comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
As I said, an ethical one.
That’s why I asked what the underlying point was as you’re arguing something that is against the rules that has been judged to not be happening vs something within the rules that people don’t like ethically.
Unless I’ve misinterpreted in which case I’m not sure what the comparable is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last question.
If you think Amazon's tax payment is unethical, do you therefore think Amazon are wrong to do what they do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally? Yes. I would think the same about ourselves had the CAS verdict gone the other way.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Ireland-Kenya Relations Secretary (U3126)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Ireland-Kenya Relations Secretary (U3126)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
No, it is smears, lies and misinformation.
We seem to have entered an alternative universe where the judgment was the complete opposite of what it was...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The judgment was set aside due to the prescriptive period (as transactions were over five years old) had expired.
Mentioned previously it's the same as the statute of limitations. Whereby a claim can be dismissed if the claim is made after a certain period of time (normally six years).
City could well have broken FFP but that's now irrelevant as CAS did not have jurisdiction to consider.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn’t just set aside though, there were allegations that weren’t time barred as well, hence CAS’s headline and consideration of evidence for those as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Uefa's decision was set aside.
"Following the hearing, the CAS Panel deliberated and concluded that the decision issued on 14 February 2020 by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB should be set aside and replaced by the
following:
a.) MCFC has contravened Article 56 of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
b.) MCFC shall pay a fine of EUR 10,000,000 to the UEFA, within 30 days as from the date of issuance of the arbitral award.
"The CAS award emphasized that most of the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber
of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred."
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6785_Decision.pdf
So, we will never actually know the extent of City's guilt or not.
I think there's an element here of some folk looking to criticise based on an inherent dislike for City, and City fans looking to defend their club.
Rather than considering the (known) facts of the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant set aside due to the time barring, it was set aside due to the evidence not being established too.
Completely agree we won’t know all the details until
the full judgment comes out, my point was it is wrong to suggest it was solely down to it contravening the statute of limitations.
MCFC has contravened Article 56 of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
b.) MCFC shall pay a fine of EUR 10,000,000 to the UEFA, within 30 days as from the date of issuance of the arbitral award.
———————
What would Stuart Pearce do..
Have you read article 56?
Citys executives don't accept that they failed to cooperate with Uefas investigations, if they are willing to pay the fine its a compromise
Its strange how "City failed to cooperate" has become a standard comment ,when it is a complete lie,and totally contradicts Citys own words
Soriano in February
“We did co-operate with this process,” he said. “We delivered a long list of documents and support that we believe is irrefutable evidence that the claims are not true. It was hard because we did this in the context of information being leaked to the media in the context of feeling that every step of the way, every engagement we had, we felt that we were considered guilty before anything was even discussed. But at the end, this is an internal process that has been initiated and then prosecuted and then judged by this FFP chamber at Uefa.”
comment by somethingelse (U3109)
posted 57 seconds ago
Citys executives don't accept that they failed to cooperate with Uefas investigations, if they are willing to pay the fine its a compromise
Its strange how "City failed to cooperate" has become a standard comment ,when it is a complete lie,and totally contradicts Citys own words
Soriano in February
“We did co-operate with this process,” he said. “We delivered a long list of documents and support that we believe is irrefutable evidence that the claims are not true. It was hard because we did this in the context of information being leaked to the media in the context of feeling that every step of the way, every engagement we had, we felt that we were considered guilty before anything was even discussed. But at the end, this is an internal process that has been initiated and then prosecuted and then judged by this FFP chamber at Uefa.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they’ve done nothing wrong, why the huge fine?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
As I said, an ethical one.
That’s why I asked what the underlying point was as you’re arguing something that is against the rules that has been judged to not be happening vs something within the rules that people don’t like ethically.
Unless I’ve misinterpreted in which case I’m not sure what the comparable is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last question.
If you think Amazon's tax payment is unethical, do you therefore think Amazon are wrong to do what they do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally? Yes. I would think the same about ourselves had the CAS verdict gone the other way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're still not understanding me.
I'm not saying you should feel the same about the two.
I'm saying that if you think Amazon have done something wrong, despite them adhering to the rules and you not having access to all of their files, then you cannot dismiss people who think City have done something wrong.
Forget the ranting lunatics for a minute and focus on the reasonable comments.
I'd also add that I don't see it as 'wrong'. I still think FFP is flawed.
What do people think City are guilty of? Is anyone willing to state the reasons why they dislike City, and what it is exactly that they believe City have done that goes against their own principles in regards to the game?
Because a lot of what I’m hearing is a lot of people say “cheats” without being willing to go into any detail as to how they feel City have cheated.
You’re a grubby little club that cheated and got caught, own it and move on.
Ok, so Automatic isn’t willing to go into any detail.
Anyone else?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
What do people think City are guilty of? Is anyone willing to state the reasons why they dislike City, and what it is exactly that they believe City have done that goes against their own principles in regards to the game?
Because a lot of what I’m hearing is a lot of people say “cheats” without being willing to go into any detail as to how they feel City have cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In my experience, away from this forum, the complaints centre around finance that has been accounted for as business revenue when the reality is that it is investment by the owner.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/14/premier-league-war-man-citys-rivals-line-criticise-cas-verdict/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005817/If-Manchester-City-won-trophies-cheating-asterisk-against-success.html
*
Automatic isn’t prepared to answer in his own words, give his own reasons.
Winston I assume is highlighting what other people have said.
Is anyone else willing to say what their own problem with City is (those that have a problem), in their own words?
RipleysCat (U1862)
Yep, I personally don't have a big issue with it because I think the rules are stacked in the big clubs' favour.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
As I said, an ethical one.
That’s why I asked what the underlying point was as you’re arguing something that is against the rules that has been judged to not be happening vs something within the rules that people don’t like ethically.
Unless I’ve misinterpreted in which case I’m not sure what the comparable is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last question.
If you think Amazon's tax payment is unethical, do you therefore think Amazon are wrong to do what they do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally? Yes. I would think the same about ourselves had the CAS verdict gone the other way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're still not understanding me.
I'm not saying you should feel the same about the two.
I'm saying that if you think Amazon have done something wrong, despite them adhering to the rules and you not having access to all of their files, then you cannot dismiss people who think City have done something wrong.
Forget the ranting lunatics for a minute and focus on the reasonable comments.
I'd also add that I don't see it as 'wrong'. I still think FFP is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I am getting you, my point is what are you or they thinking City have done wrong? As it seems to be still disguised owner investment.
It’s like going back 400 years in time when the land owners set the laws and no one else had a say
At the time, people questioned how they had acquired that land but no one in power were interested
meltonblue (U10617)
Because they believe that FFP rules are appropriate and that City have found a way around those rules - albeit with practices that are within the rules.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 33 seconds ago
meltonblue (U10617)
Because they believe that FFP rules are appropriate and that City have found a way around those rules - albeit with practices that are within the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is what?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
meltonblue (U10617)
Because they believe that FFP rules are appropriate and that City have found a way around those rules - albeit with practices that are within the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sio grubby little cheats.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 33 seconds ago
meltonblue (U10617)
Because they believe that FFP rules are appropriate and that City have found a way around those rules - albeit with practices that are within the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean?
What way around the rules do they think city have found and what basis is there for it?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
What way around the rules do they think city have found and what basis is there for it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think every person who thinks Amazon are wrong to have not paid enough tax can explain the practices they've used to avoid paying it?
Am I missing something?
City were cleared of the allegation.
If people still believe they are guilty of this allegation - subsidising their sponsorship deal(s), then it is up to them to prove it.
If they can’t prove it (which I’m betting they can’t), then their opinion has no merit.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 35 seconds ago
Am I missing something?
City were cleared of the allegation.
If people still believe they are guilty of this allegation - subsidising their sponsorship deal(s), then it is up to them to prove it.
If they can’t prove it (which I’m betting they can’t), then their opinion has no merit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
€10M
Sign in if you want to comment
Hateful 8
Page 9 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 15/7/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
As I said, an ethical one.
That’s why I asked what the underlying point was as you’re arguing something that is against the rules that has been judged to not be happening vs something within the rules that people don’t like ethically.
Unless I’ve misinterpreted in which case I’m not sure what the comparable is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last question.
If you think Amazon's tax payment is unethical, do you therefore think Amazon are wrong to do what they do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally? Yes. I would think the same about ourselves had the CAS verdict gone the other way.
posted on 15/7/20
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Ireland-Kenya Relations Secretary (U3126)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Ireland-Kenya Relations Secretary (U3126)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
No, it is smears, lies and misinformation.
We seem to have entered an alternative universe where the judgment was the complete opposite of what it was...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The judgment was set aside due to the prescriptive period (as transactions were over five years old) had expired.
Mentioned previously it's the same as the statute of limitations. Whereby a claim can be dismissed if the claim is made after a certain period of time (normally six years).
City could well have broken FFP but that's now irrelevant as CAS did not have jurisdiction to consider.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn’t just set aside though, there were allegations that weren’t time barred as well, hence CAS’s headline and consideration of evidence for those as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Uefa's decision was set aside.
"Following the hearing, the CAS Panel deliberated and concluded that the decision issued on 14 February 2020 by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB should be set aside and replaced by the
following:
a.) MCFC has contravened Article 56 of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
b.) MCFC shall pay a fine of EUR 10,000,000 to the UEFA, within 30 days as from the date of issuance of the arbitral award.
"The CAS award emphasized that most of the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber
of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred."
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6785_Decision.pdf
So, we will never actually know the extent of City's guilt or not.
I think there's an element here of some folk looking to criticise based on an inherent dislike for City, and City fans looking to defend their club.
Rather than considering the (known) facts of the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant set aside due to the time barring, it was set aside due to the evidence not being established too.
Completely agree we won’t know all the details until
the full judgment comes out, my point was it is wrong to suggest it was solely down to it contravening the statute of limitations.
posted on 15/7/20
MCFC has contravened Article 56 of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
b.) MCFC shall pay a fine of EUR 10,000,000 to the UEFA, within 30 days as from the date of issuance of the arbitral award.
———————
What would Stuart Pearce do..
Have you read article 56?
posted on 15/7/20
Citys executives don't accept that they failed to cooperate with Uefas investigations, if they are willing to pay the fine its a compromise
Its strange how "City failed to cooperate" has become a standard comment ,when it is a complete lie,and totally contradicts Citys own words
Soriano in February
“We did co-operate with this process,” he said. “We delivered a long list of documents and support that we believe is irrefutable evidence that the claims are not true. It was hard because we did this in the context of information being leaked to the media in the context of feeling that every step of the way, every engagement we had, we felt that we were considered guilty before anything was even discussed. But at the end, this is an internal process that has been initiated and then prosecuted and then judged by this FFP chamber at Uefa.”
posted on 15/7/20
comment by somethingelse (U3109)
posted 57 seconds ago
Citys executives don't accept that they failed to cooperate with Uefas investigations, if they are willing to pay the fine its a compromise
Its strange how "City failed to cooperate" has become a standard comment ,when it is a complete lie,and totally contradicts Citys own words
Soriano in February
“We did co-operate with this process,” he said. “We delivered a long list of documents and support that we believe is irrefutable evidence that the claims are not true. It was hard because we did this in the context of information being leaked to the media in the context of feeling that every step of the way, every engagement we had, we felt that we were considered guilty before anything was even discussed. But at the end, this is an internal process that has been initiated and then prosecuted and then judged by this FFP chamber at Uefa.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they’ve done nothing wrong, why the huge fine?
posted on 15/7/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
As I said, an ethical one.
That’s why I asked what the underlying point was as you’re arguing something that is against the rules that has been judged to not be happening vs something within the rules that people don’t like ethically.
Unless I’ve misinterpreted in which case I’m not sure what the comparable is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last question.
If you think Amazon's tax payment is unethical, do you therefore think Amazon are wrong to do what they do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally? Yes. I would think the same about ourselves had the CAS verdict gone the other way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're still not understanding me.
I'm not saying you should feel the same about the two.
I'm saying that if you think Amazon have done something wrong, despite them adhering to the rules and you not having access to all of their files, then you cannot dismiss people who think City have done something wrong.
Forget the ranting lunatics for a minute and focus on the reasonable comments.
I'd also add that I don't see it as 'wrong'. I still think FFP is flawed.
posted on 15/7/20
What do people think City are guilty of? Is anyone willing to state the reasons why they dislike City, and what it is exactly that they believe City have done that goes against their own principles in regards to the game?
Because a lot of what I’m hearing is a lot of people say “cheats” without being willing to go into any detail as to how they feel City have cheated.
posted on 15/7/20
You’re a grubby little club that cheated and got caught, own it and move on.
posted on 15/7/20
Ok, so Automatic isn’t willing to go into any detail.
Anyone else?
posted on 15/7/20
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
What do people think City are guilty of? Is anyone willing to state the reasons why they dislike City, and what it is exactly that they believe City have done that goes against their own principles in regards to the game?
Because a lot of what I’m hearing is a lot of people say “cheats” without being willing to go into any detail as to how they feel City have cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In my experience, away from this forum, the complaints centre around finance that has been accounted for as business revenue when the reality is that it is investment by the owner.
posted on 15/7/20
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/14/premier-league-war-man-citys-rivals-line-criticise-cas-verdict/
posted on 15/7/20
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005817/If-Manchester-City-won-trophies-cheating-asterisk-against-success.html
*
posted on 15/7/20
Automatic isn’t prepared to answer in his own words, give his own reasons.
Winston I assume is highlighting what other people have said.
Is anyone else willing to say what their own problem with City is (those that have a problem), in their own words?
posted on 15/7/20
RipleysCat (U1862)
Yep, I personally don't have a big issue with it because I think the rules are stacked in the big clubs' favour.
posted on 15/7/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
As I said, an ethical one.
That’s why I asked what the underlying point was as you’re arguing something that is against the rules that has been judged to not be happening vs something within the rules that people don’t like ethically.
Unless I’ve misinterpreted in which case I’m not sure what the comparable is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last question.
If you think Amazon's tax payment is unethical, do you therefore think Amazon are wrong to do what they do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally? Yes. I would think the same about ourselves had the CAS verdict gone the other way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're still not understanding me.
I'm not saying you should feel the same about the two.
I'm saying that if you think Amazon have done something wrong, despite them adhering to the rules and you not having access to all of their files, then you cannot dismiss people who think City have done something wrong.
Forget the ranting lunatics for a minute and focus on the reasonable comments.
I'd also add that I don't see it as 'wrong'. I still think FFP is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I am getting you, my point is what are you or they thinking City have done wrong? As it seems to be still disguised owner investment.
posted on 15/7/20
It’s like going back 400 years in time when the land owners set the laws and no one else had a say
At the time, people questioned how they had acquired that land but no one in power were interested
posted on 15/7/20
meltonblue (U10617)
Because they believe that FFP rules are appropriate and that City have found a way around those rules - albeit with practices that are within the rules.
posted on 15/7/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 33 seconds ago
meltonblue (U10617)
Because they believe that FFP rules are appropriate and that City have found a way around those rules - albeit with practices that are within the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is what?
posted on 15/7/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
meltonblue (U10617)
Because they believe that FFP rules are appropriate and that City have found a way around those rules - albeit with practices that are within the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sio grubby little cheats.
posted on 15/7/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 33 seconds ago
meltonblue (U10617)
Because they believe that FFP rules are appropriate and that City have found a way around those rules - albeit with practices that are within the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean?
posted on 15/7/20
What way around the rules do they think city have found and what basis is there for it?
posted on 15/7/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
What way around the rules do they think city have found and what basis is there for it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think every person who thinks Amazon are wrong to have not paid enough tax can explain the practices they've used to avoid paying it?
posted on 15/7/20
Am I missing something?
City were cleared of the allegation.
If people still believe they are guilty of this allegation - subsidising their sponsorship deal(s), then it is up to them to prove it.
If they can’t prove it (which I’m betting they can’t), then their opinion has no merit.
posted on 15/7/20
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 35 seconds ago
Am I missing something?
City were cleared of the allegation.
If people still believe they are guilty of this allegation - subsidising their sponsorship deal(s), then it is up to them to prove it.
If they can’t prove it (which I’m betting they can’t), then their opinion has no merit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
€10M
posted on 15/7/20
*
Page 9 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11