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.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
CASPerhaps like City they are uncertain what a PL selected Panel will act in an unbiased way?
What possible reason would any sector of industry insist that only their approved list of Panel members could be used.
AirbagsOptionalTheReturn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 1,131
- Team supported
- Man City
I will ask again, someone posted the section from the CAS findings re the time barred and the fact that it did not matter as the "charges" that were time barred were not valid, can someone post it again? I want to use it to shoot a know all Utd fan down (he never ever thinks he is wrong). Thanks all
Barca’s big thing was sale of future tv revenue.Controls it only to an extent. Didn’t they allow Barcelona to forward sell most of their gate receipts for the next few years to aid their current financials?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,083
I will ask again, someone posted the section from the CAS findings re the time barred and the fact that it did not matter as the "charges" that were time barred were not valid, can someone post it again? I want to use it to shoot a know all Utd fan down (he never ever thinks he is wrong). Thanks all
Don't remember seeing that in the CAS findings, tbh. Iirc, once it was time limited, they didn't waste any more time on it. Was it from the club's submission maybe?
AirbagsOptionalTheReturn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 1,131
- Team supported
- Man City
I just remember about a week ago someone posted something and highlighted the part that was pertinent, I should have saved it then.Don't remember seeing that in the CAS findings, tbh. Iirc, once it was time limited, they didn't waste any more time on it. Was it from the club's submission maybe?
The interesting thing there is the whole fair market value thing which is why deciding sponsorships based on fair market value does not work, if barca have sold those tv rights based on their current position then they are worth a certain amount if barca fall off a cliff then those rights have been overvalued if barca get a cracking team together then they have been undervalued and this is where the system doesnt work as fair market value doesnt and cant take into account future events.Barca’s big thing was sale of future tv revenue.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Don't remember seeing that in the CAS findings, tbh. Iirc, once it was time limited, they didn't waste any more time on it. Was it from the club's submission maybe?
It's on page 25 but it's part of our submission to CAS. However in that, it says that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber found that everything was OK with the Etisalat sponsorship and that Etisalat had fully met its obligations (see para 20).
@AirbagsOptionalTheReturn
Last edited:
Gorton_Tubster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 16,322
- Location
- Riding the blue tidal wave.
- Team supported
- Manchester City
We bought CAS always trumps that. There's no arguing. But tell them their tears make it more pleasurable. That will shut them up.I will ask again, someone posted the section from the CAS findings re the time barred and the fact that it did not matter as the "charges" that were time barred were not valid, can someone post it again? I want to use it to shoot a know all Utd fan down (he never ever thinks he is wrong). Thanks all
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
I was probably not specific enough.I meant choice of Panel members.
As I understand it a PL picked chairman picks his own Panel members from a PL list.