Football Focus

[Hobby]

And of course we can always believe what we read in the press as they are never bias... Though I take it you also read that many of the charges were not established, so they didn't have the evidence back then either. Recurring theme isn't it, havent got the evidence but go ahead anyhow.

 

I do agree about a vendetta though, it would be interesting to know what clubs are behind that, the top European clubs are just as protective about the status quo as the three in the EPL 

 

We'll just have to wait and see, though, won't we, either way it'll be the lawyers that make the money.

Edited 11 hours ago by Hobby

[hayfield]

19 minutes ago, Hobby said:

And of course we can always believe what we read in the papers as they are never bias... Though I take it you also read that many of the charges were not established, so they didn't have the evidence back then either. Recurring theme isn't it, havent got the evidence but go ahead anyhow.

 

I do agree about a vendetta though, it would be interesting to know what clubs are behind that, the top European clubs are just as protective about the status quo as the three in the EPL 

 

We'll just have to wait and see, though, won't we, either way it'll be the lawyers that make the money.

 

 

Not the papers, SKY Sports News, not even a red top paper

 

Statement from CAS

 

CAS overturned the ban because the alleged breaches of FFP rules were either not established or time-barred — ie under UEFA regulations some of the alleged offences happened too long ago to be considered. The club were, however, found guilty of not cooperating with UEFA by failing to provide substantial amounts of evidence. 

 

CAS said this breach “was severe” and needed to be “seriously reproached”. City were fined £8.8million.

CAS said City had exhibited a “blatant disregard” to UEFA’s investigation, even though it found “no conclusive evidence that they disguised funding from their owner as sponsorship”.

The short answer is City won the war but lost a battle about non-cooperation. Some wonder if City did it on purpose because they had something to hide, while others say it was a legitimate tactic against a case based on stolen material.

 

Where there is smoke its normally because of fire. If there is nothing to hide why not corporate !!!!

 

As for Pep's statement   this breach “was severe” and needed to be “seriously reproached”   time-barred  not established is not proven as in Scottish law. There may have been a good reason for not saying not guilty or innocents, neither of these were stated in CAS press release, certainly 10 million Euro fine smacks of being guilty 

[Hobby]

Oh gawd!  The "Press", then,  satisfied now!

 

"Not established" means just that, they couldn't prove it. So they had taken it to court without evidence as well. As for no smoke without fire, yes you can have smoke without fire, such as false smoke, perhaps not the best of uses for that quote.

 

 

 

You say you dont have anything against City then spend many long posts having a go at them, how about we just wait and see... Please!