Didn't Abramovich not require loans being repaid when he left? How would that be different to just dumping in a shedload of 'equity' or the loose change down the Good Sheik's sofa? I think the way clubs are dealt with over FFP is very similar to the way Haiti were treated by the ref and VAR this afternoon.Cheating again I see. Not sure we want to be grouped in with this lot.
The league is corrupt to the core and Chelsea seem to be front and centre but manage to dodge criticism and blame the Russia gangster. No different from the red tops.
If it’s not dodgy loans it is not declaring accurate accounts. Scourge on our game.
I suspect there's quite a bit of difference from a legal perspective.Didn't Abramovich not require loans being repaid when he left? How would that be different to just dumping in a shedload of 'equity' or the loose change down the Good Sheik's sofa? I think the way clubs are dealt with over FFP is very similar to the way Haiti were treated by the ref and VAR this afternoon.
I thought Abramovich wrote the loans off.Didn't Abramovich not require loans being repaid when he left? How would that be different to just dumping in a shedload of 'equity' or the loose change down the Good Sheik's sofa? I think the way clubs are dealt with over FFP is very similar to the way Haiti were treated by the ref and VAR this afternoon.
All clubs are equal some are more equal than others?Didn't Abramovich not require loans being repaid when he left? How would that be different to just dumping in a shedload of 'equity' or the loose change down the Good Sheik's sofa? I think the way clubs are dealt with over FFP is very similar to the way Haiti were treated by the ref and VAR this afternoon.
That's just it. Abramovich was a cunning mastermind at manipulating the rules. 1.5 billion worth of loans with zero interest and which never had to be repaid. That is the definition of a related party sponsorship at unprecedented amounts. The gall with which he pushed for and requested the financial fair play rules with the red tops (which were ultimately directed at us primarily) was tantamount to hypocrisy of the highest degree, considering the skeletons in their closet with those incomplete accounts and other infractions. 67 million for Oscar to China in 2016. I dunno how they always received ridiculous $$ for unwanted players. Considering all that money "loaned", it seems that they were never a well run or sustainable club. All their dealings were dodgy as ****.Didn't Abramovich not require loans being repaid when he left? How would that be different to just dumping in a shedload of 'equity' or the loose change down the Good Sheik's sofa? I think the way clubs are dealt with over FFP is very similar to the way Haiti were treated by the ref and VAR this afternoon.
But should there be an asterisk next to your most recent CL title?Obviously you guys are all comparing this issue to your own ongoing one.
One big difference between us is that our new owners noticed incomplete financial information in historic accounts and reported it immediately to UEFA.
City's stance is, as I understand it, that they've done nothing wrong whatsoever.
Maybe admittance or denial of guilt has a bearing on how a club is treated, just as it does in the English legal system where admittance of guilt generally encourages a more lenient sentence?
The tone of your post is that City are guilty CAS said otherwise, the club say otherwise you lot and the rags have admitted guilt That is one big difference, Chelsea are guilty of cheatingObviously you guys are all comparing this issue to your own ongoing one.
One big difference between us is that our new owners noticed incomplete financial information in historic accounts and reported it immediately to UEFA.
City's stance is, as I understand it, that they've done nothing wrong whatsoever.
Maybe admittance or denial of guilt has a bearing on how a club is treated, just as it does in the English legal system where admittance of guilt generally encourages a more lenient sentence?
City have denied guilt because their position is they have not done anything contrary to the rules. Had to go all the way to CAS to get this sorted. So from the UEFA FFP standpoint we have successfully argued what our position has been all along. That we did not breast the FFP refs. We now have the PL charges to respond to and we will.Obviously you guys are all comparing this issue to your own ongoing one.
One big difference between us is that our new owners noticed incomplete financial information in historic accounts and reported it immediately to UEFA.
City's stance is, as I understand it, that they've done nothing wrong whatsoever.
Maybe admittance or denial of guilt has a bearing on how a club is treated, just as it does in the English legal system where admittance of guilt generally encourages a more lenient sentence?
I don't presume City to be guilty or innocent. I don't know enough about it.The tone of your post is that City are guilty CAS said otherwise, the club say otherwise you lot and the rags have admitted guilt That is one big difference, Chelsea are guilty of cheating
City have denied guilt because their position is they have not done anything contrary to the rules. Had to go all the way to CAS to get this sorted. So from the UEFA FFP standpoint we have successfully argued what our position has been all along. That we did not breast the FFP refs. We now have the PL charges to respond to and we will.
Meanwhile, Chelsea have been breaking the UEFA FFR rules since 2012 without a peep from the authorities or a frenzied media and have self disclosed, been given a paltry fine (ours was bigger for non cooperation with the bent twats) and it’s all been quietly brushed under the carpet without a frenzied media when they are sanctioned.
Just objectively compare and contrast the treatment of the two clubs. Nothing further need be said.