City banned from Europe

Originally Posted by Chris Quayd

What I don’t understand is how Uefa managed to investigate them the first time around and not spot that. Did they really need some hacked emails to show them that city weren’t up there with the likes of us on 2012 when it came to sponsorships?

Because city actively misled them, and omitted key documents.

Originally Posted by Switching Off

Because city actively misled them, and omitted key documents.

What possible proof could they have had back then that their deals were “fair value”? It’s a joke they’ve gotten away with it for so long, an absolutely tin pot club bringing in top level sponsorships, on and it also happens to be by the same companies their owners control

Originally Posted by shenwen

Read somewhere that if they get banned, City will fly around the globe playing big money friendlies. Very much over estimating City’s appeal outside of Stockport imo.

ffs

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

[/b]

Yeah... you can though.

How does that work then? Why bother with warrants if you can just break in to collect evidence?

Originally Posted by Zorg

ffs

Harpurhey Globetrotters

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

[/b]

Yeah... you can though.

This is the power of television . That's American law although it probably differs state to state .

Originally Posted by red red robbo

How does that work then? Why bother with warrants if you can just break in to collect evidence?

If the police breach PACE you can apply to exclude the evidence. It's still up to the court whether they do or not.

“It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.” ‍This statement was made by Crompton J in Leathem (1861)

Originally Posted by Child of Darkness

This is the power of television . That's American law although it probably differs state to state .

Yep. Would be great if it was like that here though.

Originally Posted by MrBishi

A good time to repost this article
https://medium.com/@NcGeehan/trollerball-188bfad1e63a


So there's zero prospect of Bertie Football Group laying down and accepting things, expect it to carry on for a while, and get very dirty.

Being pretty much clueless with these sort of things, at what point can UEFA or CAS just tell City to shut up and accept the punishment.

Can City force proceedings to rumble on for years and years by throwing money at it?

Or can CAS and/or UEFA just tell them to £#%&! off and deal with it at pretty much any point regardless as to how many lawyers City want to throw at it?

Edit: Also, surely City already saying they'd rather spend £30 million on Lawyers just to frustrate the process would go against them in any hearing, impartial or not? It just makes them look like what they are, small time £#%&!wits with deep pockets.

If all that's true, then the PL has essentially become the backdrop for a fight between Qatar and Saudi Arabia

Originally Posted by shenwen

Read somewhere that if they get banned, City will fly around the globe playing big money friendlies. Very much over estimating City’s appeal outside of Stockport imo.

"hello benidorm!"

Originally Posted by Switching Off

If all that's true, then the PL has essentially become the backdrop for a fight between Qatar and Saudi Arabia

Football as whole, since Qatar has the World Cup, as well as PSG. (plus the Saudis are pirating Bein sports at a national level )

Originally Posted by Seamus

allegedly getting paid twice like the reporter confronted Pep when they won the FA cup.

We need a disgruntled player to blow the lid on the financial doping on the alleged wages craic.

The city fans i have spoken to think they will get off with it. One said it doesnt apply to them as FFP was to stop the likes of Leeds and Portsmouth going bust.

They honestly think they are beyond it all.

Could happen if they pull the players CL qualification bonuses?

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Being pretty much clueless with these sort of things, at what point can UEFA or CAS just tell City to shut up and accept the punishment.

Can City force proceedings to rumble on for years and years by throwing money at it?

Or can CAS and/or UEFA just tell them to £#%&! off and deal with it at pretty much any point regardless as to how many lawyers City want to throw at it?

Edit: Also, surely City already saying they'd rather spend £30 million on Lawyers just to frustrate the process would go against them in any hearing, impartial or not? It just makes them look like what they are, small time £#%&!wits with deep pockets.

They'll have to announce Abu Dhabi Solicitors Ltd have just paid £30 million to become their official legal partner so it doesn't mess up their future FFP compliance

Originally Posted by red red robbo

No, but they can determine if the rules are maybe unfair, or if they have been unfairly applied, or if there has been some sort of error in the process. You can't be convicted of murder if the video of you murdering someone was obtained via an illegal search by the police.

Originally Posted by Hands of Scone

Do keep up.

Originally Posted by Hands of Scone

Is RRR correct?

so if I want to murder someone I can just trick someone into giving the video to Plod illegally?

Cool

Paediola: "Whatever league we are in I will still be here even if they put us in League 2"

Yeah, sure you will you fly swatting bald paella eating @#%&!.

Originally Posted by Pop

Paediola: "Whatever league we are in I will still be here even if they put us in League 2"

Yeah, sure you will you fly swatting bald paella eating @#%&!.

Everyone in football would absolutely love to see that. especially when they fail FFP in league 2 and get a huge points deduction due to their wage bill

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Do keep up.

Ahh, I see your arrogant pronouncement had already been called out for the
steaming pile of ignorant bullshit it was. Still, a little extra mockery won’t hurt.

Originally Posted by My Name is Heath

Is RRR correct?

so if I want to murder someone I can just trick someone into giving the video to Plod illegally?

Cool

No, I was wrong.

I guess it's like most of UK law where the answer to any question is always, it depends