Generic small time football blather thread FOREVER

[PaddockLad 14527]

Just now, OTF said:

 

You're right. All the ducks need to be lined up; from a legal perspective it doesn't matter how much smoke there is, proof of the actual fire is required.

Yeah that’s why it’s taken the PL 4 years to investigate Man City…meanwhile they’ve won how much?  Chelsea will get pulled, none of the journos have done the actual arithmetic but it can’t possibly be legit under current rules…there’s just too much money to be spread out….

[Howay 12447]

1 minute ago, OTF said:

 

You're right. All the ducks need to be lined up; from a legal perspective it doesn't matter how much smoke there is, proof of the actual fire is required.

Agreed, this one is off the back of Man City beating the prior charges in CAS isn’t it? I think it’s been ongoing for 4-5 years and had the knowledge from the case to build off, I’d imagine this is a pretty strong and damning case they’ve built. 
 

What I’m interested in is how a lot of these charges relate to periods post Man City establishing themselves, so it’s interesting to see how they had such egregious rule breaks but similar spending Manchester United and Chelsea as yet have nothing. 

[Howmanheyman 26605]

9 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

 

 

 

 

[Howay 12447]

 Imagine how gutted the mackems will be about all this once they catch on that it’d a positive for us. They’ll suddenly hate FFP and hope Man City dodge all charges. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Howay

[Isegrim 8868]

46 minutes ago, spongebob toonpants said:

 

Post it on RTG …

[OTF 6129]

19 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

 

 

 

 

Without having read all of the specifics of the charges I'm going to say nee chance they're relegated. There could be a sizeable points deduction but you can't imagine it would happen this season with how long these sort of legal proceedings take. A lot of the charges stem from failing to provide information, which, from Cities perspective may offer them enough plausible deniability to avoid the harshest penalties. The others relate to breaches of premier league sustainability and european FFP rules. Interesting the periods covered include the same seasons for which they were previously punished with a fine in 2014 (that was from that season and the two prior I believe). Initially that was a ban from European football but for whatever r€a$on £ha£ n€v€r $£uck.

 

Our manchester blue correspondant has a lot to answer to.

Edited February 6, 2023 by OTF

[Holden McGroin 4810]

As ever he caveats his tweet with a "Doesn't it?"

 

He knows about as much as us.

[OTF 6129]

1 minute ago, Holden McGroin said:

As ever he caveats his tweet with a "Doesn't it?"

 

He knows about as much as us.

 

[Isegrim 8868]

 

[PaddockLad 14527]

 

[Isegrim 8868]

 

[The Fish 8947]

MEGA FINE! POINTS DEDUCTION! EUROPEAN BAN!

Appeal

MEGA FINE! European Ban!

Appeal

MEGA FINE!

Appeal

Fine and apology.

Appeal

fine?

 

[Isegrim 8868]

 

[PaddockLad 14527]

Good thread this, some belting pics and some utter piss takes  

 

 

 

[Kid Dynamite 5882]

1 hour ago, PaddockLad said:

 

Bad news

[The Mighty Hog 331]

 

 

That's him away now.

[Isegrim 8868]

 

 

[Polarboy 2124]

Citeh only got caught out because Die Spiegel magazine in Germany got intel from a hacker. It would be naive to think that any club that can afford the top lawyers and more importantly accountants isn't fiddling the books to some extent. Which is not to say I think clubs should be bending and breaking the rules. Football would be in much better shape if teams only spent what they could comfortably afford. 

[LondonBlue 538]

2 hours ago, OTF said:

 

Without having read all of the specifics of the charges I'm going to say nee chance they're relegated. There could be a sizeable points deduction but you can't imagine it would happen this season with how long these sort of legal proceedings take. A lot of the charges stem from failing to provide information, which, from Cities perspective may offer them enough plausible deniability to avoid the harshest penalties. The others relate to breaches of premier league sustainability and european FFP rules. Interesting the periods covered include the same seasons for which they were previously punished with a fine in 2014 (that was from that season and the two prior I believe). Initially that was a ban from European football but for whatever r€a$on £ha£ n€v€r $£uck.

 

Our manchester blue correspondant has a lot to answer to.

 

 

After the CAS judgement I remember someone saying it was akin to being cleared of a murder charge but being fined for resisting arrest.

This feels similar with a large number of charges making it look more materially serious but actually none of them being individually that bad.
The non-compliance charge is the one that counts. That is the stick to beat us with. You still hear people saying ‘non-compliance means you have something to hide’ even after the CAS said clearly that no inference should be drawn from it.
Even after a total acquittal by CAS that is still used as a sign of guilt.
It worked once, why not try it again?

 

I believe that Arsenal are at the centre of this. The original request to investigate by a number of premier league clubs including you guys was supposedly submitted on Arsenal headed paper !! I believe that this investigation has a high ranking arsenal fan involved too. White american owners don't like middle east arab money.

 

As i remember it, they were changing the ffp rules as they went along at the beginning.

 

( ... taken from our forum )

[Gemmill 34166]

 

 

[spongebob toonpants 3586]

5 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

 

Yank Lampard yanked

[Zathras 234]

Don't necessarily disagree with parting with him, but the timing sure seems strange to me.  

 

Leeds have taken only two points from their last four matches, but have a significant edge in xG in each of those matches.  Chances were abundant, they just couldn't finish. Not sure that's on the manager.  Leeds haven't looked overmatched the way that Everton, Southampton, Bournemouth and a few others have looked.  But some kind of a change was probable necessary. 

 

[Isegrim 8868]

10 minutes ago, Zathras said:

Don't necessarily disagree with parting with him, but the timing sure seems strange to me.  

 

Leeds have taken only two points from their last four matches, but have a significant edge in xG in each of those matches.  Chances were abundant, they just couldn't finish. Not sure that's on the manager.  Leeds haven't looked overmatched the way that Everton, Southampton, Bournemouth and a few others have looked.  But some kind of a change was probable necessary. 

 

It was an expected sacking tbh

[Zathras 234]

Definitely; it's just the timing I find odd.  Why do it right after a relatively busy transfer window?  Either give him a couple of matches to show the players he's brought in will fix things or sack him ahead of the transfers? Or don't let him spend a bunch of cash?  It just seems strange.

[Holden McGroin 4810]

Whenever ive seen Leeds play I think they've played well. Just seem to be unlucky (oh and can't defend).