UEFA FFP investigation - CAS confirm that City have appealed

Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by razman, 7 Mar 2019.

  1. Marvin

    Marvin

    Joined:
    9 Jan 2006
    Messages:
    36,656
    Even if LFC have a vested interest in the outcome, I don't think they would have the inside track on what's happening with the UEFA Investigation and where they are going with it, and it certainly isn't a Liverpool invention. This is happening though where it goes who knows
     
  2. Brightwell Bros.

    Brightwell Bros.

    Joined:
    1 Oct 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Entirely this. It's a faction in a broader political organisation trying to position themselves in a tangle. It'd be like taking the European Research Group or Momentum's statements as gospel. It shapes the terrain, for sure, but that's all it does.
     
  3. Bluemeanster

    Bluemeanster

    Joined:
    6 Nov 2018
    Messages:
    22
    The inside track that Liverpool (Fenway) could have on whats happening within the FFP investigation may be from former Liverpool CEO and Lifelong Liverpool Fan Rick Parry .
    Mr Parry sits on the UEFA CFCB (Club Financial Control Body). The same body who are investigating City for breaches of FFP (Surely a serious conflict of interest). https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/dis...rolling-body/investigatory-chamber/index.html
    He is also CEO of New York Cosmos which could explain why this news article broke in the New York times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Parry
    Its probably no coincidence that this story has broke today , the day after we beat LFC to the title.
     
    Last edited: 14 May 2019
  4. razman

    razman

    Joined:
    23 Jun 2013
    Messages:
    7,271
    I don't have the link to the article , but there was an article in the telegraph , which stated Liverpool reached out to city and said that the above was nonsense and they didn't ask or push the premier league for anything
     
  5. Marvin

    Marvin

    Joined:
    9 Jan 2006
    Messages:
    36,656
    Excellent summary. Hard to conclude otherwise. Worth bearing this in mind because it will spawn a whole host of duplicate spin-offs. Some reporters might make their own enquiries.
     
  6. CharliesRightPeg

    CharliesRightPeg

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2015
    Messages:
    297
    The NYT still seem to partner with Fenway Group on their American sports enterprises
    Given that there is very little new or quoted evidence, it wouldn't surprise me if it is a Liverpool inspired hacket job
     
    mat likes this.
  7. colesy

    colesy

    Joined:
    30 Dec 2009
    Messages:
    489
    Location:
    Cairns, Queensland, Australia
    I read some of the article, and there really is no substance to it, and as it has been previously mentioned, it's the prosecutor saying what he would like to deliver. Again it appears to allude to something that we were already punished for, can we really be prosecuted twice for the same offence?
     
  8. TheThirdDeano

    TheThirdDeano

    Joined:
    29 Apr 2012
    Messages:
    3,800
    Interesting isn’t it that we beat a club whose owner is American and now a new scoop has appeared, in the New York Times no less, saying we’re going to be banned.

    Well get it over with you ****s; enjoy having a champions competition without the champions of the strongest league in the world.
     
    Last edited: 14 May 2019
    BosnianBlue likes this.
  9. TonyM

    TonyM

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2006
    Messages:
    9,095
    Makes us not being in the CL final a prize in itself. FFPuck you CL.
     
  10. PrezIke

    PrezIke

    Joined:
    5 Sep 2013
    Messages:
    452
    Location:
    En Why? See.
    Sorry, but the NY Times is a serious investigative newspaper and would not go about allowing such an article to be published without having real reason to believe it's sources to be legit.

    I cannot see them ever being in the business of smearing City over Liverpool and Utd because they are American owned and risking their entire reputation over a sports article.

    This is beyond fanciful and sad that we are at a point in time where this kind of reasoning is accepted as plausible nor can we parse the difference between those who post things on Twitter or periodicals" without strong cheques and balances within/reluctance to publish news without strong evidence versus a newspaper with such standing as the NY Times (not that the NY Times cannot be criticised, btw).
     
    waterfootblues likes this.

Share This Page