Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I'm shocked Stefan. Dunc is usually so balanced and objective.If you want to see or hear partial, Castles on the Transfer pod is a work of astonishing bias.
And I AM being sarcastic there.
I'm shocked Stefan. Dunc is usually so balanced and objective.If you want to see or hear partial, Castles on the Transfer pod is a work of astonishing bias.
City claimed they were unrelated, which was challenged by UEFA but never resolved.Can anyone clear this up for me?
In the 2014 FFP sanction was the Etihad deal seen as related or unrelated party?
City claimed they were unrelated, which was challenged by UEFA but never resolved.
One of City's complaints to CAS was that UEFA completed its investigation before determining that. I can only assume that had the CFCB concluded that they were a related party (which City have always denied) the charges would have been baseless and therefore presumably not brought. But it seems they were judged at CAS as unrelated parties.
I still think a like from GDM should score a Huddersfield, (10)Not sure if "liking" this post would overwhelm you with confusion ;)
Just after they've resolved the fit and proper persons test for the now abandoned Newcastle (member of the nasty 9 club) takeover ;-)When do we expect to hear from the premier league, they can't sit on their so called investigation forever.
Every pantomime needs a villainI think the need to get digital traffic explains the extreme hostility towards Manchester City in the digital media. We are set up as the cat to digitally kick.
Let’s go and kill some rodentsI think the need to get digital traffic explains the extreme hostility towards Manchester City in the digital media. We are set up as the cat to digitally kick.
I thought UEFA had accepted that they're not related? And even if not then surely if it's not resolved then that implies they accepted it anyway?City claimed they were unrelated, which was challenged by UEFA but never resolved.
One of City's complaints to CAS was that UEFA completed its investigation before determining that. I can only assume that had the CFCB concluded that they were a related party (which City have always denied) the charges would have been baseless and therefore presumably not brought. But it seems they were judged at CAS as unrelated parties.
On the subject of the panel chair, I’ve seen a few people posting that they would only intervene where the other two judges were not in agreement. So that, effectively, all their findings and decisions are by majority rather than unanimous. Do you know if this is the case? Some of the usual suspects have been making much of the fact that the wording of the judgement makes repeated reference to a majority