Maybe, but it makes it more difficult to challenge them.Well, I don't want to go too far down this route, as it's a fairly esoteric subject, but I would very much doubt that City have failed in the most basic of legal avenues of reserving their right to challenge the rules under which they operate.
Why not do both? Does one preclude the other?I think the AC Milan appeal shows the difficulty UEFA has in banning clubs from UEFA tournaments and thus that banning City even for a year may not be possible even if the leaks published by Der Spiegel prove at all useful in taking action against City. IF they do - and it is an enormous "if" - City would not pursue any action in CAS to soften any sanctions handed down but would challenge the whole principle of the ban on owner investment in the ECJ. And it has to be pointed out that in the ruling on the Bosman case UEFA were warned that cases brought before the ECJ would be dealt with on the basis of what the law was and NOT what UEFA decided were the best interests of football. I think PB is spot on in suggesting that UEFA would much rather let sleeping dogs lie.
I agree completely, but there is a big difference if Kaldoon was to call a press conference specifically to counter these claims on a world wide stage rather than hoping some journalist can be arsed to report some facts already in the public domain
The detail laid out by Prestwich Blue was exceptional and should be used wherever possible to educate people who do not understand what has really happened.
Is it this,pal?Can anyone point me in the right direction to read Prestwich Blues post?
Apparently it’s “Whistle Blowing” and even though hacking is illegal the perpetrators are protected under European Law.
Also, I heard that twat Lipton say on the radio sports organisations are legally entitled to make their own rules up under European law and there’s nothing wrong with banning “cheats”
Along with the looming possible transfer ban (along with Chelsea) from FIFA for breaking rules on signing youth players and being restricted by UEFA on the number of loan players that will be allowed a ban from the CL is a full house for shafting us, a Premier League team will benefit (could well be the Rags) so the following will all be happy:
Premier League - Gill, Board Member
Rags - Gill, Board Member
Uefa - Gill, Board Member
Fifa - Gill, Board Member and Vice Chairman
Bent as fuck
I'm proud to admit I got that quote out of him when asking what the reaction to our takeover was at the swamp.
We are accused of false accounting or inflating our UAE deals. The only one of significance that affects the current game is the Etihad deal at £67.5m pa. I think most observers would accept the UAE finance amounts to around £80m pa with the Etihad worth 80% of it.
This stems from the Der Spiegel email claims which suggest that City routed about £50m (I forget the exact figure now) through AUG.
Two points about this:
1) Etihad claim they are fully liable for this
2) Are a section of the media who have appointed themselves as self-appointed judges, seriously going to believe that MCFC, Premier League Champions of England, are going to accept a sponsorship deal involving stadium and shirt rights for approx. £10m pa? Absolutely ridiculous.