If City submitted its evidence to the AC it would have been considered. End of story.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ICYMI - Seeing the Wood for FFPs - 2 part analysis (Semi-long reads)
- Thread starter slbsn
- Start date
If City submitted its evidence to the AC it would have been considered. End of story.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
Why does everybody keep saying Kdb and Raz will up sticks if we get a ban?
Getting on my tits now this repetitive nonsense.
Pep's leaving too haven't you heard? According to the British press he's off, despite him having to reiterate countless times he's staying.
Same story rehashed, I'm getting crossed eyed every time I read about it .
It's being pumped out by the RDAHMeedya like a man with diarrhoea! I had a quick glance at the DT report this morning and nearly fell off the kitchen chair - a wholly positive headline that was a little at odds with how the MDC reported it on the OS. I read two paragraphs and ended where it stated that Pep would not be travelling much re the UEFA ban.
BlueSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 766
I am not a lawyer, I am not a sports rules specialist - but both articles make complete sense to me.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
I am not a lawyer, I am not a sports rules specialist - but both articles make complete sense to me.
Ah, if only those people at Uefa had a modicum of common sense and one scintilla of fairness between them it wouldn't have got this far!
BlueSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 766
Ah, if only those people at Uefa had a modicum of common sense and one scintilla of fairness between them it wouldn't have got this far!
UEFA are a group of self appointed and self interested businessmen masquerading as a "sports" governing body. If they cared one iota for the actual "sport" then FFP would be a salary cap & maximum transfer fee of some sort. As we all know, FFP as it stands is there to protect a few clubs. The UEFA board is filled with directors from various clubs, only recently Al-Khalefi was appointed to that same board...nothing to do wit the £375 million TV deal with beIN Sports of course.
Sadly, the general footballing public in the UK cannot make this distinction - no-one appointed UEFA, no-one elected them - they created a cup competition to make money and have been using it like that since.
The Champions League only came in to make sure the big teams didn't get beat early on AND that more of their favoured teams could enter each year...then they introduced seedings, to protect the bigger teams and keep them apart in the early rounds....then FFP....now they have further control with VAR....
Sir peace frog
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,518
- Location
- stalking the canals and rivers
- Team supported
- Manchester City Football Club
is @projectriver khaldoon ?
ClaudioDeyna
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2011
- Messages
- 1,071
- Team supported
- MCFC: Attack everyone. Defend everyone.
Delaney's 'impenetrable' comment doesn't speak well of a man with a Master's degree in Politics. Maybe he should ask for his fees back. Unless, perish the thought, he's wilfully discounting the evidence*.
The other thing is, as someone who follows a lot of legal twitter, Lord Pannick is regarded as a demi-god by those in the know (David Allen Green, Adam Wagner, Jessica Simor). No guarantees but it's immensely reassuring to have him representing us: his sheer reasonableness, rooted in hard insight, is what may win through.
*He's wilfully discounting the evidence.
The other thing is, as someone who follows a lot of legal twitter, Lord Pannick is regarded as a demi-god by those in the know (David Allen Green, Adam Wagner, Jessica Simor). No guarantees but it's immensely reassuring to have him representing us: his sheer reasonableness, rooted in hard insight, is what may win through.
*He's wilfully discounting the evidence.
Last edited:
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
No he’s the author of the articles, link on his OP post Well known in City circles and a very respected business manis @projectriver khaldoon ?
AFOOTBALL FAN
Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 6
Hi
I am a Watford supporter although I lived in Manchester in the past and spoke to Manchester City fans. I just wanted to say that FFP the way its designed is terrible for the sport. It limits competition as its perfectly OK for clubs to spend whatever they like if they get big sponsorship deals ( which increase with regular Champions League participation), its OK for a team to go into crippling debt but its not OK for an owner to invest their own money ( good owners care about the club more than a commercial sponsor does) in order to bridge the gap to regular Champions League teams who get the biggest natural income. In other words big sponsorship deals are 'natural' and 'good' income according to the current rules but generous money from an owner is ' doping' and 'cheating'.
My team Watford would probably be a non league or at best League 2 team for most of the past 40 years if Elton John had not invested funds into the team he supports in the 1970s and 1980s. If FFP was around in the 1970s and 1980s Elton John would almost certainly not of arrived at Watford, in division 4 upon his arrival, Graham Taylor would not of been appointed, and Watford would not of stormed through the each of the leagues before remarkably finishing 2nd in the 1st division in the 1982-83 season. Elton John would not of arrived at Watford with FFP in place because he would have been unable to invest his own money and have as much influence on the club as he did in the 1970s and 1980s. Other clubs such as Arsenal would not have the history or stature they do without massive investment in the 1930s. They were known as the Bank Of England due to spending vast amounts of money on players and stadium developments. They broke the British transfer record by spending 10 grand on David Jack. This investment enabled Arsenal to win the league title 5 times in the 1930s.
Regarding Manchester City's appeal I read the articles posted and understood most of the points made. It seems a ludicrous that UEFA appeared to break its own rules i.e. opening up a case from years ago that already had a settlement based on a few hacked emails. What I wanted to ask is that as far as I understand UEFA were willing to give Manchester City a small punishment last December if Manchester City's owners admitted guilt. Why not just admit guilt and get the small punishment instead of risking a far more severe punishment which is what has happened? I am guessing is was a matter of principle as your owners believed they were innocent and had stringently kept to FFP rules.
I am a Watford supporter although I lived in Manchester in the past and spoke to Manchester City fans. I just wanted to say that FFP the way its designed is terrible for the sport. It limits competition as its perfectly OK for clubs to spend whatever they like if they get big sponsorship deals ( which increase with regular Champions League participation), its OK for a team to go into crippling debt but its not OK for an owner to invest their own money ( good owners care about the club more than a commercial sponsor does) in order to bridge the gap to regular Champions League teams who get the biggest natural income. In other words big sponsorship deals are 'natural' and 'good' income according to the current rules but generous money from an owner is ' doping' and 'cheating'.
My team Watford would probably be a non league or at best League 2 team for most of the past 40 years if Elton John had not invested funds into the team he supports in the 1970s and 1980s. If FFP was around in the 1970s and 1980s Elton John would almost certainly not of arrived at Watford, in division 4 upon his arrival, Graham Taylor would not of been appointed, and Watford would not of stormed through the each of the leagues before remarkably finishing 2nd in the 1st division in the 1982-83 season. Elton John would not of arrived at Watford with FFP in place because he would have been unable to invest his own money and have as much influence on the club as he did in the 1970s and 1980s. Other clubs such as Arsenal would not have the history or stature they do without massive investment in the 1930s. They were known as the Bank Of England due to spending vast amounts of money on players and stadium developments. They broke the British transfer record by spending 10 grand on David Jack. This investment enabled Arsenal to win the league title 5 times in the 1930s.
Regarding Manchester City's appeal I read the articles posted and understood most of the points made. It seems a ludicrous that UEFA appeared to break its own rules i.e. opening up a case from years ago that already had a settlement based on a few hacked emails. What I wanted to ask is that as far as I understand UEFA were willing to give Manchester City a small punishment last December if Manchester City's owners admitted guilt. Why not just admit guilt and get the small punishment instead of risking a far more severe punishment which is what has happened? I am guessing is was a matter of principle as your owners believed they were innocent and had stringently kept to FFP rules.
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
If City submitted its evidence to the AC it would have been considered. End of story.
Is that not a very serious concern from our point of view? It's all very well the monkeys at the IC rushing everything through without due process, but it's harder to imagine the AC being quite so slapdash or biased, particularly when you consider one of its number is a lawyer from the same firm as Lord Pannick. Are City just bullshitting about the irrefutable nature of the evidence they've provided, as I can't think of a reason why we wouldn't submit it? I'd be interested to know your take on it.....