comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
Now couple that with the rest of the judgment Toor and you’ll realise that that’s exactly my point.
The same charge was still applied and judged upon due to Etihad still being in the 2015/16 accounts which were assessed using the exact same evidence, hence why you have the whole section in the CAS document assessing the leaked emails. The Etisalat ones are literally on the same emails, it’s the same evidence that’s being used as a basis for it.
I’m not sure how and why you’d think they’d have found differently for them purely by increasing the timeframe? The exact same finding would apply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say they'd have found differently. I said they were time barred. You stated the CAS said there was no material impact. That was only in relation to one part of the allegations.
They did not investigate parts that were time barred and stated if they had they could have subjected the club to prosecution.
It's there in black and white.
185. The amounts at issue were transferred to MCFC on 13 June 2012 and 10 January 2013,
i.e. outside the five-year limitation period. If it were true that these amounts did not comprise sponsorship payments but were in fact disguised equity funding, the financial information provided by MCFC in its financial statement for the year ended May 2013 and the break-even information for the 2013/14 monitoring process was incorrect and could have subjected MCFC to prosecution on this basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You actually said the charges were proven didn’t you?
The bit you have quoted is specifically for the Etisalat deal. What they found for Etihad is that it did go over into the eligible period and wasnt time barred. It wasn’t just the same charge, it was the exact same evidence that would have been used for both.
Hence why I said the bits that were time-barred were still adjudicated upon. It’s that the prosecution of it was limited. They could find us guilty of doing it for the Etihad deal, not the Etisalat one. I doubt it would have changed the punishment had they found us guilty though, the Etihad one was quite clearly the potentially worse of the two anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes, proven by UEFA. However the CAS threw it out because they couldn't consider it due to being time barred.
I disagree the punishment would not have changed. Don't forget the reason this funds were alleged to have been committed. It was to meet break even requirements which would have resulted in earlier punishment.
Nail em up!
Nail some sense into them
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 9 minutes ago
Somebody using your username then? Definitely saw your name on there.
I was right all along. You didn't want to accept it. MASSSIVE cheating gits should go a form their own league with PSG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they find us guilty of all of it, ill completely accept it and we should have to face whatever punishment they deem appropriate. I’ve never said any different in the last decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's more smoke than Bonfire night. How on earth can the PL be making all this up? It's hugely damaging the brand.
I reckon this’ll turn out like father Ted where it will be a case of the money was only resting in certain accounts before moving on to another subsidiary account
That’s all it was, a good long rest
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't.
They clearly stated that if it was adjudicated upon then City's records didn't match, they could have been punished, however it was time barred.
It's there in black and white. I'm not sure how you can disagree with this.
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.
Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?
It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.
If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you bothered reading the breaches, or just the headline. Many of them are 8 instances of same thing.
100 is a lot, of course. But try to see past the Talksport headline
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will all end in tears for Chelsea too. Don't you worry about that.
Tinpot clubs is all you'll both ever be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes when Roman leaves us, we'll be ducked
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting to look that way. 9th in the league and clueless owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 months into their tenure: turn off SSN and Talksport. Evaluate the yanks in 2 or 3 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet you like to crow about how good the are, just because they’ve piiiiissed money up the well. Maybe take your own advice.
185. The amounts at issue were transferred to MCFC on 13 June 2012 and 10 January 2013,
i.e. outside the five-year limitation period. If it were true that these amounts did not comprise sponsorship payments but were in fact disguised equity funding, the financial information provided by MCFC in its financial statement for the year ended May 2013 and the break-even information for the 2013/14 monitoring process was incorrect and could have subjected MCFC to prosecution on this basis.
The words "if it were true" clearly tell us they didn't investigate it or possibly did investigate it but didn't disclose whether there was a breach, since it served no purpose to the investigation with it being time barred.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't.
They clearly stated that if it was adjudicated upon then City's records didn't match, they could have been punished, however it was time barred.
It's there in black and white. I'm not sure how you can disagree with this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the evidence for it is exactly the same! How on earth could they have possibly found one to be something different to the other?!
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 9 minutes ago
Somebody using your username then? Definitely saw your name on there.
I was right all along. You didn't want to accept it. MASSSIVE cheating gits should go a form their own league with PSG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they find us guilty of all of it, ill completely accept it and we should have to face whatever punishment they deem appropriate. I’ve never said any different in the last decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's more smoke than Bonfire night. How on earth can the PL be making all this up? It's hugely damaging the brand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s good for the PL brand really as they’re trying to show to the government that they’re capable of regulation.
We won’t know until after the judgment and even then it might rumble on a bit after that.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 9 minutes ago
Somebody using your username then? Definitely saw your name on there.
I was right all along. You didn't want to accept it. MASSSIVE cheating gits should go a form their own league with PSG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they find us guilty of all of it, ill completely accept it and we should have to face whatever punishment they deem appropriate. I’ve never said any different in the last decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's more smoke than Bonfire night. How on earth can the PL be making all this up? It's hugely damaging the brand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s good for the PL brand really as they’re trying to show to the government that they’re capable of regulation.
We won’t know until after the judgment and even then it might rumble on a bit after that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Course it’ll rumble on. As long as se85 draws breath it’s not over 😂 obsessed given he barely seems to read the actual content!
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know many that think it’s a sham at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
apparently every city fan at their last home game signed a petition declaring this investigation to be a sham.
they are now known as the sham 69.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't.
They clearly stated that if it was adjudicated upon then City's records didn't match, they could have been punished, however it was time barred.
It's there in black and white. I'm not sure how you can disagree with this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the evidence for it is exactly the same! How on earth could they have possibly found one to be something different to the other?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How have you come to this conclusion? Provide details please as this goes against what I read in the report and what they stated in the extract I gave you.
Anyway, we'll soon find out as the PL will be taking into account those allegations as they aren't time barred for them.
If they're fake allegations from hacked emails that have been doctored then it doesn't matter if they're time barred or not.
What does this have to do with Chelsea, exactly? Our commercial revenues have grown in line with the growth of our profile under Abramovic. And our player purchases made back at the start of that era were before FFP, so there are no rules to breach.
Our latest purchases look extreme. But once we've sold £100m of players in the summer, I suspect we'll be comfortably within FFP rules once again. And if we aren't, we'll be subject to the normal punishments for any failures.
We aren't hiding our expenditure. We aren't inflating our commercial deals. We haven't got the issues that City have.
I hope that City in punishment get awarded 15 points this season and then deducted 60 points next season
comment by Fifty Years of Hurt (U12953)
posted 15 seconds ago
What does this have to do with Chelsea, exactly? Our commercial revenues have grown in line with the growth of our profile under Abramovic. And our player purchases made back at the start of that era were before FFP, so there are no rules to breach.
Our latest purchases look extreme. But once we've sold £100m of players in the summer, I suspect we'll be comfortably within FFP rules once again. And if we aren't, we'll be subject to the normal punishments for any failures.
We aren't hiding our expenditure. We aren't inflating our commercial deals. We haven't got the issues that City have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing. Chelsea spent their billions to get to the top before FFP and were ready to have income and expenditure like a top club before FFP. City weren't and therefore cheated to get there.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they must be pretty stupid to bring the exact same charge with the exact same evidence.
But I suspect they're not so stupid and will know why this prosecution will succeed where the other didn't. Otherwise why bother at all? City could also sue them for costs and damages so they better be sure before filing the charges.
These charges being made in the first place makes me think City's goose may just be cooked already. After the CAS they'd be stupid to bring a flimsy case forward.
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.
Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?
It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.
If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you bothered reading the breaches, or just the headline. Many of them are 8 instances of same thing.
100 is a lot, of course. But try to see past the Talksport headline
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will all end in tears for Chelsea too. Don't you worry about that.
Tinpot clubs is all you'll both ever be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes when Roman leaves us, we'll be ducked
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting to look that way. 9th in the league and clueless owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 months into their tenure: turn off SSN and Talksport. Evaluate the yanks in 2 or 3 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll be asset stripped by then after your current investment experiment goes tiiitsup and you get picked off...and probably sold for £1 again
comment by Thorgen son of Kloppin - Mjolnir... To me! (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they must be pretty stupid to bring the exact same charge with the exact same evidence.
But I suspect they're not so stupid and will know why this prosecution will succeed where the other didn't. Otherwise why bother at all? City could also sue them for costs and damages so they better be sure before filing the charges.
These charges being made in the first place makes me think City's goose may just be cooked already. After the CAS they'd be stupid to bring a flimsy case forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently UEFA were unhappy because City wouldn't share confidential, financial details with them because they would have been leaked to rival clubs.
There's no certainty that the PL know the details either, that's why a the club will probably cooperate with an independent panel.
If Apple were in the dock, they wouldn't be keen to answer questions to a panel made up of Samsung and Huawei executives.
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 13 minutes ago
I hope that City in punishment get awarded 15 points this season and then deducted 60 points next season
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope your stadium collapses and your stocks of cheese are stolen by looters.
comment by Thorgen son of Kloppin - Mjolnir... To me! (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they must be pretty stupid to bring the exact same charge with the exact same evidence.
But I suspect they're not so stupid and will know why this prosecution will succeed where the other didn't. Otherwise why bother at all? City could also sue them for costs and damages so they better be sure before filing the charges.
These charges being made in the first place makes me think City's goose may just be cooked already. After the CAS they'd be stupid to bring a flimsy case forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of my thoughts too, they must have something else.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen son of Kloppin - Mjolnir... To me! (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they must be pretty stupid to bring the exact same charge with the exact same evidence.
But I suspect they're not so stupid and will know why this prosecution will succeed where the other didn't. Otherwise why bother at all? City could also sue them for costs and damages so they better be sure before filing the charges.
These charges being made in the first place makes me think City's goose may just be cooked already. After the CAS they'd be stupid to bring a flimsy case forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently UEFA were unhappy because City wouldn't share confidential, financial details with them because they would have been leaked to rival clubs.
There's no certainty that the PL know the details either, that's why a the club will probably cooperate with an independent panel.
If Apple were in the dock, they wouldn't be keen to answer questions to a panel made up of Samsung and Huawei executives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What an absolutely ridiculous analogy, even for you.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen son of Kloppin - Mjolnir... To me! (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they must be pretty stupid to bring the exact same charge with the exact same evidence.
But I suspect they're not so stupid and will know why this prosecution will succeed where the other didn't. Otherwise why bother at all? City could also sue them for costs and damages so they better be sure before filing the charges.
These charges being made in the first place makes me think City's goose may just be cooked already. After the CAS they'd be stupid to bring a flimsy case forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently UEFA were unhappy because City wouldn't share confidential, financial details with them because they would have been leaked to rival clubs.
There's no certainty that the PL know the details either, that's why a the club will probably cooperate with an independent panel.
If Apple were in the dock, they wouldn't be keen to answer questions to a panel made up of Samsung and Huawei executives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What an absolutely ridiculous analogy, even for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why exactly?
Sign in if you want to comment
Come on Binky
Page 6 of 16
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 6/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
Now couple that with the rest of the judgment Toor and you’ll realise that that’s exactly my point.
The same charge was still applied and judged upon due to Etihad still being in the 2015/16 accounts which were assessed using the exact same evidence, hence why you have the whole section in the CAS document assessing the leaked emails. The Etisalat ones are literally on the same emails, it’s the same evidence that’s being used as a basis for it.
I’m not sure how and why you’d think they’d have found differently for them purely by increasing the timeframe? The exact same finding would apply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say they'd have found differently. I said they were time barred. You stated the CAS said there was no material impact. That was only in relation to one part of the allegations.
They did not investigate parts that were time barred and stated if they had they could have subjected the club to prosecution.
It's there in black and white.
185. The amounts at issue were transferred to MCFC on 13 June 2012 and 10 January 2013,
i.e. outside the five-year limitation period. If it were true that these amounts did not comprise sponsorship payments but were in fact disguised equity funding, the financial information provided by MCFC in its financial statement for the year ended May 2013 and the break-even information for the 2013/14 monitoring process was incorrect and could have subjected MCFC to prosecution on this basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You actually said the charges were proven didn’t you?
The bit you have quoted is specifically for the Etisalat deal. What they found for Etihad is that it did go over into the eligible period and wasnt time barred. It wasn’t just the same charge, it was the exact same evidence that would have been used for both.
Hence why I said the bits that were time-barred were still adjudicated upon. It’s that the prosecution of it was limited. They could find us guilty of doing it for the Etihad deal, not the Etisalat one. I doubt it would have changed the punishment had they found us guilty though, the Etihad one was quite clearly the potentially worse of the two anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes, proven by UEFA. However the CAS threw it out because they couldn't consider it due to being time barred.
I disagree the punishment would not have changed. Don't forget the reason this funds were alleged to have been committed. It was to meet break even requirements which would have resulted in earlier punishment.
posted on 6/2/23
Nail em up!
Nail some sense into them
posted on 6/2/23
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
posted on 6/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 9 minutes ago
Somebody using your username then? Definitely saw your name on there.
I was right all along. You didn't want to accept it. MASSSIVE cheating gits should go a form their own league with PSG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they find us guilty of all of it, ill completely accept it and we should have to face whatever punishment they deem appropriate. I’ve never said any different in the last decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's more smoke than Bonfire night. How on earth can the PL be making all this up? It's hugely damaging the brand.
posted on 6/2/23
I reckon this’ll turn out like father Ted where it will be a case of the money was only resting in certain accounts before moving on to another subsidiary account
That’s all it was, a good long rest
posted on 6/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't.
They clearly stated that if it was adjudicated upon then City's records didn't match, they could have been punished, however it was time barred.
It's there in black and white. I'm not sure how you can disagree with this.
posted on 6/2/23
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.
Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?
It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.
If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you bothered reading the breaches, or just the headline. Many of them are 8 instances of same thing.
100 is a lot, of course. But try to see past the Talksport headline
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will all end in tears for Chelsea too. Don't you worry about that.
Tinpot clubs is all you'll both ever be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes when Roman leaves us, we'll be ducked
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting to look that way. 9th in the league and clueless owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 months into their tenure: turn off SSN and Talksport. Evaluate the yanks in 2 or 3 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet you like to crow about how good the are, just because they’ve piiiiissed money up the well. Maybe take your own advice.
posted on 6/2/23
185. The amounts at issue were transferred to MCFC on 13 June 2012 and 10 January 2013,
i.e. outside the five-year limitation period. If it were true that these amounts did not comprise sponsorship payments but were in fact disguised equity funding, the financial information provided by MCFC in its financial statement for the year ended May 2013 and the break-even information for the 2013/14 monitoring process was incorrect and could have subjected MCFC to prosecution on this basis.
The words "if it were true" clearly tell us they didn't investigate it or possibly did investigate it but didn't disclose whether there was a breach, since it served no purpose to the investigation with it being time barred.
posted on 6/2/23
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't.
They clearly stated that if it was adjudicated upon then City's records didn't match, they could have been punished, however it was time barred.
It's there in black and white. I'm not sure how you can disagree with this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the evidence for it is exactly the same! How on earth could they have possibly found one to be something different to the other?!
posted on 6/2/23
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 9 minutes ago
Somebody using your username then? Definitely saw your name on there.
I was right all along. You didn't want to accept it. MASSSIVE cheating gits should go a form their own league with PSG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they find us guilty of all of it, ill completely accept it and we should have to face whatever punishment they deem appropriate. I’ve never said any different in the last decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's more smoke than Bonfire night. How on earth can the PL be making all this up? It's hugely damaging the brand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s good for the PL brand really as they’re trying to show to the government that they’re capable of regulation.
We won’t know until after the judgment and even then it might rumble on a bit after that.
posted on 6/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 9 minutes ago
Somebody using your username then? Definitely saw your name on there.
I was right all along. You didn't want to accept it. MASSSIVE cheating gits should go a form their own league with PSG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they find us guilty of all of it, ill completely accept it and we should have to face whatever punishment they deem appropriate. I’ve never said any different in the last decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's more smoke than Bonfire night. How on earth can the PL be making all this up? It's hugely damaging the brand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s good for the PL brand really as they’re trying to show to the government that they’re capable of regulation.
We won’t know until after the judgment and even then it might rumble on a bit after that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Course it’ll rumble on. As long as se85 draws breath it’s not over 😂 obsessed given he barely seems to read the actual content!
posted on 6/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know many that think it’s a sham at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
apparently every city fan at their last home game signed a petition declaring this investigation to be a sham.
they are now known as the sham 69.
posted on 6/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't.
They clearly stated that if it was adjudicated upon then City's records didn't match, they could have been punished, however it was time barred.
It's there in black and white. I'm not sure how you can disagree with this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the evidence for it is exactly the same! How on earth could they have possibly found one to be something different to the other?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How have you come to this conclusion? Provide details please as this goes against what I read in the report and what they stated in the extract I gave you.
posted on 6/2/23
Anyway, we'll soon find out as the PL will be taking into account those allegations as they aren't time barred for them.
posted on 6/2/23
If they're fake allegations from hacked emails that have been doctored then it doesn't matter if they're time barred or not.
posted on 6/2/23
What does this have to do with Chelsea, exactly? Our commercial revenues have grown in line with the growth of our profile under Abramovic. And our player purchases made back at the start of that era were before FFP, so there are no rules to breach.
Our latest purchases look extreme. But once we've sold £100m of players in the summer, I suspect we'll be comfortably within FFP rules once again. And if we aren't, we'll be subject to the normal punishments for any failures.
We aren't hiding our expenditure. We aren't inflating our commercial deals. We haven't got the issues that City have.
posted on 6/2/23
I hope that City in punishment get awarded 15 points this season and then deducted 60 points next season
posted on 6/2/23
comment by Fifty Years of Hurt (U12953)
posted 15 seconds ago
What does this have to do with Chelsea, exactly? Our commercial revenues have grown in line with the growth of our profile under Abramovic. And our player purchases made back at the start of that era were before FFP, so there are no rules to breach.
Our latest purchases look extreme. But once we've sold £100m of players in the summer, I suspect we'll be comfortably within FFP rules once again. And if we aren't, we'll be subject to the normal punishments for any failures.
We aren't hiding our expenditure. We aren't inflating our commercial deals. We haven't got the issues that City have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing. Chelsea spent their billions to get to the top before FFP and were ready to have income and expenditure like a top club before FFP. City weren't and therefore cheated to get there.
posted on 6/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they must be pretty stupid to bring the exact same charge with the exact same evidence.
But I suspect they're not so stupid and will know why this prosecution will succeed where the other didn't. Otherwise why bother at all? City could also sue them for costs and damages so they better be sure before filing the charges.
These charges being made in the first place makes me think City's goose may just be cooked already. After the CAS they'd be stupid to bring a flimsy case forward.
posted on 6/2/23
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
City having a higher revenue than Real Madrid, Barca, United etc without cooking the books is simply not possible. It's all bene down to dodgy sponsorship deals.
Wouldn't surprise me if there's some major money laundering going on at all these clubs City own too in the City Group. After all they don't make any money so what was is it about them that City thought was such a good business opportunity?
It's been a sham from day one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t need that explaining surely? The CFG has always been a good idea, that’s one of the main reasons we got the outside investment we did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Melts......give it up mate. 100 breaches and that could just be the tip of the iceberg too. There's probably way more than that.
If you worm your way out of this the integrity of the competition is ruined for good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you bothered reading the breaches, or just the headline. Many of them are 8 instances of same thing.
100 is a lot, of course. But try to see past the Talksport headline
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will all end in tears for Chelsea too. Don't you worry about that.
Tinpot clubs is all you'll both ever be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes when Roman leaves us, we'll be ducked
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting to look that way. 9th in the league and clueless owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6 months into their tenure: turn off SSN and Talksport. Evaluate the yanks in 2 or 3 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll be asset stripped by then after your current investment experiment goes tiiitsup and you get picked off...and probably sold for £1 again
posted on 6/2/23
comment by Thorgen son of Kloppin - Mjolnir... To me! (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they must be pretty stupid to bring the exact same charge with the exact same evidence.
But I suspect they're not so stupid and will know why this prosecution will succeed where the other didn't. Otherwise why bother at all? City could also sue them for costs and damages so they better be sure before filing the charges.
These charges being made in the first place makes me think City's goose may just be cooked already. After the CAS they'd be stupid to bring a flimsy case forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently UEFA were unhappy because City wouldn't share confidential, financial details with them because they would have been leaked to rival clubs.
There's no certainty that the PL know the details either, that's why a the club will probably cooperate with an independent panel.
If Apple were in the dock, they wouldn't be keen to answer questions to a panel made up of Samsung and Huawei executives.
posted on 6/2/23
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 13 minutes ago
I hope that City in punishment get awarded 15 points this season and then deducted 60 points next season
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope your stadium collapses and your stocks of cheese are stolen by looters.
posted on 6/2/23
comment by Thorgen son of Kloppin - Mjolnir... To me! (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they must be pretty stupid to bring the exact same charge with the exact same evidence.
But I suspect they're not so stupid and will know why this prosecution will succeed where the other didn't. Otherwise why bother at all? City could also sue them for costs and damages so they better be sure before filing the charges.
These charges being made in the first place makes me think City's goose may just be cooked already. After the CAS they'd be stupid to bring a flimsy case forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of my thoughts too, they must have something else.
posted on 6/2/23
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen son of Kloppin - Mjolnir... To me! (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they must be pretty stupid to bring the exact same charge with the exact same evidence.
But I suspect they're not so stupid and will know why this prosecution will succeed where the other didn't. Otherwise why bother at all? City could also sue them for costs and damages so they better be sure before filing the charges.
These charges being made in the first place makes me think City's goose may just be cooked already. After the CAS they'd be stupid to bring a flimsy case forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently UEFA were unhappy because City wouldn't share confidential, financial details with them because they would have been leaked to rival clubs.
There's no certainty that the PL know the details either, that's why a the club will probably cooperate with an independent panel.
If Apple were in the dock, they wouldn't be keen to answer questions to a panel made up of Samsung and Huawei executives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What an absolutely ridiculous analogy, even for you.
posted on 6/2/23
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen son of Kloppin - Mjolnir... To me! (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Possibly. Either way with that though, it doesn’t change it’s the exact same charge with the exact same evidence though. The evidence was still considered and adjudicated upon so the charge wouldn’t have ended up being different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they must be pretty stupid to bring the exact same charge with the exact same evidence.
But I suspect they're not so stupid and will know why this prosecution will succeed where the other didn't. Otherwise why bother at all? City could also sue them for costs and damages so they better be sure before filing the charges.
These charges being made in the first place makes me think City's goose may just be cooked already. After the CAS they'd be stupid to bring a flimsy case forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently UEFA were unhappy because City wouldn't share confidential, financial details with them because they would have been leaked to rival clubs.
There's no certainty that the PL know the details either, that's why a the club will probably cooperate with an independent panel.
If Apple were in the dock, they wouldn't be keen to answer questions to a panel made up of Samsung and Huawei executives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What an absolutely ridiculous analogy, even for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why exactly?
Page 6 of 16
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11