Very informative mate. Can I keep you on retainer? -:)
Also given that the pl leaks like a sieve when it chooses to and there is evidence to support this, giving them commercially sensitive information that they arent privvy to would be an incredibly bad business decision.All imho, but :
First, because the club thinks, under the rules, they aren't required to.
Second, because if the club started giving information they aren't required to, the PL could have asked for more and more and a refusal to do so, having done it once, could be seen negatively. It's a question of controlling the information flow.
Put it this way, at CAS the club provided an analysis of payments made by ADUG over a certain threshold to show that no monies had gone from ADUG to Etihad. UEFA had some concerns about this report. Had the club presented this report to the CFCB, UEFA could have asked for changes to the report, different information. At CAS, the tribunal could only balance the relevant of weight of the report presented and UEFA's concerns on it. There were no negative connotations to be drawn from the procedure.
Always a rule. Never volunteer information.
There is substantial material in the CAS findings to refute this rubbish.
The CAS found that “leaked email number four is in fact a combination of two separate emails” which gives a “somewhat distorted impression”, and they based their decision on the originals, rather than the hacked versions published by Der Spiegel.
City had said the leaked emails should not be admissible, but still answered the allegations based on them, and eventually agreed to release the original emails – there were six of them and one attachment used, out of around 5.5million hacked emails.
The panel found that the accounts also do not contradict City’s case, and that Uefa had singularly failed to provide any real proof that the Blues had breached FFP rules. They added: “There is no doubt that Etihad fully complied with its payment obligations towards MCFC and that MCFC rendered the contractually agreed services to Etihad in return.”
Just on that last bit, that’s just them setting the context, it was never alleged that Etihad didn’t comply with its payment obligations as such, it’s the rest of the conclusion that was the important bit (as in, there was no meaningful evidence of funding into Etihad to cover it).
Yes, you are right about 1 game per week, apart from cup games, but we could all get 3 live games of Italian football on channel 4 every Sunday.There was never really a big 5 in the 80s though IMO. From what I can deduce, that was a PR campaign bought and paid for by those very clubs. The original plan set in the late 80s, was obviously to create are legitimate big 5 in the PL era. Then it quickly became a big 3, when it eventually arrived. Spurs were a mid table club at best for the first decade and half of the PL era. Everton faired slightly better without really challenging much(how many title challenges, how many trophies in the PL era?).
It was a big two at best going into the PL era, Liverpool for the success(miles clear of everyone in major honours with 32 by the end of the 80s), United(15 m-h) for their attendances(have to give them that unfortunately).
Arsenal(16 m-h), Everton(14 m-h) and Spurs(14 m-h) had no legitimate claims to put themselves above the other traditional top clubs of old english football. There were too many clubs, too close to them to claim they were bigger. Wasn't there only 1 televised game a week for most of that era(Liverpool taking most of the limelight)?
And Etihad fair value wasn't questioned in 2019, or in 2014 for that matter. So it was all squeaky clean.
How long till it’s our fault? LolApparently we were at the time the only premier league club who backed this,don’t know if that has changed as in other clubs joining with us or not …
I’m gonna go with NOTBROWNSo…we have OFCOM, OFSTED, OFWATCH etc…wonder if the new regulator for football will be OFFSIDE??