Terminator
You don’t care what’s in the report?
Then your opinion on the matter is irrelevant and ignorant.
Ass covering? CAS are independent. Whose ass are they covering exactly?
Ripley - as I understand it the fine was for disregarding the principle of financial transparency and obstruction of investigation; is that correct?
That doesn't feel like an exoneration to me so what am I missing?
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 6 minutes ago
That was only part of CAS’s statement Pride.
Dr Tobias - I’ll ask you. What was the fine for?
Terminator - again, same question for you. Your last reply clears up nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It should clear it up for you. I don’t care what’s in the report, it’s all just ass covering. We all know there’s nothing City won’t do to protect themselves. If that ban was upheld City would have become an irrelevance, and their owners couldn’t let that happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think their owners bribed the CAS?
I don't know but you don't get fined for being innocent.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 54 minutes ago
Lots of our fan groups are saying we should applaud Sheffield United onto the pitch next season for not going along with the sheep.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would do this gladly.
Dr Tobias
You don’t know?
Yet another poster who is ignorantly jumping to a conclusion. Educate yourself. A simple google search will tell you exactly what it is for.
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
So many comments from fans of other clubs who are quick to judge but incredibly slow to justify why they think the way they do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I read you got off on technicalities, not because you were proven innocent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not get off on any technicalities.
The main charge could not be proven by UEFA for periods not time barred.
Go read the official judgement again.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 13 minutes ago
Pride, what have you read?
The statement from CAS is absolutely clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They couldn't consider evidence over 5 years old as it is outside of the UEFA regulations. Even though the time period being investigated was over the same period.
Seems a bit dodgy to me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence over 5 years were discarded because of UEFA's own rule. Nothing to do with City.
Even the period excluded from the 5 year rule, UEFA don't have evidence to back their judgement.
I understand as the RPTs, (related party transactions) Uefa found City guilty of were completed over 5yrs ago, CAS could not consider them. Much like statute of limitation.
City fought tooth and nail to impede the investigative process (and were fined for doing so).
A case of the judgement being set aside, rather than City being found 'innocent'
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
So many comments from fans of other clubs who are quick to judge but incredibly slow to justify why they think the way they do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I read you got off on technicalities, not because you were proven innocent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not get off on any technicalities.
The main charge could not be proven by UEFA for periods not time barred.
Go read the official judgement again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't be proved is not the same as proven innocent in a court case
Yes Naby - it was for not complying with UEFA’S own investigation.
Right at the outset, when UEFA announced their punishment, City immediately made their own statement, saying it was flawed and prejudicial. And that they would take it to CAS at the “earliest opportunity”. They intentionally refused to deal with UEFA for this reason.
And because that alone is against the rules, that is the reason for the fine.
That is a separate issue to the actual allegations that were made, and indeed a separate issue to the actual ban itself.
Pretty sure they would have signed that letter in front of City officials if they and been present.
Heard Pep crying for an apology, fecking weirdo, saying if your not happy, come see our CEO.🤔
Who the actual f*ck do City think they are, the fecking mob. 😂😂😂
Fecking pathetic little club. 😂
Have CAS released a full report?
My understanding is that the main charge was over Mansour personally funding Etihad to pay City’s sponsorship as Etihad were making losses. But CAS threw that out.
What exactly were the time barred charges?
Pride,
What was it again that City we’re accused of? What was the reason for the ban in the first place?
And what was CAS’s statement in regards to that accusation exactly?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 seconds ago
Yes Naby - it was for not complying with UEFA’S own investigation.
Right at the outset, when UEFA announced their punishment, City immediately made their own statement, saying it was flawed and prejudicial. And that they would take it to CAS at the “earliest opportunity”. They intentionally refused to deal with UEFA for this reason.
And because that alone is against the rules, that is the reason for the fine.
That is a separate issue to the actual allegations that were made, and indeed a separate issue to the actual ban itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So after you massive build up, you actually have no actual point to make, do you? The long and short of it is that City are guilty but got away with it because UEFA are grossly incompetent.
Do any City fans actually believe their club is innocent?
Where's the woe?
Justice has been served and City fans are jubilant. The only 'woe' seems to be in the heads of Klopp and Mourinho.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 1 minute ago
Do any City fans actually believe their club is innocent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These same fans would be screaming blue murder if this was United.
Their full of sh*t. 😂
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
So many comments from fans of other clubs who are quick to judge but incredibly slow to justify why they think the way they do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I read you got off on technicalities, not because you were proven innocent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not get off on any technicalities.
The main charge could not be proven by UEFA for periods not time barred.
Go read the official judgement again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't be proved is not the same as proven innocent in a court case
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also it doesn't mean we can't defend ourselves if those years were considered.
The main accusation was found out to be a lie. UEFA punished City on a trumped up charge which could not stand in a court of law.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes Naby - it was for not complying with UEFA’S own investigation.
Right at the outset, when UEFA announced their punishment, City immediately made their own statement, saying it was flawed and prejudicial. And that they would take it to CAS at the “earliest opportunity”. They intentionally refused to deal with UEFA for this reason.
And because that alone is against the rules, that is the reason for the fine.
That is a separate issue to the actual allegations that were made, and indeed a separate issue to the actual ban itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get the mistrust in the process but CAS is the fall-back for that surely? If the process was floored then it would have ended up in the same place but without the obstruction of investigation.
Interesting parallel (albeit vastly different context), Rio never failed a drug test but he did fail to comply with the test. Anyone think he was innocent?
I think the logic that most people would use is that you don’t dodge a drugs test unless you think you’re going to fail and you don’t obstruct an investigation unless there’s something you don’t want investigated.
I can't claim any great insight into the charges brought against City and don't actually care whether you're banned or not, partly because I'm cautiously in favour of owners being allowed to invest in their club and partly because I think not being banned will help our league defence next year. However, to me it feels much more like being found not guilty as opposed to being found innocent.
I firmly believe Liverpool failed FFP in 2013.
They were cleared because of 'creative accountancy' although everyone knew it was a scam.
Life moved on.
comment by Imran The King Khan (U10026)
posted 8 minutes ago
Have CAS released a full report?
My understanding is that the main charge was over Mansour personally funding Etihad to pay City’s sponsorship as Etihad were making losses. But CAS threw that out.
What exactly were the time barred charges?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS threw that out because there was no proof.
Time barred could relate possibly to the 2012-2013 period. But even for the periods that were considered, UEFA could not provide evidence to back their decision. If that's not corruption, then I don't know what else is.
But Rio passed his drug test and City were found not guilty by CAS, so that analogy doesn’t really work.
I get that it doesn’t look good from City’s perspective to be obstructing the process, but I do think UEFA’s process needs to be looked at seeing as an independent body has thrown out their charges.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 minutes ago
Do any City fans actually believe their club is innocent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An independent court has reviewed the evidence for periods not time barred and City have been declared innocent. It doesn't matter what any fan think.
Sign in if you want to comment
Hateful 8
Page 2 of 11
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 14/7/20
Terminator
You don’t care what’s in the report?
Then your opinion on the matter is irrelevant and ignorant.
Ass covering? CAS are independent. Whose ass are they covering exactly?
posted on 14/7/20
Ripley - as I understand it the fine was for disregarding the principle of financial transparency and obstruction of investigation; is that correct?
That doesn't feel like an exoneration to me so what am I missing?
posted on 14/7/20
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 6 minutes ago
That was only part of CAS’s statement Pride.
Dr Tobias - I’ll ask you. What was the fine for?
Terminator - again, same question for you. Your last reply clears up nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It should clear it up for you. I don’t care what’s in the report, it’s all just ass covering. We all know there’s nothing City won’t do to protect themselves. If that ban was upheld City would have become an irrelevance, and their owners couldn’t let that happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think their owners bribed the CAS?
posted on 14/7/20
I don't know but you don't get fined for being innocent.
posted on 14/7/20
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 54 minutes ago
Lots of our fan groups are saying we should applaud Sheffield United onto the pitch next season for not going along with the sheep.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would do this gladly.
posted on 14/7/20
Dr Tobias
You don’t know?
Yet another poster who is ignorantly jumping to a conclusion. Educate yourself. A simple google search will tell you exactly what it is for.
posted on 14/7/20
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
So many comments from fans of other clubs who are quick to judge but incredibly slow to justify why they think the way they do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I read you got off on technicalities, not because you were proven innocent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not get off on any technicalities.
The main charge could not be proven by UEFA for periods not time barred.
Go read the official judgement again.
posted on 14/7/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/7/20
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 13 minutes ago
Pride, what have you read?
The statement from CAS is absolutely clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They couldn't consider evidence over 5 years old as it is outside of the UEFA regulations. Even though the time period being investigated was over the same period.
Seems a bit dodgy to me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence over 5 years were discarded because of UEFA's own rule. Nothing to do with City.
Even the period excluded from the 5 year rule, UEFA don't have evidence to back their judgement.
posted on 14/7/20
I understand as the RPTs, (related party transactions) Uefa found City guilty of were completed over 5yrs ago, CAS could not consider them. Much like statute of limitation.
City fought tooth and nail to impede the investigative process (and were fined for doing so).
A case of the judgement being set aside, rather than City being found 'innocent'
posted on 14/7/20
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
So many comments from fans of other clubs who are quick to judge but incredibly slow to justify why they think the way they do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I read you got off on technicalities, not because you were proven innocent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not get off on any technicalities.
The main charge could not be proven by UEFA for periods not time barred.
Go read the official judgement again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't be proved is not the same as proven innocent in a court case
posted on 14/7/20
Yes Naby - it was for not complying with UEFA’S own investigation.
Right at the outset, when UEFA announced their punishment, City immediately made their own statement, saying it was flawed and prejudicial. And that they would take it to CAS at the “earliest opportunity”. They intentionally refused to deal with UEFA for this reason.
And because that alone is against the rules, that is the reason for the fine.
That is a separate issue to the actual allegations that were made, and indeed a separate issue to the actual ban itself.
posted on 14/7/20
Pretty sure they would have signed that letter in front of City officials if they and been present.
Heard Pep crying for an apology, fecking weirdo, saying if your not happy, come see our CEO.🤔
Who the actual f*ck do City think they are, the fecking mob. 😂😂😂
Fecking pathetic little club. 😂
posted on 14/7/20
Have CAS released a full report?
My understanding is that the main charge was over Mansour personally funding Etihad to pay City’s sponsorship as Etihad were making losses. But CAS threw that out.
What exactly were the time barred charges?
posted on 14/7/20
Pride,
What was it again that City we’re accused of? What was the reason for the ban in the first place?
And what was CAS’s statement in regards to that accusation exactly?
posted on 14/7/20
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 seconds ago
Yes Naby - it was for not complying with UEFA’S own investigation.
Right at the outset, when UEFA announced their punishment, City immediately made their own statement, saying it was flawed and prejudicial. And that they would take it to CAS at the “earliest opportunity”. They intentionally refused to deal with UEFA for this reason.
And because that alone is against the rules, that is the reason for the fine.
That is a separate issue to the actual allegations that were made, and indeed a separate issue to the actual ban itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So after you massive build up, you actually have no actual point to make, do you? The long and short of it is that City are guilty but got away with it because UEFA are grossly incompetent.
posted on 14/7/20
Do any City fans actually believe their club is innocent?
posted on 14/7/20
Where's the woe?
Justice has been served and City fans are jubilant. The only 'woe' seems to be in the heads of Klopp and Mourinho.
posted on 14/7/20
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 1 minute ago
Do any City fans actually believe their club is innocent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These same fans would be screaming blue murder if this was United.
Their full of sh*t. 😂
posted on 14/7/20
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
So many comments from fans of other clubs who are quick to judge but incredibly slow to justify why they think the way they do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I read you got off on technicalities, not because you were proven innocent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not get off on any technicalities.
The main charge could not be proven by UEFA for periods not time barred.
Go read the official judgement again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't be proved is not the same as proven innocent in a court case
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also it doesn't mean we can't defend ourselves if those years were considered.
The main accusation was found out to be a lie. UEFA punished City on a trumped up charge which could not stand in a court of law.
posted on 14/7/20
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes Naby - it was for not complying with UEFA’S own investigation.
Right at the outset, when UEFA announced their punishment, City immediately made their own statement, saying it was flawed and prejudicial. And that they would take it to CAS at the “earliest opportunity”. They intentionally refused to deal with UEFA for this reason.
And because that alone is against the rules, that is the reason for the fine.
That is a separate issue to the actual allegations that were made, and indeed a separate issue to the actual ban itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get the mistrust in the process but CAS is the fall-back for that surely? If the process was floored then it would have ended up in the same place but without the obstruction of investigation.
Interesting parallel (albeit vastly different context), Rio never failed a drug test but he did fail to comply with the test. Anyone think he was innocent?
I think the logic that most people would use is that you don’t dodge a drugs test unless you think you’re going to fail and you don’t obstruct an investigation unless there’s something you don’t want investigated.
I can't claim any great insight into the charges brought against City and don't actually care whether you're banned or not, partly because I'm cautiously in favour of owners being allowed to invest in their club and partly because I think not being banned will help our league defence next year. However, to me it feels much more like being found not guilty as opposed to being found innocent.
posted on 14/7/20
I firmly believe Liverpool failed FFP in 2013.
They were cleared because of 'creative accountancy' although everyone knew it was a scam.
Life moved on.
posted on 14/7/20
comment by Imran The King Khan (U10026)
posted 8 minutes ago
Have CAS released a full report?
My understanding is that the main charge was over Mansour personally funding Etihad to pay City’s sponsorship as Etihad were making losses. But CAS threw that out.
What exactly were the time barred charges?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS threw that out because there was no proof.
Time barred could relate possibly to the 2012-2013 period. But even for the periods that were considered, UEFA could not provide evidence to back their decision. If that's not corruption, then I don't know what else is.
posted on 14/7/20
But Rio passed his drug test and City were found not guilty by CAS, so that analogy doesn’t really work.
I get that it doesn’t look good from City’s perspective to be obstructing the process, but I do think UEFA’s process needs to be looked at seeing as an independent body has thrown out their charges.
posted on 14/7/20
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 8 minutes ago
Do any City fans actually believe their club is innocent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An independent court has reviewed the evidence for periods not time barred and City have been declared innocent. It doesn't matter what any fan think.
Page 2 of 11
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10