FIFA investigation: No transfer ban

peace frog said:
off RAWK
I think Chelsea got the two windows for being a repeat offender.
And denying their guilt and for many many instances.

It seems to be the correct punishment.

We don’t have great form on this so people shouldn't be so quick to point fingers..
Click to expand...
I saw that, as well, and immediately thought it must be a covert blue, as no Liverpool supporter on RAWK is that reasonable. :-)
 
Can get the cheque book out now and strengthen the team in January ;)

Looking at the details, something no media outlet seems to have actually done so far, seems our infringements were comparatively minor, and we could presumably demonstrate they were exceptions due to misinterpreted rules rather than the norm.

Rather than saying city got off lightly, maybe this shows how more extreme the infringements must have been elsewhere. Chelsea 29 times, that's not down to timing of the rules or interpretation of the rules, that's suggesting habitual malpractice I'm afraid.

Still, sigh of relief at no ban. They could have said one infringement is too many and imposed, but sounds like they could be reasoned with.
 
SebastianBlue said:
A few sensible posts in that thus far, to be fair.

But the vast majority is as expected.
Click to expand...


In't it tragic that so many people would pile into a thread to cry about how unfair and corrupt it all is without any kind of reading an article?

It's literally just Chelsea got banned for something City did not get banned for something - corruption!

I think it was about 5 posts into this thread when someone mentioned the huge difference in number of offences?
 
domalino said:
In't it tragic that so many people would pile into a thread to cry about how unfair and corrupt it all is without any kind of reading an article?

It's literally just Chelsea got banned for something City did not get banned for something - corruption!

I think it was about 5 posts into this thread when someone mentioned the huge difference in number of offences?
Click to expand...
Yes, and was immediately bollocked for doing so.

Another poster tried a bit later, with a slightly different angle, but they were also shouted down (with a subtle allusion to being a troll, as well).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
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.