even more vigilant in ensuring their compliance with the CLFFPR to avoid being ardently pursued by UEFA.
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.