Were we right?

[Terrier]

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.

[FactualFrank]

Surely who voted what should have remained private.

[dougcollins]

Perhaps we just don't like (alleged) cheats?

[randomclaret2]

Hateful being used in the modern sense of " anyone who disagress with me "

[Burnley1989]

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.

I 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

[rob63]

Surely who voted what should have remained private.

Ya'd have thought wouldn't you Frank, but this is football politics, what is right & fair is the last thought on their minds.

[tiger76]

Perhaps we just don't like (alleged) cheats?

Alleged cheats? they were guilty as sin, and only got off on a technicality.

[dougcollins]

I 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

So we don't vote against it, just give up and leave them to it?

[rob63]

Hateful being used in the modern sense of " anyone who disagress with me "

Of course, also that there's only one side to an argument......theirs!

[Burnley1989]

So we don't vote against it, just give up and leave them to it?

I’ve perhaps not worded that very well mate, I completely agree with the club on this one

[AndrewJB]

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.

[JarrowClaret]

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.

[4:20]

Really beginning to dislike that club with somewhat of a passion.

[dougcollins]

Alleged cheats? they were guilty as sin, and only got off on a technicality.

I have an historical dislike of libel lawyers.

[tiger76]

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.

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.

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?

[JarrowClaret]

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

[dsr]

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.

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.

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.

[dsr]

[duplicate]

[JarrowClaret]

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.

[bfcmik]

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.

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 breached

[Vegas Claret]

this says it all

[NewClaret]

[wrong thread]

[dsr]

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.

[JarrowClaret]

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.

[Spijed]

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.

Whether you like it or not the difference is clubs like Liverpool and Man U. are self financing, due to their global reach.

15 years ago, Man City were just a similar sized club to Derby and Forest.

[dsr]

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.

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.

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.

[BennyD]

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.

[JarrowClaret]

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.

[Stockbrokerbelt]

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.

[Roosterbooster]

The technicality is that it couldn't be proved whether Man City were guilty or innocent because the evidence wasn't there

Based on this logic, every innocent verdict is based on a technicality

[dsr]

Based on this logic, every innocent verdict is based on a technicality

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.

[Cirrus_Minor]

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.

[Burnley Ace]

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.

[Burnley Ace]

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.

Everyone moves up one slot and the Europa place would be for 8th?

[TVC15]

“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

[Roosterbooster]

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.

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]

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.

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.

[Terrier]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -saga.html

Hope i have copied this correctly, it's out of todays daily mail.