TrustInOle
Full Member
Don't go making things up now aswellReally, because it says allegations that weren't time barred were proven false..
This just keeps getting more entertaining?
Don't go making things up now aswellReally, because it says allegations that weren't time barred were proven false..
Something stinks!City press release has just announced a multimillion deal for a new official club deodorant sponsor.
So you are saying that all the allegations that were time barred were correct then?Really, because it says allegations that weren't time barred were proven false..
I have no idea how City fans can come here and argue that they aren't guilty of overspending. Do they actually believe their own posts?Ha it’s obvious your sponsorship deals are inflated. You must know your club is dodgy as hella how
Given that the most important allegations fall beyond the 5 year timescale they have probably only done (a). Again, we won't know until the full judgement is out but it seems entirely likely that City have managed to distort UEFA's reporting period into a statute of limitations, and that is all that they have succeeded in doing to 'prove their innocence'No, it is worded fine, you're just misinterpreting it. When they say time-barred, they mean UEFA do not have the jurisdiction to investigate anyway. The legitimacy of the breaches becomes immaterial to CAS as they've already concluded UEFA cannot act on it. That's the point - UEFA could not build a credible case even if City cooperated, as they are rendered powerless by their own rules. Now, at CAS, what City have clearly done is proven that (a) UEFA are time-barred, and (b) the substance of much of their claims was incorrect. Hence the headline: 'MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS'. That is not 'time-barred', that is quite unequivocally saying UEFA's charges in that regard are untrue. But as I said, I don't expect people on a Manchester United forum to pay much attention to the facts of the case.
Yes, cooperating with UEFA and CAS is very different - one is an independent body, the other is not. The independent one ruled in favour of City, the other did not.
Quote me please, i've been reading the statement and don't see that comment.Really, because it says allegations that weren't time barred were proven false..
True, true.I shall concede that point as we all know Mancini was most certainly not a consultant and I was just being awkward. That said it still doesn't mean every player at the club is being paid twice or any which the op tried to use the Mancini story as proof of.
It's a legal document, and you confess you know nothing about legal stuff, so your opinion of how it is worded hardly holds any weight. It's incomparable to a normal press release for a start, you're comparing apples and oranges. It's drafted by legal experts and it is worded perfectly in that regard, it may well not be worded perfectly for a layman like you or I to digest but that would be to fundamentally mistake its purpose.It's terribly worded... I may know nothing about legal stuff, but I work with press releases as part of my job everyday, and a good press release is headline or two, and then the rest of the statement backs up /enforces that headline(s) .
The body of this press release does nothing to back up that statement and instead says things to question it - like the part that I quoted - which DOES mention things either being time barred or unable to be proven.
Also the CAS and UEFA investigations were totally different... UEFA wanted info to enforce /build their case, whilst CAS would only require info based on what UEFA had. Surely you can see the cooperation with CAS would require a different type/level of involvement?
This totally gets away from my original point, which is that UEFA will find it nearly impossible to prosecute any club of breaching FFP from now on as clubs won't fully cooperate with their investigations going forward (unless they change the rules that force them to do so - which might happen)
Of course. But it is the only legal system there is right? But that is the way things are. We can all say x and y is guilty but sadly we have to prove it right. I mean I could say your a wum whose failing miserably to wind up City fans because your salty we're proven innocent this morning but that wouldn't make it true. Resorting to childish things like taking sly digs and comparing City fans to Trump supporters but I'd have to prove it, otherwise you'd be innocent.Wow
Not guilty is a verdict, not a definate response to whether a crime was committed.
They desperately want to believe their board aren’t as bent as a nine Bob note. They believe any old bollocks they say for some reason.I have no idea how City fans can come here and argue that they aren't guilty of overspending. Do they actually believe their own posts?
He is having an absolute mare on here so glad I was born to the red side of Manchester, would hate trying to defend this lot.Quote me please, i've been reading the statement and don't see that comment.
To believe this, you would need to believe that Citys owner accidentally lumped all of the money he was investing into City into one bank transfer by accident. Despite the fact it was supposed to come from various companies as sponsorship, companies which he also owns.No. You are not getting it. If UEFA had a credible and strong case, City would have cooperated. Do you think CAS will have said 'well City didn't cooperate, therefore there are no documents to look at, so we're gonna have to find City innocent'.
No, and quite clearly they conclude 'MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS' i.e. a central charge of UEFA is dismissed. They would not make that conclusion unless they were provided with evidence to the contrary. What will have happened is City will have provided, at CAS, the relevant evidence. CAS will look at that, and make a judgement. They sided with City. Not UEFA. City did not cooperate with UEFA as they did not believe in the legitimacy and the impartiality of the process, and decided to take a risk and put all their eggs in the CAS basket. The idea City didn't cooperate with UEFA then, what, didn't cooperate with their own appeal at CAS? And won?? Come on, that's ridiculous.
Leaving aside the legitimacy of City’s title wins, I think what a lot of people don’t understand and City understand well is that in the future no one will care how they won, just that they are winners. Sad, but true. Heck, even in the present most new fans don’t care. Look at the battle for fans in developing markets, China, India, Africa. City has a market share of fans that is commensurate with their success And that’s the bottom line, winning attracts admiration. These qualms about financial doping are a concern of the current generation of fans and even to what extent is debatable. The next generation simply wont care as it rich clubs are and will continue to become more of a norm. Part of the reason is that in all aspects of life, they are always the haves and the have not, football is no exception. I know this last statement will be controversial but how did United dominate (being a bit loose here) the EPL before the advent of Chelsea and City? Bigger club, more money, better players, better infrastructure, leading to a competitive advantage and hence more titles. Is City’s case any different, their financial might gives them a competitive advantage like Bayern, Barca, Madrid, etc. If you want fairness, impose a salary cap and its equivalent for transfers. That will even the playing field for all teams. At the end of the day, no team is breaking into the elite for a sustainable period except with heavy investment, that’s what truly bother the powers behind UEFA, these clubs and their historical privileged position are under threat from the newcomersIt's already been said by many in this thread but this is another nail in the coffin of football. Chelsea and City's (and PSGs) 'achievements' to date will forever have a larger asterisk next to their name than Liverpool's this year. Watch things get even worse now following this absolute shambles of a decision. If Leeds and Newcastle are also going through a plastic / sportswashing transition soon as well the league and football at the top level has well and truly become farcical.
Except me and CAS too which is much more important.Seriously, you'll always be corrupt and everyone knows that (except you, obviously). Just enjoy the trophies but stop pretending you're a proper football club anymore.
Well it doesn't help when you start making things up to fit your own agenda, very trump supporter likeOf course. But it is the only legal system there is right? But that is the way things are. We can all say x and y is guilty but sadly we have to prove it right. I mean I could say your a wum whose failing miserably to wind up City fans because your salty we're proven innocent this morning but that wouldn't make it true. Resorting to childish things like taking sly digs and comparing City fans to Trump supporters but I'd have to prove it, otherwise you'd be innocent.
They could buy their family members a football club. Maybe Girona FC?The players would need to declare tax though wouldn’t they? Paying them off the books doesn’t work like that. It’s way more illegal what city just did.
Not it doesn't. It says there is insufficient evidence. Big difference. And how about those that weren't time barred?Really, because it says allegations that weren't time barred were proven false..
I used to think that this digitally connected world would stop abuses of power but the opposite has happened and we are now treated to even more brazen levels of hypocrisy and corruption (Trump, Khassoggi, Epstein, Andrew .... )Because CAS have said we're innocent of the charges they looked at. If the emails were deemed evidence enough we'd be banned. What will be interesting really is how many charges were time barred and how many were proven not guilty.
Well the line in question says "The CAS award emphasized that most of the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred"... So the word "most" is an odd one to use as it suggests that some were?Doesn't saying unable to be proven mean innocence and back up the headline. I mean that's exactly how people are found not guilty, there is no proof they are guilty. That's exactly how it works...
This guys not a thief because we can't prove he stole anything... I don't understand why the goalposts are moved for City.
Would you prefer can't be proven, as proven false was indeed a massive over step on my part.Quote me please, i've been reading the statement and don't see that comment.
You don’t think it’s strange that no City player has agitated for a move since the money came pouring in? Even United, a much more successful club, couldn’t stop Ronaldo wanting to move.Has he? He showed me a link to Mancini being paid by two organisations. Pretty sure he wasn't a player for one and didnt show any proof he didnt act as an advisor.
The "charges" were based on accounts periods 2011/2012 to 2015/16.So you only read the headline then?
It says that most of the alleged breaches was either not established or time-barred, i.e. in some cases it was established but time-barred and in other cases it was not established. Either the headline is just wrong or they should have added context in the statement that actually backs up the headline. Nothing in the statement implies that they could say with certainty that City did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions.
Masking something or covering something up some might sayCity press release has just announced a multimillion deal for a new official club deodorant sponsor.
And this one.From the leaks? Have you not seen? Pep's been getting back handers for years. Here's one for you:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...bu-dhabi-money-second-contract-sheikh-mansour
CAS found you guilty but the evidence was time barred! The world knows you’re bent nowExcept me and CAS too which is much more important.
More hyperbole, if we are all honest, there is no way for a team like Aston Villa, for example, to compete with the likes of United. There is no way they are catching up financially to acquire the players they need to challenge you for the title bar a fluke (Leicester). That lack of competition never seem to bother anyone before!The end of the PL as we know it. I detest the prospect of moving to a Euro Super League. This now looks the only way forward. There's now no way to compete with the money & corruption of Abu Dhabi & (soon) the Saudis. There is absolutely nothing to stop them now in their pursuit of destroying the league.
You have to be very concerned about the long term future of the PL. The big broadcasting deals will dry up quicker than a puddle in the Sahara when the likes of Utd & Liverpool leave & the league becomes a Scottish League replica. Hard to imagine people stumping up subscription fees to watch City & Newcastle wallop the likes of Burnley, Palace & Southampton week in week out.
FFSThere, you got your wish. Thanks for the jinx, mate.
How can we compete with the sugar-daddy clubs now anyway? City just gave everyone a big statement that their money can buy anything. Even FFP bows down to their huge mountain of money.
If he makes up enough, maybe something will end up being right.He is having an absolute mare on here so glad I was born to the red side of Manchester, would hate trying to defend this lot.
You were only found not guilty due to the allegations being time barred. You are guilty but have escaped justice on a technicality. It's complete stupidity on UEFA's part to institute the 5 year limit.So you are saying not guilty does not equal not guilty? but its City fans who don't make sense.
Do you know how not guilty works? Its because you can't be proven guilty. If you are not guilty it means legally you didn't commit the crime.
CAS have said we are not guilty, you can take digs but that's their verdict. I don't know how that doesn't sink in. Not guilty means not guilty,Well it doesn't help when you start making things up to fit your own agenda, very trump supporter like
And that’s fine, The evidence for whatever reason wasn’t enough so congratulations.Except me and CAS too which is much more important.
Yes, as those are two completely different statements.Would you prefer can't be proven, as proven false was indeed a massive over step on my part.
They very much did do that thoughBecause CAS have said we're innocent of the charges they looked at. If the emails were deemed evidence enough we'd be banned. What will be interesting really is how many charges were time barred and how many were proven not guilty.
Somebodies angry. A normal person accepts the judgement of the those in the know instead of throwing around random unfounded accusations.
Here's the headline from CAS in case you forgot: MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS BUT DID FAIL TO COOPERATE WITH THE UEFA AUTHORITIES The bold part is important
I can see one or two problems with that!What's the best platform to make a petition for all fans of historic clubs to sign and show their owners that they have the backing of us fans to create a non-sheik private League as substitution for CL?
Aye, I guess you right, bless their little cotton socks, thinking they are a 'proper club'If he makes up enough, maybe something will end up being right.
I feel for City fans though, they've been given a raw deal really. Get taken over and win trophies but cheat in the process. Anyone with an ounce of morales would find that hard to defend and yet... here we are. I'd be ashamed to be a City fan today because its clear if you read the CAS and UEFA statements that City got off the hook with the 5 year regulation. They cheated and due to a silly loophole got away with it. Don't really blame UEFA in this except for having a dumb ass regulation which clearly needs changing.