I would like to see more collaboration between Ian Cheeseman and fabled Bristol Post political editor; Ian Onions. I feel that together, they could really bring a fresh, crisp new angle to sports-cum-political reporting.
Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
I would like to see more collaboration between Ian Cheeseman and fabled Bristol Post political editor; Ian Onions. I feel that together, they could really bring a fresh, crisp new angle to sports-cum-political reporting.
According to him Jude Bellingham to United is a done deal. He posted that about a day before the Dortmund news broke. Yeah, very doubtful to put it mildly
They banned Barcelona and Chelsea for far less.
Imagine UEFA leaked fake information as a wind up before annihilating City and their journos with an extended ban, bigger fine and kicking Pep Guardiola up the arse.
Completely different, that’s FIFA. And UEFA do not have the power to impose transfer bans on clubs.
He was elected by the clubs chairmen, not UEFA.
Blame nepotism and inter-club politics.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/psg...uefa-executive-committee.444736/post-23635580
He stretches into areas he doesn't know about in fairness.
Should stick to Leicester team news.
The GOAT has weighed in (Shaun, of course) that he's hearing City'll be fine too. As far as I'm concerned that's gospel 
From what I’ve been reading, city are raising mostly technical arguments that the internal emails that were supposedly relied on by UEFA were acquired through hacks and therefore should’ve been inadmissible. So how about the other argument, why the feck were city deliberately withholding relevant communications that went to the root of the issue. Would be an absolute joke if city get off on a technical evidentiary issue when it’s clear they’ve been cooking their books.
Last edited:
I expect UEFA and Manchester City already know, probably told on the 9th before the planned public date.
City rumoured to evade the ban. So shocking! Who would have thought?Fecking corrupt cnuts. Wonder how much sugar daddy paid in bribes.
No, they don't. CAS don't tell anyone the outcome of a ruling until the day of the announcement. City and UEFA will find out hours before we do.
Well, if they're exonerated, it'll prove once again football is made for billionaires, criminals or otherwise, to play their games.
You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to see they deserved the ban. No way in hell should they have the commercial deals they have. Then again, Wirecard was not audited by their auditors for years, so crime laws seem to apply only to normal people, not to those with money.
This is not me being bitter we potentially won't get CL because of this but a reflection on the sport. And this is without discussing how the PL is and has turned a blind eye to this debacle for years.
You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to see they deserved the ban. No way in hell should they have the commercial deals they have. Then again, Wirecard was not audited by their auditors for years, so crime laws seem to apply only to normal people, not to those with money.
This is not me being bitter we potentially won't get CL because of this but a reflection on the sport. And this is without discussing how the PL is and has turned a blind eye to this debacle for years.
Right, I must have missed something but where the feck is this rumour coming from? All I see is people on here talking about a rumour. I think you lot are making it up amongst yourselves and believing it.
Show me where someone who might know something has suggested they will get away with this.
So nothing yet?
Last edited:
He's a fake, and one of those "Twitter ITKs"
Not just money, they are backed by a state. Politics come into play.
Of course they receive word early. They already know, that's why all their mouthpieces are gleeful.
Rancid cnuts.
Rancid cnuts.
He`s a licensed Sports Lawyer though he`s talking purely from a professional point of view as someone who works along that line
feck em either way.
Where did you hear that?
It won't be good if they get away with it, but if we get Top 4 it isn't our problem. Whoever finishes fifth might have something to moan about.
City will probably fill the gap in Uefa's finances due to lockdown and ironically all will be well....
No where, it’s this place that started the rumour and it now talking about it like it’s come from a solid source
Is it working days? Or not?
Seems to be the trend here, if it's negative news it's the gospel truth.
Feck it - I hope it's overturned. It'll keep our lads sharp for the rest of the season and then I hope we hammer them in the knockouts next year.
They'll never be a legitimate club and this ban would only allow them to feel righteous and hard done by.
They'll never be a legitimate club and this ban would only allow them to feel righteous and hard done by.
This place didn't start any rumour.
It's Cheeseman's tweet and various City hangers on all suddenly being smug and certain that's started it.
Just to be clear again - is it likely the official confirmation for Monday will be leaked tomorrow as the club is briefed? Or will the outcome likely be unknown for all parties until its released
I imagine they already know. I cannot see how CAS only gives them an hour before they announce. My guess is that they were told Friday so they had the weekend to prep for the Monday or at the very least they'll be told tomorrow.
For me, I am not so worried about the ban. I have always been of the opinion that FFP was designed to keep the established powers powerful as I just cannot see how it is fair for the big clubs to load up on debt, yet external investment is declined. Therefore, my real interest is whether the reason City get away with it is due to FFP being illegal or some other reason.
I can’t believe UEFA went to this hearing without having all evidence bullet proof! How can they let City get away like that, they better counter appeal right away with the real arguments!
It's difficult for an organisation with limited financial power and a primary interest in the good of football to go up against an organisation with unlimited financial power and a primary self interest in themselves.
Unlikely. It's a ruling. The reading of the ruling will likely be before all concerned parties (online in this case) and the news will be on twitter within minutes. It's no secret because the FA and co will also need to know if an english team is getting banned. Unless all the arbitrators have been bribed the outcome of the ruling wont be known by anyone before the stated date and time
Last edited:
Honestly I don't find the rumours and supposed leaks very convincing. I'm considering it's stil 50/50 until the announcement is made on Monday.
How can you not see that CAS only gives them a couple hours notice?
If you went to court, would the judge call you up on a Friday and tell you the outcome of your trail before you went in on the Monday so you could prepare yourself?
I don’t know why people are trying to convince themselves city know something when they’re just being smug, arrogant bellends.
We’ll know the outcome tomorrow just like the rest of the weirdos who are pretending they know something
Pep was asked a question about it after the match against Brighton and he didn’t sound anywhere confident enough to know they “definitely” were already exonerated.
I think maybe their lawyers feel like they did a good job and expect to get off, hence why maybe the mood at city is positive.
I think maybe their lawyers feel like they did a good job and expect to get off, hence why maybe the mood at city is positive.
Regardless of whether city know, it’s in their interest to be confident so they can act all shocked and disgusted when they’re guilty.
Be a farce if they don't even get a year now, not surprised though unfortunately. The Mr Burns legal team and brown envelopes are out
Actually, yes. In certain cases, libel being one, lawyers on both sides are told the verdict 24hrs before it is delivered. They are not allowed to inform their client of the outcome and could be dis-barred if they do but they are certainly told and can then prepare their statements.