• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Financial Fair Play

Can anyone explain to me, in simple terms what city were actually accused of (I understood they were inflating sponsorship income by using subsidiary companies of the owners?) and what has changed in that discovery since the ban, as in are we saying that UEFA got it wrong or have they found a technicality to get off?
 
El Guepardo said:
How are charges time-barred? I understand the process, but didn’t realise that this could be applicable here.
Click to expand...

I think PSG got off similar charges because of the time bar. City argued they should as well (albeit without hiring mini-Platinis).

The report I heard said that CAS decided City didn't hide the dodgy payments, which given they were obvious for all to see might be technically correct.

P.S. I'm glad our prospects of 5th are remote. If United or Chelsea get 5th I'll feel better about the decision.
 
jts1882 said:
I think PSG got off similar charges because of the time bar. City argued they should as well (albeit without hiring mini-Platinis).

The report I heard said that CAS decided City didn't hide the dodgy payments, which given they were obvious for all to see might be technically correct.

P.S. I'm glad our prospects of 5th are remote. If United or Chelsea get 5th I'll feel better about the decision.
Click to expand...

I don’t think I’ll feel better about the decision although, admittedly it would be funny if Chelsea finished 5th and missed out.
City not being penalised sets a completely negative precedent, plus further strengthens City. I’m sure now they’ll spend big in the summer as a final big middle finger at all this. Whereas, had City been banned, it would have curtailed the spending of rival clubs, at a time when we ourselves are not spending, and would mean that we remained at a more competitive level to them.
 
Is anyone really surprised?

Methinks officials at organisations such Uooeffa and The Court of Arbitration for Sport are corrupted by the $$$$ and the Abudabishakey bepimpin hospitality hoe piccies...

Work that one out you clever things...:cool:
 
city are no different from chelsea.
we have to suck it up and move on!
And remember it tinkles off United and Liverpool :D
 
nelto said:
I have a dream that this could be the time that allows Uncle Joe to slice off about 1.5 billion from his fortune, pay off the Stadium and give Jose what he needs to completely rebuild the squad.

Then I'll wake up and have my cornflakes.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't tinkle on us if we were on fire
 
nelto said:
I have a dream that this could be the time that allows Uncle Joe to slice off about 1.5 billion from his fortune, pay off the Stadium and give Jose what he needs to completely rebuild the squad.

Then I'll wake up and have my cornflakes.
Click to expand...

I doubt “uncle Joe” has much of his rumoured $1.5b sitting around in liquidity. Most will be already committed, in the short term, in lone guarantees and other such financial agreements.
 
Last edited:
Not sure why the court adjudged them to be innocent, the direct evidence was there, and the circumstantial evidence of financial 'doping' was there for all to see. The football authorities have made a mockery of themselves and financial fair play.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Not sure why the court adjudged them to be innocent, the direct evidence was there, and the circumstantial evidence of financial 'doping' was there for all to see. The football authorities have made a mockery of themselves and financial fair play.
Click to expand...

According to 5Live’s analysis of it this evening it’s to do with UEFA not understanding its own rules.
 
A date cut-off isn't too complicated to understand. They used that to let off PSG, who have gone on to spend ridiculous amounts on transfers. I think UEFA exposed the weakness of their case by picking City over PSG and not going for both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back