UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[Keith Moon]

That is scary. Pretty much sounds like the playbook used on City.

They hacked the cell phones of agents and lawyers working with us, definitely not Pintos work.
So in my mind: Qatar>Footyleaks>Der Spiegel>UEFA

 

[BlueRockape]

Do you really think that? you might be lucky with the ones you've encountered, from my own experience, most are quite happy to just jump to beleiving it all, labling the club cheats and wanting to see punishments given.

Like Gordon says I haven't discussed it with a dipper or rag

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

@gordondaviesmoustache can you shed any light?

I would say they can be theoretically, but there would be no public interest is prosecuting someone for a ‘homosexual’ offence pre-1967, so in practical terms they wouldn’t be.

 

[blueinsa]

But aren't we talking about rules rather than laws?
I'm not sure there's any suggestion we've done anything illegal...

A Clubs private rules do not trump the law mate.

 

[George Hannah]

FFS you clown. Is this why you have abandoned all reasoning? That's not true at all.

Read up on the fucking thread. The emails are just emails, not financial records and they are out of context. We already know at least 1 of the 4 is wrong because it states ADUG paid the Etihad deal which we know for a fact is not true. It's not doctored, it's just 2 people discussing something that didn't actually happen in the end.

The emails do not have to be doctored for the club to be innocent, so you can drop the desperate attempts to cling on to the idea they are.

They are the key pieces of evidence for UEFA's case and have been doctored in exactly the same way you have edited my post trying to make your utterly stupid claim. Doctoring means the bit you have left out. "Timelines and identifying data about the emails' recipients, context and the chain of correspondence had to be removed or altered." Otherwise they don't fit the false narrative. Got it yet? For us to be innocent they have to have been doctored, there is no other explanation if you believe the club.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

pretty sure that sentences cannot be harsher than what were available to them at the time of the crime though, that seems to be the one constant.

That’s not strictly true. No more than the statutory maximum that was in situ at the time can be imposed (ECHR Article 7) but (despite what Sun and Mail readers would have everyone believe) sentences for sexual offences have gone through the roof in the last 30 years, so someone being found guilty of historical sexual offences from, say, the 1980’s will be subject to a far tougher sentence today than they would have been if they’d been convicted at the time. Up to three to four times as much, up to that statutory maximum, isn’t unusual.

Whether that’s unjust depends on the offence imo. A bit of non-consensual groping of an adult in a public place should not be dealt with more harshly than it was at the time imo as it was much less socially unacceptable a generation ago, whereas anything that involves kids or rape has never been ok in post-industrial times and should therefore be punished as per today. I think it’s wrong to impose our own sense of morality upon people who have previously faltered in a relatively minor sense - although as it’s a largely pragmatic view, as a philosophical position I’m not entirely sure I’m on totally solid ground as it’s arguably philosophically inconsistent.

 

[Dirty Harry]

That’s not strictly true. No more than the statutory maximum that was in situ at the time can be imposed (ECHR Article 7) but (despite what Sun and Mail readers would have everyone believe) sentences for sexual offences have gone through the roof in the last 30 years, so someone being found guilty of historical sexual offences from, say, the 1980’s will be subject to a far tougher sentence today than they would have been if they’d been convicted at the time. Up to three to four times as much, up to that statutory maximum, isn’t unusual.

Whether that’s unjust depends on the offence imo. A bit of non-consensual groping of an adult in a public place should not be dealt with more harshly than it was at the time imo as it was much less socially unacceptable a generation ago, whereas anything that involves kids or rape has never been ok in post-industrial times and should therefore be punished as per today. I think it’s wrong to impose our own sense of morality upon people who have previously faltered in a relatively minor sense - although as it’s a largely pragmatic view, as a philosophical position I’m not entirely sure I’m on totally solid ground as it’s arguably philosophically inconsistent.

Fuck you !


If I said penalty rather than sentencing, would that make more sense ?

 

[iwasthere1968]

Ah well theres another thread I wont be reading ...

 

[VOOMER]

What do you think it says ?

It says he isnt a blue.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Fuck you !


If I said penalty rather than sentencing, would that make more sense ?

It would.

And fuck you too!