Kenward Garg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2019
- Messages
- 971
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Ric accepts any fcuker as long as their bribes are untraceable.
Ha! The PGMOL say hello.
Ric accepts any fcuker as long as their bribes are untraceable.
As Mark Stephens, a top UK lawyer, has said today: "Interestingly there is no precedent for UEFA second guessing what is the correct amount for commercial sponsorship deals."
Can anyone enlighten me on the mechanism that UEFA uses to assess "market value"? Is it a scientific formula? Equally, isn't the value of a sponsorship what it's worth to the sponsor rather than the sponsored?
Just caught me on the way out to the Brexit thread
I thought UEFA just sneaked the first committee's recommendation through in time to meet the five year deadline?
If what you say is true then City are arguing on principles as opposed to detailed evidence?
But that seems contrary to Khaldoon's reference to City having detailed information as to the club's 'innocence'?
https://apple.news/AcvKf8csaNCKEbm8UNOh3IA
Piece in the Guardian that is well written. Buckle up boys and girls, this is going to get interesting.
I broadly agree with what you are saying but I think we can safely say that at this stage FFP is not in the dock and not at all up for discussion at CAS
I listened to the 93:20 pod* and from what was said on there and from what appears to have come out City are not arguing the rights/wrongs as they don’t believe they have to. City will argue 1) the time period of any alleged wrong doing is covered in the previous settlement and also 2) even if it’s not, UEFA’s own statue of limitations of 5 years prevents them from investigating, never mind charging and sentencing a club
City appear to be in this for all or nothing. City better be right!
I find it inconceivable that a club this big with the recourses they have to be this wrong. Putting to one side the rather unprofessional and crass emails, the rules are the rules and the settlement, time periods etc should have been fully understood by anyone at the club with any dealings with the legal and financial matters.
I think UEFA have pushed this due to political pressure and hoped City would fold, come to the table and negotiate this out. City in their belief didn’t need to because they think they are in the right but there are plenty of people sat in prison who ‘believed’ they did no wrong
Like I said, City better be right.....
*well worth the subscription fee
It would indeed, my point being there are certain standards bigger than any institution.
You’d agree that UEFA could, should and would be prosecuted if they operated a ”whites only” policy? Well maybe, just maybe, anti-competitive practices could run foul of EU law if seriously put to the test.
no but we could have a very lucrative tournament in the close season like a world club championship say also backed by fifaWe're not playing friendlies in place of the CL. Come on. Unrealistic for all the reasons you mention and then some.
No way, Gill and his cronies will introduce a new rule where to compete in the league etc, no money making friendlies allowed !bang on.
"But the ramifications could still be seismic. What if City spend their two years out of Uefa competition playing lucrative friendlies around the world? What if they show that you don’t actually need Uefa and its (already barely significant) concerns for smaller clubs to thrive?"
one of my mates is a business lawyer and says hes amazed by how many hr departments dont know the law.so possibly UEFA are so crap they keep running into trouble
No, guilty as charged. The heinous crime of our owner investing in the club in exactly the same way as our rivals.
I also think that some talks have taken place about a world club championship as was leaked a while ago and this is also partly what UEFA are pissed off aboutno but we could have a very lucrative tournament in the close season like a world club championship say also backed by fifa