Insignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no evidence of any wrong doing and more than likely the time barred ones would be the same. I'd like to apologise to city for believing them guilty.
Would now be great to see uefa go over the books of the leagues 19 other clubs so they can drag them through the mud wrongly too.
Hahaha, do you even believe that yourself? How does blatant attempts to funnel cash through other companies hidden as sponsorship change meaning due to context? Are you saying it was meant as a joke? Sarcasm?City always claimed the emails were out of context, there is a big difference
You're having a laugh surely? Do you honestly believe Man City didn't break the rules?Insignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no evidence of any wrong doing and more than likely the time barred ones would be the same. I'd like to apologise to city for believing them guilty.
Would now be great to see uefa go over the books of the leagues 19 other clubs so they can drag them through the mud wrongly too.
This will be fun to watch, clubs already can be very creative in salary matters (personal sponsorhip deals with companies that support the club, gear sponsors etc.)They are going to have to revisit FFP. Salary cap incoming.
No, it only sets a precedent for clubs to not share information if they believe UEFA are pursuing a flawed case against them that will not stand up in an independent court. If UEFA had a stronger case, I can guarantee City would have done everything they could to cooperate and push for a settlement with them, as the club have done previously. It was a risky strategy for City but it tells you that they must have been very, very confident in their position.Well then they probably shouldn't go branding terms like "significant" around...
Considering this sets a precedent for clubs not to share information they may deem to be harmful with UEFA (I mean why after this any sane club would be open/assist with any investigation I do not know) I would say that's a pretty big deal. Is 10million the standard fine for not cooperating? Seems pretty low if it is.
Also do we definitely know the ban was just for the breach and the fine was for the breach+not sharing info? I assume this must be the case/we do know this but I'm not sure.
Insignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no evidence of any wrong doing and more than likely the time barred ones would be the same. I'd like to apologise to city for believing them guilty.
Would now be great to see uefa go over the books of the leagues 19 other clubs so they can drag them through the mud wrongly too.
they did though, City refused to do a deal with UEFA last year and wanted it to go to CAS straight away as they believed they were in the right.UEFA did it’s bit. They just never knew they didn’t have ultimate jurisdiction over their own business!
Here I thought Scousers were the most deluded fanbaseInsignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no evidence of any wrong doing and more than likely the time barred ones would be the same. I'd like to apologise to city for believing them guilty.
Would now be great to see uefa go over the books of the leagues 19 other clubs so they can drag them through the mud wrongly too.
Insignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no evidence of any wrong doing and more than likely the time barred ones would be the same. I'd like to apologise to city for believing them guilty.
Would now be great to see uefa go over the books of the leagues 19 other clubs so they can drag them through the mud wrongly too.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Maybe this time, though I'm not sure what took them so long. I'm sure City have been involved in similar practices which saw Chelsea get their transfer ban, too.UEFA did it’s bit. They just never knew they didn’t have ultimate jurisdiction over their own business!
This! It's clear City did something but it's time-barren now and UEFA didn't follow their own rules. Sometimes two things can be right at the same time.It appears that most people commenting don't even understand the case. The whole case was that the owners were injecting money directly not the club and disguising it as sponsorship money. CAS have vindicated them and the fine is NOT for breaking FFP rules, but for NOT co-operating with UEFA's investigation.
If anything, this shows incompetency and perhaps an agenda from UEFA. Every sponsorship deal with ties to the owner is investigated by UEFA, as per their FFP rules. Any deal found not to be fair market value will be adjusted to fall in line with it. Sponsorships cannot be inflated.
Bartomeu and Hoeness were both vocal about City's finances and the original investigation and ruling back in February and March. Barcelona have also been outspoken against the likes of City and PSG since the loss of Neymar. It's fairly well documented...Really? Because I haven't a clue what he's on about in the first half of it.
If I'm not mistaken that decision isn't even that waterproof. It's based on a problem of language, CAS created a jurisprudence based on the fact that these financial statements weren't in the last three years in 2019, as far as I can see nothing says that it has to.Im confused. If the decision was made because of time-barring (ie City were guilty but the information was brought forward too late) but City themselves have been found guilty of not cooperating (ie kicking the can down the road) then surely that should impact the decision to throw the case out purely on a time technicality??
I mean CAS did allude to the fact that City breached some of the regulations and those could not be charged due to UEFA’s self imposed statute of limitations. The severity of these breaches remains to be seen (we will find out in a few days when the full report is published). However, we do now know that city’s lack of cooperation hid certain breaches from UEFA’s initial investigation and therefore the investigation wasn’t flawed.No. Any single lawyer would advise you the exact opposite. Whether you are guilty or not becomes immaterial. If they cannot prosecute you, (a) it is not in your benefit to cooperate, (b) you would likely conclude they are not acting fairly or impartially if they want to prosecute you for something on a clearly flawed basis.
I always listen to thee justice system. I told duffer yesterday we're innocent like OJ.You're having a laugh surely? Do you honestly believe Man City didn't break the rules?
Of course they knew that. They didn't just find about the existence of CAS when City lodged their appeal...UEFA did it’s bit. They just never knew they didn’t have ultimate jurisdiction over their own business!
… isn’t that … suspicious?they did though, City refused to do a deal with UEFA last year and wanted it to go to CAS straight away as they believed they were in the right.
It's worth remembering that this isn't The justice system, it's a private arbitration court linked to the IOC.I always listen to thee justice system. I told duffer yesterday we're innocent like OJ.
nah dude we're guilty as feck.
No, CAS did not allude to that. They said 'alleged breaches'. They are not making a comment on the legitimacy of those claims whatsoever. No, we do not know that City's lack of cooperation hid certain breaches from UEFA. Yes, we do know the investigation was flawed, otherwise City would now be banned for two-years.I mean CAS did allude to the fact that City breached some of the regulations and those could not be charged due to UEFA’s self imposed statute of limitations. The severity of these breaches remains to be seen (we will find out in a few days when the full report is published). However, we do now know that city’s lack of cooperation hid certain breaches from UEFA’s initial investigation and therefore the investigation wasn’t flawed.
Anyway I don’t buy this being the end of FFP I just think/naively hope it will give UEFA the kick up the arse to formulate more solid protocols in how they investigate. It seems more likely that they were foiled by their own ineptitude rather than City’s legal defence.
But how will UEFA ever build a strong case against a club if they don't have access to that clubs shit?No, it only sets a precedent for clubs to not share information if they believe UEFA are pursuing a flawed case against them that will not stand up in an independent court. If UEFA had a stronger case, I can guarantee City would have done everything they could to cooperate and push for a settlement with them, as the club have done previously. It was a risky strategy for City but it tells you that they must have been very, very confident in their position.
= guiltyI always listen to thee justice system. I told duffer yesterday we're innocent like OJ.
nah dude we're guilty as feck.
I think it was more you guys are incompetent and are trying to make a case off dodgy newspaper articles, we'll let people who arent sort this.… isn’t that … suspicious?
“We want to take it to this particular court immediately”
I hope you do not take this approach in real life. No matter how clean you think you are, if you have the option, never let the police/the government in to your business. They will look for something else to stick on you.If you thought someone was pursuing a flawed case why wouldn’t you just prove to them they are by cooperating?
‘I think you might be doing something against the rules’
‘Yeh well we aren’t but you can’t see the proof’
Vs
‘I think you might be doing something against the rule’
‘We aren’t, why don’t you take a look and after you see there is nothing wrong then stop pestering us.’
"I'm sorry if you feel you've been killed but, in fairness, your murder was out of context."Imagine killing someone and not getting caught until 5 years later. Here’s a fiver lad, all square?
"Get up and get over it! Your murder was 5 years ago.""I'm sorry if you feel you've been killed but, in fairness, your murder was out of context."
Honestly forgot they were banned.I'm sure AC Milan must be taking this news well