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

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

?

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  1. Two-year ban upheld

    197 vote(s)
    13.1%
  2. Ban reduced to one year

    422 vote(s)
    28.2%
  3. Ban overturned and City exonerated

    815 vote(s)
    54.4%
  4. Other

    65 vote(s)
    4.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Coatigan

    Coatigan

    Joined:
    30 Jun 2019
    Messages:
    1,778
    Team supported:
    Manchester City
    Potentially. There certainly is logic in that.
    However that has not been their narrative in public, they have consistently said they believe development of any shouldnt be curtailed, and would welcome competition that improves us.

    Of course you can argue they Would say that in public, but i personally beleive they (both culturally and businesswise) have the brash and confident mentality to really believe that.
     
    BluessinceHydeRoad likes this.
  2. franksinatra

    franksinatra

    Joined:
    25 Nov 2008
    Messages:
    8,035
    Yes I do think it is thrown round too loosely and it means different things to different people. I only use that term because, I believe, its my response to those questions, and in that thread, which frames the argument that I am
    some how supportive of the press. Which could not be further from the truth.

    I would say the relationship with sections of the media has deteriorated, over the past couple of years and agree there are some in the press who dislike us and their writing reflects that. Anyone can see that.

    The Qatar argument has been proven so without doubt they are putting forward a narrative against the club.

    Yes some blues I think go a bit far and can undermine some of the valid arguments and grievances we have with the press. It gives our detractors the opportunity to highlight those messages and portray the valid arguments as the writings of a bunch of loons. Anyway this is for another thread.
     
  3. KS55

    KS55

    Joined:
    14 Oct 2016
    Messages:
    6,749
    "Bunch of loons" is about right; we support Liddl Citeh, how mad is that?
     
    franksinatra likes this.

    ADVERTISEMENT

  4. Gordyola

    Gordyola

    Joined:
    8 Jul 2007
    Messages:
    5,371
    Location:
    Manchester
    Team supported:
    City of course
    Don’t Pannick UEFA don’t like it up em
     
  5. Gordyola

    Gordyola

    Joined:
    8 Jul 2007
    Messages:
    5,371
    Location:
    Manchester
    Team supported:
    City of course
    Competitions have to have approval from your country’s FA to start with
     
  6. KS55

    KS55

    Joined:
    14 Oct 2016
    Messages:
    6,749
    That's the only way the mad proposals from UEFA/G14 for a closed competition will be defeated. And the FA? Silence reigns.
     
    Gordyola likes this.
  7. laserblue

    laserblue

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2008
    Messages:
    15,388
    Location:
    The happy world of Haribo
    The rags not relegated at the same time after Liverpool players threw a game to keep them up in the last game of the last season before football resumed after WW1 like your post.
     
    Murph likes this.
  8. Coatigan

    Coatigan

    Joined:
    30 Jun 2019
    Messages:
    1,778
    Team supported:
    Manchester City
    All true, but we already have Utd and Liverpool grossly outbidding us on targets and inflating the market, one more should hardly bother the owners.
     
  9. asahartford1

    asahartford1

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2016
    Messages:
    4,925
    While i agree some people see stuff that isn't there, a little paranoid in some instances, I believe you came to the party a little late.
    A couple of years ago you would argue there was no bias against City, you now try to legitimize your stance by saying the press has deteriorated. It was always politically motivated, helped by a legion of "sports journalists" ready and willing to jump on the bandwagon.The treatment of Sterling being a prime example, even the press admitted it, though of course it was always the other outlets, and not their own.
    I am glad you got there in the end though.
     
  10. BluessinceHydeRoad

    BluessinceHydeRoad

    Joined:
    26 Mar 2012
    Messages:
    2,518
    I'm interested in what you say about Chelsea. I felt exactly the same as you when Chelsea became genuine challengers and then champions thanks to Abramovitch. But in the end he threw his lot in with the 'istry boys because he couldn't stand the competition from City and he announced his Damascene conversion to Platini's FFP. And where I can't agree with you is that "Chelsea's investment is conveniently forgotten about" because I don't believe he's actually invested anything. I accept that he always intended that Chelsea should be able eventually to be successful and live within the means permitted by FFP, but then so did City. But Abramovitch had done exactly the same as Leeds and Portsmouth by making interest free) loans to the club (to be repaid within 180 days of him selling the club). Chelsea's debts are thus massive and Abramovitch/Chelsea have "taken advantage" of FFP to increase the club's debt to their holding company to well over £1 billion. Chelsea are rather vulnerable in the light of Abramovitch's difficulties with our government and the corona virus. I don't see what can be done about debt in football within the law but as PB points out to us FFP has made the problem worse not better and far from being the unqualified success for FFP that Platini claimed, Chelsea could be its most catastrophic failure. FFP doesn't protect clubs from owners who "walk away" unless they have made genuine investment and improved the financial stability of the club. We will notice that these two great failures of FFP - limiting genuine investment and protecting the financial stability of clubs - are supposed to be the great achievements of which UEFA are most proud.

    Secondly, I note the use of the phrase "financial doping". I know very well you are using this Wengerism to mock the way supporters of FFP use it and I know you use it to show your contempt of the concept behind it but unfortunately many on here and at large don't. Wenger of course coined the phrase to refer to the use of illegal and immoral monies (ie shareholders' money) to improve performance just as athletes used performance enhancing drugs. This is, as we all can see clearly, typical typical of the nonsense spouted by Archbishop Arsene
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page