Were we right?
Were we right?
Just reading bluemoon the man city forum and they are
Discussing in their words, the hateful eight( teams that voted against them ref champions league) and seem puzzled as to what Burnley would get out of it thinking
all the others did it for an extra chance at a champions
league place.
Discussing in their words, the hateful eight( teams that voted against them ref champions league) and seem puzzled as to what Burnley would get out of it thinking
all the others did it for an extra chance at a champions
league place.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Were we right?
Surely who voted what should have remained private.
-
- Posts: 6723
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
- Been Liked: 1820 times
- Has Liked: 1800 times
- Location: Yarkshire
Re: Were we right?
Perhaps we just don't like (alleged) cheats?
-
- Posts: 6904
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2758 times
- Has Liked: 4325 times
Re: Were we right?
Hateful being used in the modern sense of " anyone who disagress with me "
This user liked this post: Stayingup
-
- Posts: 7401
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:19 am
- Been Liked: 2309 times
- Has Liked: 2172 times
Re: Were we right?
I can’t understand why any club would vote against it?Terrier wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:39 pmJust reading bluemoon the man city forum and they are
Discussing in their words, the hateful eight( teams that voted against them ref champions league) and seem puzzled as to what Burnley would get out of it thinking
all the others did it for an extra chance at a champions
league place.
If the best teams in the world are cheating to that extent what chance has anybody got
Re: Were we right?
Ya'd have thought wouldn't you Frank, but this is football politics, what is right & fair is the last thought on their minds.
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Were we right?
Alleged cheats? they were guilty as sin, and only got off on a technicality.
-
- Posts: 6723
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
- Been Liked: 1820 times
- Has Liked: 1800 times
- Location: Yarkshire
Re: Were we right?
So we don't vote against it, just give up and leave them to it?Burnley1989 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:36 pmI can’t understand why any club would vote against it?
If the best teams in the world are cheating to that extent what chance has anybody got
Re: Were we right?
Of course, also that there's only one side to an argument......theirs!randomclaret2 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:35 pmHateful being used in the modern sense of " anyone who disagress with me "
-
- Posts: 7401
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:19 am
- Been Liked: 2309 times
- Has Liked: 2172 times
Re: Were we right?
I’ve perhaps not worded that very well mate, I completely agree with the club on this onedougcollins wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:39 pmSo we don't vote against it, just give up and leave them to it?
This user liked this post: dougcollins
Re: Were we right?
Is there any contrition on their board? The financial advantages they enjoy are already huge, so to game the system for an even greater advantage has got to grind against anyone’s sense of fair play.
-
- Posts: 1488
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 343 times
- Has Liked: 195 times
Re: Were we right?
Where did you get that City got off on a technicality? There is a detailed report supposedly to be released soon that will list the exact findings which may suggest that. As of now what we know is that some of the charges (not all) are outside the time bar but there is no suggestion that if all had been admissible that the charge would have been upheld anyway so how anyone can CURRENTLY say they got off on a technicality is beyond me.
Last edited by JarrowClaret on Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Were we right?
Really beginning to dislike that club with somewhat of a passion.
-
- Posts: 6723
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
- Been Liked: 1820 times
- Has Liked: 1800 times
- Location: Yarkshire
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Were we right?
If City had nothing to hide, why were they so uncooperative with the UEFA investigation, if your innocent then you don't try and obstruct the inquiry into your behaviour surely.JarrowClaret wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:59 pmWhere did you get that City got off on a technicality? There is a detailed report supposedly to be released soon that will list the exact findings which may suggest that. As of now what we know is that some of the charges (not all) are outside the time bar but there is no suggestion that if all had been admissible that the charge would have been upheld anyway so how anyone can CURRENTLY say they got off on a technicality is beyond me.
We'll see what the detailed report says. but either City are pulling a fast one, or UEFA have dropped the ball with their evidence, if it's the latter then UEFA need to take a long hard look at their systems for handling such matters.
And secondly if City have done nothing wrong why did they get a £10m fine?
-
- Posts: 1488
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 343 times
- Has Liked: 195 times
Re: Were we right?
City got the fine for not cooperating with UEFA could that be because they were annoyed and felt they had no case to answer? I’m not saying that City haven’t done wrong I have no idea I would agree that it is fishy though. That said if they are guilty I would guess many more Clubs will be using similar dodgy accounting methods. Let’s see what the full report says
Re: Were we right?
The technicality is that it couldn't be proved whether Man City were guilty or innocent because the evidence wasn't there, and that the reason the evidence wasn't there was because Man City had hidden it. Hence the fine for not co-operating; a fine which is lower than the reward for getting away with it.JarrowClaret wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:59 pmWhere did you get that City got off on a technicality? There is a detailed report supposedly to be released soon that will list the exact findings which may suggest that. As of now what we know is that some of the charges (not all) are outside the time bar but there is no suggestion that if all had been admissible that the charge would have been upheld anyway so how anyone can CURRENTLY say they got off on a technicality is beyond me.
Most other clubs can't use the same dodgy accounting methods because most other clubs don't have an owner with a bottomless pit of cash. There is no need to hide hundreds of millions of slush fund if you don't have the slush fund.
Last edited by dsr on Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Were we right?
[duplicate]
-
- Posts: 1488
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 343 times
- Has Liked: 195 times
Re: Were we right?
dsr I don’t think a lack of evidence is a technicality that is downright stupidity if you don’t have the evidence or aren’y able to get the evidence don’t bring the charge up in the first place. In fact the report currently released doesn’t suggest that City did wrong from what they have seen. If there was a belief on the tribunal that there was a possibility of guilt it would have been worded as such I think. I don’t know if City have done wrong, all the facts as they are suggest they haven’t but as said the full report may tell us a different story.
-
- Posts: 3623
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:03 pm
- Been Liked: 895 times
- Has Liked: 1102 times
- Location: Solihull Geriatric Centre
Re: Were we right?
I think there was rather a lack of admissible evidence - an entirely different issue than a lack of evidence. The finding was that the 5 year legal time frame had been missed. Maybe part of City's stalling tactics and obstruction of the investigators was to ensure the 5 year admissible evidence criteria was breachedJarrowClaret wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:42 amdsr I don’t think a lack of evidence is a technicality that is downright stupidity if you don’t have the evidence or aren’y able to get the evidence don’t bring the charge up in the first place. In fact the report currently released doesn’t suggest that City did wrong from what they have seen. If there was a belief on the tribunal that there was a possibility of guilt it would have been worded as such I think. I don’t know if City have done wrong, all the facts as they are suggest they haven’t but as said the full report may tell us a different story.
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace
-
- Posts: 30696
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11049 times
- Has Liked: 5658 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Were we right?
this says it all
- Attachments
-
- Screenshot 2020-07-14 at 8.30.30 PM.png (72.37 KiB) Viewed 3443 times
This user liked this post: longsidepies
-
- Posts: 13487
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3106 times
- Has Liked: 3824 times
Re: Were we right?
[wrong thread]
Last edited by NewClaret on Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Were we right?
I think what Man City fans and Guardiola are both missing out on is the reason why people wanted Man City punished. It wasn't out of love of following rules and belief that Man City had broken a rule. This is not about technical details.
A lot of people wanted Man City punished because they believe in principle that Financial Fair Play is a good thing. They believe that having one club richer than all the rest doing its best to buy all the titles is a bad thing, and football would be better with a more level playing field. They (we) are in favour of Fair Play.
City believe that they're the richest, they want to have it all, and as a result they do not believe in Fair Play. They are opposed to Fair Play. And that's why people wanted them banned.
Put it bluntly, nobody loves a rich, arrogant type who flashes the cash and thinks being rich also makes him entitled. Hence no-one loves Man City.
A lot of people wanted Man City punished because they believe in principle that Financial Fair Play is a good thing. They believe that having one club richer than all the rest doing its best to buy all the titles is a bad thing, and football would be better with a more level playing field. They (we) are in favour of Fair Play.
City believe that they're the richest, they want to have it all, and as a result they do not believe in Fair Play. They are opposed to Fair Play. And that's why people wanted them banned.
Put it bluntly, nobody loves a rich, arrogant type who flashes the cash and thinks being rich also makes him entitled. Hence no-one loves Man City.
-
- Posts: 1488
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 343 times
- Has Liked: 195 times
Re: Were we right?
So jealousy basically? I would agree there dsr they have been that new rich kid and the rest of the rich kids have spat there dummy out as they are much more richer than them.
From what I have heard the majority of the evidence was admissible only a small portion was not (could be wrong). The report never suggested that the admissible evidence showed guilt neither does it suggest that the Unadmissible evidence would have made them guilty either YET. On the flip side of that we haven’t really had a proper indication that they were totally innocent either. I have no idea whether they were guilty or not but I prefer to base my opinion on what I currently know For fact rather than assumptions.
From what I have heard the majority of the evidence was admissible only a small portion was not (could be wrong). The report never suggested that the admissible evidence showed guilt neither does it suggest that the Unadmissible evidence would have made them guilty either YET. On the flip side of that we haven’t really had a proper indication that they were totally innocent either. I have no idea whether they were guilty or not but I prefer to base my opinion on what I currently know For fact rather than assumptions.
Re: Were we right?
Whether you like it or not the difference is clubs like Liverpool and Man U. are self financing, due to their global reach.JarrowClaret wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:44 amSo jealousy basically? I would agree there dsr they have been that new rich kid and the rest of the rich kids have spat there dummy out as they are much more richer than them.
From what I have heard the majority of the evidence was admissible only a small portion was not (could be wrong). The report never suggested that the admissible evidence showed guilt neither does it suggest that the Unadmissible evidence would have made them guilty either YET. On the flip side of that we haven’t really had a proper indication that they were totally innocent either. I have no idea whether they were guilty or not but I prefer to base my opinion on what I currently know For fact rather than assumptions.
15 years ago, Man City were just a similar sized club to Derby and Forest.
Re: Were we right?
That's exactly the point Guardiola missed. The reason people were angry with Man City is not because they think that their vast financial input is not reported in the correct technical manner; it's because their vast financial input is unfair.JarrowClaret wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:44 amSo jealousy basically? I would agree there dsr they have been that new rich kid and the rest of the rich kids have spat there dummy out as they are much more richer than them.
From what I have heard the majority of the evidence was admissible only a small portion was not (could be wrong). The report never suggested that the admissible evidence showed guilt neither does it suggest that the Unadmissible evidence would have made them guilty either YET. On the flip side of that we haven’t really had a proper indication that they were totally innocent either. I have no idea whether they were guilty or not but I prefer to base my opinion on what I currently know For fact rather than assumptions.
And by extension, when the court decides that their vast financial input was reported in the correct technical manner, it doesn't make people agree that it was OK.
And it's not just jealousy. A lot of people think that the vast wealth of football, especially the super-rich, but also the Premier League vs the rest, is bad for football.
-
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 am
- Been Liked: 1338 times
- Has Liked: 757 times
- Location: Nantwich
Re: Were we right?
Burnley plays by the rules and expects everyone else to do so. We are already at a massive disadvantage by not having ‘independent‘ wealth so anything else that tilts the balance in their favour really isn’t welcome. It’s a pity there weren’t another 11 clubs on that letter.
-
- Posts: 1488
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 343 times
- Has Liked: 195 times
Re: Were we right?
Similar to Chelsea as well I guess
Not about me liking or not I couldn’t care less if honest I only care about Burnley other Clubs finances etc are a mystery to me. I only commented on this as what people was stating wasn’t necessarily factually correct with the currently released information.
What we know from the report
Man City weren’t compliant with UEFA and got a fine of 10 Mill because of this.
Some of the evidence (not all) was time barred
From the admissible evidence nothing was found which could prove there guilt
There is no suggestion that the time barred evidence would prove there guilt
There isn’t a clear statement that they are innocent either
We also have found in this case and with PSG as well that UEFA don’t know/ understand there own rules around time Barr
Some of this may change later when the full report is released though.
Not about me liking or not I couldn’t care less if honest I only care about Burnley other Clubs finances etc are a mystery to me. I only commented on this as what people was stating wasn’t necessarily factually correct with the currently released information.
What we know from the report
Man City weren’t compliant with UEFA and got a fine of 10 Mill because of this.
Some of the evidence (not all) was time barred
From the admissible evidence nothing was found which could prove there guilt
There is no suggestion that the time barred evidence would prove there guilt
There isn’t a clear statement that they are innocent either
We also have found in this case and with PSG as well that UEFA don’t know/ understand there own rules around time Barr
Some of this may change later when the full report is released though.
-
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:43 am
- Been Liked: 228 times
- Has Liked: 137 times
Re: Were we right?
Before people jump to conclusions about city you might want to listen to what CAS said, the supposed evidence was gained illegally through a hack, the evidence that UEFA said was damming was over the 5 year fresh-hold which to use was in breach of UEFA regulations. They were found guilty of being uncooperative with UEFA which was that UEFA wanted access to their business systems. Which sane company would allow a small group of individuals within UEFA access to accounts etc when bias has been shown to PSG previously, I think the issue is between rival Arab factions not rules on FFP.
-
- Posts: 2594
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
- Been Liked: 691 times
- Has Liked: 362 times
Re: Were we right?
You have left out half of the sentence to make it mean something different. I will be generous and assume you were being careless, but you want to watch for that - ascribing conclusions to other people's comments when you have not quoted them correctly is a dubious road to go down.Roosterbooster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:19 amBased on this logic, every innocent verdict is based on a technicality
-
- Posts: 4443
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1161 times
- Has Liked: 1298 times
Re: Were we right?
I had to laugh this morning at Klopp and Morinho's attempts at puerile respiration. I know there is no love lost with Guardiola but something about Pot and Kettle comes to mind here.
-
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
- Been Liked: 656 times
- Has Liked: 2898 times
Re: Were we right?
Why an arbitrary time bar of 5 years? Hide the evidence and you get away with it? If they need a limitation it should start from when the evidence is received.
-
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
- Been Liked: 656 times
- Has Liked: 2898 times
Re: Were we right?
Everyone moves up one slot and the Europa place would be for 8th?Terrier wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:39 pmJust reading bluemoon the man city forum and they are
Discussing in their words, the hateful eight( teams that voted against them ref champions league) and seem puzzled as to what Burnley would get out of it thinking
all the others did it for an extra chance at a champions
league place.
Re: Were we right?
“What did city do wrong ?”
Maybe their Saudi owners sponsoring the match ball for 600 billion pounds a season was seen as flouting the guidelines
Maybe their Saudi owners sponsoring the match ball for 600 billion pounds a season was seen as flouting the guidelines
-
- Posts: 2594
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
- Been Liked: 691 times
- Has Liked: 362 times
Re: Were we right?
I don't agree. You said they got off on a technicality. You also said the technicality is that there wasn't enough evidence to find them guilty. You didn't say the technicality was City hiding the evidence, hence why I didn't quote it. This might have led to the technicality being possible, but you said the technicality was the amount of evidence available. That's not a technicality, that's the basis of law.dsr wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:22 amYou have left out half of the sentence to make it mean something different. I will be generous and assume you were being careless, but you want to watch for that - ascribing conclusions to other people's comments when you have not quoted them correctly is a dubious road to go down.
Re: Were we right?
Be that as it may, your allegedly logical conclusion was fatuous. And if you had quoted the whole sentence, it would have been obviously fatuous.Roosterbooster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:17 pmI don't agree. You said they got off on a technicality. You also said the technicality is that there wasn't enough evidence to find them guilty. You didn't say the technicality was City hiding the evidence, hence why I didn't quote it. This might have led to the technicality being possible, but you said the technicality was the amount of evidence available. That's not a technicality, that's the basis of law.
Re: Were we right?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -saga.html
Hope i have copied this correctly, it's out of todays daily mail.
Hope i have copied this correctly, it's out of todays daily mail.