A trained law consultant, trained twice?
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th Sep 2024 | Concluded 9th Dec 2024 - Awaiting outcome
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
But it wasn't dismissed they just reduced the fine to €10m instead of €30m
Yeah I can't believe people are still trying to defend them, watched a video yesterday with an Arsenal fan saying its wrong and owners should be able to spend whatever they want even if it puts the club at risk because its not sustainable
You were defending their sponsors, that's why I'm saying you're wrong.
Lille won the league, are they pulling PSG money based on that? No.
I'm saying, if their sponsorships have been built on the foundation of a fake inflated one, then all ones following were conned.
You're being an idiot. You know damn well I wasn't saying sponsors are charities. I even said in my comment, they can get 'better placements' - using advert boards pitchside as an example.
If one Company paid them a billion and a bigger company see's a fake company paying X amount, the larger company will naturally pay more [as books are cooked] to take top spot on those boards.
You absolutely reek of a plant.
Did you forget your Bluemoon login?
Last edited:
Well fill your boots its all been sat in this article for nearly a year.
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...-state-a-2ad5b586-1d82-4a21-8065-f3c081cd91a4
Why does it matter who I support for goodness sakes? If I told you wouldn't believe me anyways (I'm a United fan). Who I support has nothing to do with my posts in this thread, or other threads in the Football Forum (more neutral compared to the United side). Just call things as I see it
If the emails were a smoking gun (to CAS is the key word), the 2 year ban from Europe would not have been revoked. I don't think City are innocent. UEFA didn't meet the needed threshold of proof upon appeal.
Pretty sure UEFA didn’t rely on the emails because they were focusing on other areas of their case and they didn’t contribute to it.
It was explained on 5 live yesterday but I have a memory like a sieve
City actually disproved many of those emails outside time barred too in CAS, despite what people read here. Whether the PL will buy the same argument is interesting.
For example the famous Aabar letter when it says "you'll pay x and his highness will pay y" Der Spiegel and co. even myself presumed it was a clear admission of guilt, the problem being it would have to read "his royal highness" or the Abu Dhabi equivalent for it to be Mansour. The Sheik in question was actually not Mansour at but Sheik Tahnoon, who was high up at Aabar and from the Abu Dhabi tourist authority and nothing to do with the royal family (debateable but successfully argued by Cities lawyers).
I think it will stick this time but the idea City won't be able to fight it or be found not guilty on the majority of these charges is possible (even if we are guilty)
The cynic in me see's just enough of these charges sticking for not enough to be relegated, but enough to warrant a heavy point deduction, transfer ban and heavy fine, just enough for the PL to say "We don't need no regulator, see how tough we are", placate the big clubs and not drive City towards team ESL.
If United or Liverpool get relegated there will be a drop for sure. In Asia those are the two most supported teams.
Like Martin Samuel, allegedly.
Shows the incompetency of UEFA... or the actual value of this evidence... time will tell for sure
Chelsea didn't organically grow mate.
Newcastle maybe a better example, in the short term.
UEFA is Qatar, do you really think they would go against Abu Dhabi (or the Saudis, if you like), especially when you also consider they are all together bribing FIFA (for WC with now the Saudis expecting 2030 award) and half European Parliament under the however legal (when aptily disclosed) lobbying umbrella?
Chelsea are still not at the level the top clubs are.
They spent alot on transfers, agreed. Managers were sacked if they didnt win. Which is why they won alot, they backed the manager.
They didn't say, we are the biggest club, they didnt make up numbers.
It was, I am the owner and I am backing my club.
I think this may ultimately be the driving reason they will be relegated or receive a points deduction significant enough to do so. It's an egregious affront to the league, several divisions down even.
They didn't make up the numbers and took their punishment on the chin instead of fighting it with lawyers for a decade and commiting fraud.
Chelsea look like child's mischief in comparison.
Erm, it was a different reason. Chelsea were not punished for cooking the books, they got a ban for signing underage players, its not anywhere near the same.
In the early 00s they outspent everyone, City style before FFP.
Watch this from 2003 - 2010.
No I get that Chelsea spent alot of money. No one is denying that.
A club to breach the top clubs will have to spend alot of money.
Spending money does not equal big club. City act like a big club when they are not. They showing revenues of Real / United, which anyone knows its not true.
Imagine they were stock exchange listed entity. Those involved would face criminal cases.
I thought a big issue for the UEFA case was also the legality of how the email evidence was acquired, which made it inadmissible?
I'm sure there's a genuine mix or Fraudulent behaviour in those emails, along with plenty of them being taken out of context altogether.
I'll admit to not knowing all the specifics though.
Cheers mate
UCity played here during a pre-season tour a few years back, so the locals know who they are but probably think they were from Manchester, NH or maybe TN as that's closerWhy is everyone so sure they wont get demoted? Its the only punishment that would be meaningful and the PL need it to be meaningful. The consequence needs to be worse than the crime otherwise all teams will fancy their chances at gaining many seasons of success if the punishment is just one bad season and a bit of money. Id sacrifice ending up 10th one season if it meant winning 3/4 titles before hand.
After this, financial cheating must seen to be not an option, not something that generates a punishment worth risking for
After this, financial cheating must seen to be not an option, not something that generates a punishment worth risking for
And their wages, along with everyone else has absolutely fecked them over.
They don't have the luxury if a state city handing them a few billion to cover their losses disguised as advertising income.
It's not a level playing field.
Lovely stuff
UK journalists love the taste of City semen
Whats your account on bluemoon?
I can't remember who it was but some podcast had journalists talking about how City look after them the best when it comes to catering/refreshments/facilities so yeah, they're easily bought.
I think that's a massive if.
Do people really buy that the PL are doing this to look tough before regulators come in. Why would they spend all that time working on it just to throw it out there now to try and make themselves look big and tough? It makes no sense.
Maybe they had enough information and got fed up of City not cooperating for the last 4 years and just said, right fcuk this and fcuk them, we've has enough. To hell with it, let's try and nail the cnuts now.
The question really is, how much can the PL prove and make stick. Obviously they feel it's a lot if they can put 100 breaches out there. They really need to make sure they have everything right, before they dish out any punishment. Otherwise they leave it open to appeals and cases that could drag on for years.
That's why I think it'll all be settled quite amicably behind the scenes. Maybe an immaterial points deduction, miniscule fine and maybe even a 1 or 2 window transfer ban.
Not true. UEFA had the evidence but it was excluded due to it being statute barred. It was a win on a limitations argument, it had nothing to do with the substance and merits of the evidence.
Why would Blackburn lie about the transfer fee?
I deleted a nasty response to this post. I'm not sure what to type in replacement. That is all.
Because City have thugs and means of coercing Dortmund and Atletico and Liverpool of underreporting transfer receipts so it makes City look better
I've been told this by someone on here. True story.
It's an interesting theory, that's for sure.
Underreporting wages makes sense for the other party, because the employee gets more money for accepting it and I doubt the employee breaks any rules. For transfer fees the receiving clubs would damage themselves FFP wise, break the rules and therefore risk sanctions, and probably do some accounting fraud and risk the government coming for them as well. Santa Cruz was bought before FFP was a thing also.
Why would it be a problem for Barcelona to have a great homegrown player?
I didn't think it was a problem
Underreporting wages is tax fraud. If City have indeed paid De Bruyne 200k under the table without reporting wages, then both player and club have cheated the Exchequer and the PL should be the least of their problems.
(Definitely the player. If the club has to pay payroll taxes based on employee income then they would be guilty of tax fraud).
I don’t read any of the so called Sports writers as they are all up City’s arse. I did watch some programme where they asked which club supplied the best lunch and they all agreed City did. Gave them all a roast dinner for free. I’d write anything for a free roast. Samuels is a Spurs fan so is irrelevant. I bet he doesn’t mention the revenues of the old guard are legal and attained after years of success and having huge worldwide fan bases and genuine sponsors. Sponsors are not flocking to City for a number of reasons. Human rights, treatment of women even the treatment of Sparky who they sacked after they gave two salaries Mancini the job. It’s clear City are as guilty as hell. Now who will sit on the ‘Independent’ board, that will be where City concentrate their efforts.