They've been awarded 10 points as all their players grew up around the Scotty Road and play for nothing.mcfc2607 said:Oh well.ColinLee said:I believe they're talking 3 points actually but will compromise on just the 1.UUBlue said:To summarise, UEFA are suggesting a deduction of one point from our Premiership points tally, effective immediately.
I take it Liverpool have already been given the title
the week before last, didn't you see it in the Liverpool threadmcfc2607 said:Oh well.ColinLee said:I believe they're talking 3 points actually but will compromise on just the 1.UUBlue said:To summarise, UEFA are suggesting a deduction of one point from our Premiership points tally, effective immediately.
I take it Liverpool have already been given the title
Quote from Wenger (from the Independent , no less) on hearing that there will be no CL exclusions.gmckennasell said:perhaps city and PSG should make a stand regarding the salary cap on the squad , we should both leave out our world class players like , aguero,yaya,silva ,vinny , ibrahomivic,cavini , pastore etc and play the EDS side , and see how budweiser and the other sponsors like the competition being devalued , they would potentially lose millions in sponsorship .
fbloke said:Imagine if you will a situation where representatives of a hugely wealthy investor about to buy a football club were told to meet with a sport's governing body over some planned, new financial rules.
The wealthy investor sends his well connected group of advisors to the governing body where there are a number of meetings where the investor's plans were discussed, as were the financial regulations.
Both the awarding body and the investor go their separate ways happy that financial controls targeting debt were perfectly OK for the investor, as he was only interested in spending his own wealth to develop a club into a top level business.
The investor buys the club and spends large amounts of his own money over 3 or 4 years as this was OK'd by the governing body.But then he is told that the rules had changed and he was going to have to stop doing what he was told he could do. The main reason for that is because other clubs had got together and amended the rules.
I wonder who is in the deepest poo?
Astute as ardvark is our wenger..Bodicoteblue said:Quote from Wenger (from the Independent , no less) on hearing that there will be no CL exclusions.gmckennasell said:perhaps city and PSG should make a stand regarding the salary cap on the squad , we should both leave out our world class players like , aguero,yaya,silva ,vinny , ibrahomivic,cavini , pastore etc and play the EDS side , and see how budweiser and the other sponsors like the competition being devalued , they would potentially lose millions in sponsorship .
"I have thought about that problem and the media might play apart in that , because when Uefa sells the rights of the Champions League to a French TV station, it is very difficult to explain to them once they have paid the money that the best club in their country will not play in the competition, so that might be one of the reasons behind that"
Gee arsene , d'ya think?
So, are we confident of UEFA backing down, or are we resigned to a lengthy battle?richards30 said:fbloke said:Imagine if you will a situation where representatives of a hugely wealthy investor about to buy a football club were told to meet with a sport's governing body over some planned, new financial rules.
The wealthy investor sends his well connected group of advisors to the governing body where there are a number of meetings where the investor's plans were discussed, as were the financial regulations.
Both the awarding body and the investor go their separate ways happy that financial controls targeting debt were perfectly OK for the investor, as he was only interested in spending his own wealth to develop a club into a top level business.
The investor buys the club and spends large amounts of his own money over 3 or 4 years as this was OK'd by the governing body.But then he is told that the rules had changed and he was going to have to stop doing what he was told he could do. The main reason for that is because other clubs had got together and amended the rules.
I wonder who is in the deepest poo?
Nail on head andy! City are furious about the turn around.
I don't understand french .Bodicoteblue said:Quote from Wenger (from the Independent , no less) on hearing that there will be no CL exclusions.gmckennasell said:perhaps city and PSG should make a stand regarding the salary cap on the squad , we should both leave out our world class players like , aguero,yaya,silva ,vinny , ibrahomivic,cavini , pastore etc and play the EDS side , and see how budweiser and the other sponsors like the competition being devalued , they would potentially lose millions in sponsorship .
"I have thought about that problem and the media might play apart in that , because when Uefa sells the rights of the Champions League to a French TV station, it is very difficult to explain to them once they have paid the money that the best club in their country will not play in the competition, so that might be one of the reasons behind that"
Gee arsene , d'ya think?
Prestwich_Blue said:Now, just thinking aloud here and you shouldn't read anything into this, but what if, for example, a fabulously wealthy Middle East country were to sponsor a European elite tournament for,say, the top 24 clubs and ensure prize money that completely dwarfed that for the CL?
You wouldn't need to pass some silly little financial test that they make up rules for as they go along and would earn far more than the €25-€45m that the 16 qualifiers stand to earn depending on how far they go.
Most of UEFA's revenue comes from TV and sponsors for the CL so taking the likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid, PSG, Bayern, Chelsea, Juventus etc out of the CL would kill UEFA stone dead. Just a thought.
I might be getting soft or summat , but I'm beginning to feel slightly sorry for Pratini now .Bottomless_Sailor said:So, are we confident of UEFA backing down, or are we resigned to a lengthy battle?richards30 said:fbloke said:Imagine if you will a situation where representatives of a hugely wealthy investor about to buy a football club were told to meet with a sport's governing body over some planned, new financial rules.
The wealthy investor sends his well connected group of advisors to the governing body where there are a number of meetings where the investor's plans were discussed, as were the financial regulations.
Both the awarding body and the investor go their separate ways happy that financial controls targeting debt were perfectly OK for the investor, as he was only interested in spending his own wealth to develop a club into a top level business.
The investor buys the club and spends large amounts of his own money over 3 or 4 years as this was OK'd by the governing body.But then he is told that the rules had changed and he was going to have to stop doing what he was told he could do. The main reason for that is because other clubs had got together and amended the rules.
I wonder who is in the deepest poo?
Nail on head andy! City are furious about the turn around.