Football 19/20

[eastynh]

33 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the clue is in the words "fair value".  

Are you able to admit that at the time the Etihad deal was announced there was absolutely-feckin' huge skeptism about that deal, and about how it couldn't be a genuine deal because it was waaaaay out of the ballpark for similar deals....?

And then - as you've admitted - it turns out that Etihad aren't the ones funding that "fair deal".

A "fair deal" is a deal that comparable companies would make on the same terms - and (at the time of the deal) there was nothing remotely similar. Which is a bit of a give-away.

City managed to brush those away by insisting that there was nothing shady about the deal.

Turns out there was shady stuff about the deal, and that the Man City execs were in full knowledge of the shady stuff - completely different to what they'd said previously.

It may turn out that City get of on a technicality as you've been prompted to say by those honest (lol) geezers.

But that doesn't mean they've not been taking the piss big time, and that they're not c**ts.

And as it's passing you by, that's c**ts as big as anything the G14 have ever done.

 

it can prop up its airline (bu5t not without consequences, see below). What the owner can't do is feed money to the club via a fake finincial deal.

You do know that Etihad have categorically stated that they were funding the deal from their own pre-exiting funds, don't you? It's in submissions they made to claim they weren't getting the state support you now admit to them getting.

Oh dear. Someone somewhere (take your pick) has been telling porkies to hide the truth and mislead more than just the football authorities.

So no matter how the City stuff goes with UEFA goes, the UAE have been proven as liars, and have dropped themselves in some painful shit somewhere.

 

Yes.

Have you?

It's interesting for the points I raised as interesting, and where you're blustering rather than addressing those interesting points. Any reason why? 

 

yes, I raised them.

 

PMSL

They're innocent of being lying c**ts because no one is allowed to look at whether they're lying c**ts.

Morning Donald.

 

Funny how I had some interesting points from it that you don't want to discuss, eh?

Must be my psychic powers.  

 

PMSL

They're innocent of being lying c**ts because no one is allowed to look at whether they're lying c**ts.

Morning Donald.

 

PMSL

They're innocent of being lying c**ts because no one is allowed to look at whether they're lying c**ts.

Morning Donald.

Neil here is the crux of the issue. The Etihad deal is under scrutiny as it UEFA say it is over inflated due to it the deal being disguised as owner investment, do we agree on that?

Now Der Spigel are suggesting from the hacked emails that the vast majority of the Etihad deal was paid for by Sheikh Mansour and the ADUG, Sheikh Mansour is City's owner.

The problem here is that is just Der Spiegels interpretation of the emails. The emails do not show that it was Sheikh Mansour at all who put the money directly into City's accounts.

If it can be proved that Sheikh Mansour did in fact put the money into City's accounts then I totally agree with you, City have broken the rules and should be banned.

The problem you have is that there is evidence which proves that it was in fact the Abu Dhabi executive council that put the money into City's accounts, not Sheikh Mansour. The emails suggest that it was someone called HH who paid the money. Protocol suggests that the only person who is referred to as HH without their name following in the UAE is the president.

So City's owner has not inflated the sponsorship deal as the money did not come from him.

Now the issue is that could it be considered that the executive council is a related party to Manchester City. This is not even an issue really as related parties are allowed to sponsor their clubs as long as it is fair value. UEFA have already judged the Etihad deal to be fair value as per their criteria and this was backed up by independent bodies, namely Octagon and PWC.

Where Etihad gets its money from is of no business to UEFA as long as it has not come from Sheikh Mansour. There is no evidence of this.

Have City broken any rules? No. The stolen emails don't prove this at all. Have they been clever? Absofuckinglutely. Still not broken any rules though and there has been absolutely no evidence what so ever produced to confirm they have.

Now seeing as you are calling clubs c**ts and no club should get away with being a c**t, tell me how you feel about Liverpool hacking City's systems? Which may I remind you is not just breaking rules but actually against the law. The difference between the City case and Liverpool is that Liverpool have actually made a payment to City in respect of the hack. Do you think Liverpool should be investigated and a possible criminal investigation? Which offence do you think is worse? An illegal act allegedly carried out by Liverpool or a possible bending of a rule that you yourself don't actually agree with. Just seeing as we are talking about football clubs that behave like c**ts.

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The Etihad deal is under scrutiny as it UEFA say it is over inflated due to it the deal being disguised as owner investment, do we agree on that?

yup. 

23 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The problem you have is that there is evidence which proves that it was in fact the Abu Dhabi executive council that put the money into City's accounts, not Sheikh Mansour.

the rule is about "related interests" and not "the owner".

ADEC is controlled by Mansour's brother, and they're both embedded parts of the state - all one and the same in reality. We both know that's true, even if in a court case it's not able to be proven to the satisfaction of the court.

So it's absolutely clear the Etihad deal was about channelling extra funds from the owner, against the spirit of those rules (which highlights an instance like this) even if City get off on a technicality.

29 minutes ago, eastynh said:

So City's owner has not inflated the sponsorship deal as the money did not come from him.

yeah, because Etihad took on a deal they couldn't fund, and there was no background conspiracy to smooth everything about it towards the rules, right?  

30 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Where Etihad gets its money from is of no business to UEFA as long as it has not come from Sheikh Mansour.

absolutely not true for the UEFA rules. "related interests".  

(and then there's Etihad's previous statements that it wasn't being back-funded. Turns out they're liars - by your own admission).

32 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Have City broken any rules? No.

That'll be why they won't transparently prove they haven't, right?  

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, eastynh said:

tell me how you feel about Liverpool hacking City's systems?

was it "Liverpool" or was it individuals acting in their own interests?

And "hacking"? PMSL. There was no "hacking", there was only City being shit at running their own systems.

[eastynh]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

was it "Liverpool" or was it individuals acting in their own interests?

And "hacking"? PMSL. There was no "hacking", there was only City being shit at running their own systems.

Yes Neil, thats why Liverpool paid City 1 millin pounds, because City were shit at protecting their systems.

 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

yup. 

the rule is about "related interests" and not "the owner".

ADEC is controlled by Mansour's brother, and they're both embedded parts of the state - all one and the same in reality. We both know that's true, even if in a court case it's not able to be proven to the satisfaction of the court.

So it's absolutely clear the Etihad deal was about channelling extra funds from the owner, against the spirit of those rules (which highlights an instance like this) even if City get off on a technicality.

yeah, because Etihad took on a deal they couldn't fund, and there was no background conspiracy to smooth everything about it towards the rules, right?  

absolutely not true for the UEFA rules. "related interests".  

(and then there's Etihad's previous statements that it wasn't being back-funded. Turns out they're liars - by your own admission).

That'll be why they won't transparently prove they haven't, right?  

So after all that, at present we are both clear that currently there is absolutely no evidence what so ever than Manchester City have broken any rules? Not a single one.

[TheGayTent]

3 hours ago, eastynh said:

Lets have a bet Neil, nothing ridiculous. Say £30. If City get bannedd for any period of time then I will put that towards your website upkeep. If City don't get banned then you give it to MacMillan nurses.

We are just going round in circles snd it will start getting boring for everyone else.

Start ??

[TheGayTent]

5 hours ago, Wooderson said:

Chemical Easty.

For the record, those two journos are much admired by me. Conn's work on Hillsborough particularly commendable.

Conn (when he’s not letting his left wing bias get in the way of his journalistic instinct) is very very good at what he does. 
 

Roan is a thunderc**t who doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Conn. 

[Wooderson]

1 minute ago, TheGayTent said:

Conn (when he’s not letting his left wing bias get in the way of his journalistic instinct) is very very good at what he does. 
 

Roan is a thunderc**t who doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Conn. 

What has Roan done now

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Yes Neil, thats why Liverpool paid City 1 millin pounds, because City were shit at protecting their systems.

so you think some footie types are expert hackers into properly managed secure systems, and it wasn't that Man City forgot to disable their accounts.

They're obviously wasted in football.  

I'm not saying it was a good thing, I'm laughing at your take on it.

And, btw, your whataboutery has got absolutely fuck all to do with City taking the piss towards FFP.

 

13 minutes ago, eastynh said:

So after all that, at present we are both clear that currently there is absolutely no evidence what so ever than Manchester City have broken any rules? Not a single one.

I see you still don't understand what evidence is. 

[eastynh]

Just now, eFestivals said:

so you think some footie types are expert hackers into properly managed secure systems, and it wasn't that Man City forgot to disable their accounts.

They're obviously wasted in football.  

I'm not saying it was a good thing, I'm laughing at your take on it.

And, btw, your whataboutery has got absolutely fuck all to do with City taking the piss towards FFP.

 

I see you still don't understand what evidence is. 

You have still shown me no evidence of City breaking any FFP rules. Not one single piece. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

You have still shown me no evidence of City breaking any FFP rules. Not one single piece. 

the emails are evidence of City breaking FFP rules.  

[eastynh]

14 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Conn (when he’s not letting his left wing bias get in the way of his journalistic instinct) is very very good at what he does. 
 

Roan is a thunderc**t who doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Conn. 

Conn stole his Guardian piece yesterday and wrote it as if it was his own work. Not only was in deliberstely misleading but it was a blatant lie.

[eastynh]

Just now, eFestivals said:

the emails are evidence of City breaking FFP rules.  

No they're not. How difficult is this to grasp? The emails do not prove in anyway what so ever that ADUG were the behind the payments to Manchester City.

UEFA have already said that they will not release any of the evidence they used to find Manchester City guilty till after the CAS appeal.

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

No they're not. How difficult is this to grasp? The emails do not prove in anyway what so ever that ADUG were the behind the payments to Manchester City.

How difficult are these to grasp?

evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

proof : evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

spot the difference? 

 

Just now, eastynh said:

UEFA have already said that they will not release any of the evidence they used to find Manchester City guilty till after the CAS appeal.

And? We've all seen the evidence in those emails, and then there's stuff like the conflicting statements about how Etihad are funding the deal.

It is 100% obvious that City were showing bad faith towards the purpose of the FFP rules (which is to limit how much an owner can financially dope a club).

[eastynh]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

How difficult are these to grasp?

evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

proof : evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

spot the difference? 

 

And? We've all seen the evidence in those emails, and then there's stuff like the conflicting statements about how Etihad are funding the deal.

It is 100% obvious that City were showing bad faith towards the purpose of the FFP rules (which is to limit how much an owner can financially dope a club).

But they have not broken any rules. The emails do not prove that Manchester Citys OWNER directly broke the rules by using sponsorship deals to invest money into his club.

You are right is is 100% obvious as there are documents in the public domain that it was infact the Anu Dhabi state and the City owners half brother who put the money into City on behalf of Etihad.

Now you can whinge and moan as much as like, but that is not against any rules. You can say it is poor form, it is not in the spirit of the game, you can call it what eber you want, but it is not against any law, nor has it broken any FFP rule.

Yesterday you claimed these emails were irrefutible evidence that City had broken FFP rules. Now you are saying it is bad faith. The emails prove absolutely nothing. In this country you would be laughed out of court if you tried to use them as evidence. 

Now this morning you were saying clubs should not be allowed to behave like c**ts them proceeded to brush what Liverpool are alleged to have done right under the carpet. You then tried to blame it on City. What Liverpool have apparently done is a criminal offence. What City have spparently done is not. Liverpool have given City one million pounds. City have totally denied all allegations and say they have an irrefutable body of evidence to clear their name.

Now you can't be taken seriously, you just like to argue. That can be seen on muliple topics across all your forums. You spent god knows how long yesterday arguing about what CAS will and will not do? without evem having the foggiest idea what CAS actually do.

Now you never answered my bet. £30 that City don't get any ban at all. You up for it?

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

But they have not broken any rules. The emails do not prove that Manchester Citys OWNER directly broke the rules by using sponsorship deals to invest money into his club.

the emails do not prove anything by themselves, nope. But they *are* highly suggestive of money being channeled thru the back door. And other stuff in the public domain suggests similar.

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You are right is is 100% obvious as there are documents in the public domain that it was infact the Anu Dhabi state and the City owners half brother who put the money into City on behalf of Etihad.

Now you can whinge and moan as much as like, but that is not against any rules.

so you're judge and jury on what are "related interests" now then, are you? 

A brother is certainly related, and they share interests in the Abu Dhabi state and ADEC.

There's ample reasons for strong suspicions, and to investigate things further.

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You can say it is poor form, it is not in the spirit of the game, you can call it what eber you want, but it is not against any law, nor has it broken any FFP rule.

"related interests".

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Yesterday you claimed these emails were irrefutible evidence that City had broken FFP rules.

no I didn't. I said they were clear evidence of City taking the piss out of the FFP rules.

Even you admit they've taken the piss out of the FFP rules, we differ on what side of the line that piss-taking is.

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

In this country you would be laughed out of court if you tried to use them as evidence. 

not true. At the very least they can be evidence from which to launch an investigation where other evidence might be found.

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Now this morning you were saying clubs should not be allowed to behave like c**ts them proceeded to brush what Liverpool are alleged to have done right under the carpet.

No, I brushed your use of whataboutery as a diversion from City under the carpet.  

Just because someone else might have broken the rules doesn't exempt City from their obligations towards the rules.

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You then tried to blame it on City.

I simply said what had happened, that there was no 'hacking' and that City were shit at administering their own systems. It couldn't have happened if City weren't shit at administering their own systems.

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

What Liverpool have apparently done is a criminal offence.

where City took the high moral ground, and didn't take a bribe to ignore .... right?  

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

City have totally denied all allegations and say they have an irrefutable body of evidence to clear their name.

but then won't provide that 'irrefutable evidence', and are now cooking up a defence without any of that 'irrefutable evidence', which is a little odd, eh?  

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Now you never answered my bet. £30 that City don't get any ban at all. You up for it?

As I said, we're in agreement that City have taken the piss. There's no opposite sides for us to take to bet on.

[eastynh]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the emails do not prove anything by themselves, nope. But they *are* highly suggestive of money being channeled thru the back door. And other stuff in the public domain suggests similar.

 

so you're judge and jury on what are "related interests" now then, are you? 

A brother is certainly related, and they share interests in the Abu Dhabi state and ADEC.

There's ample reasons for strong suspicions, and to investigate things further.

 

"related interests".

 

no I didn't. I said they were clear evidence of City taking the piss out of the FFP rules.

Even you admit they've taken the piss out of the FFP rules, we differ on what side of the line that piss-taking is.

 

not true. At the very least they can be evidence from which to launch an investigation where other evidence might be found.

 

No, I brushed your use of whataboutery as a diversion from City under the carpet.  

Just because someone else might have broken the rules doesn't exempt City from their obligations towards the rules.

 

I simply said what had happened, that there was no 'hacking' and that City were shit at administering their own systems. It couldn't have happened if City weren't shit at administering their own systems.

 

where City took the high moral ground, and didn't take a bribe to ignore .... right?  

 

but then won't provide that 'irrefutable evidence', and are now cooking up a defence without any of that 'irrefutable evidence', which is a little odd, eh?  

 

As I said, we're in agreement that City have taken the piss. There's no opposite sides for us to take to bet on.

Neil you said that the emails were proof City had broken the rules, now you are saying they are not.

As for the irrefutable evidence. City forwared it to the required body at UEFA. UEFA refused to look at it as it would have taken months for them to go through it properly. UEFA did not have months as they would have missed their own 5 year deadline, hence why City then refused to deal with UEFA. UEFA were given the evidence, they just refused to look at it. That was why City went to CAS before any judgement was given out. As shown to you, CAS have already said City's case is not without merit.

You seem to be holding UEFA up as some paragon of virtue and City are cheating scoundrels. That is quite ironic as UEFA has repeatedly been seen to be riddled with corruption. Where is Mr Plattini now by the way?

You just want City to be punished. What for you don't know. Anything will do for you.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Neil you said that the emails were proof City had broken the rules, now you are saying they are not.

you're the one saying that taking the piss out of the rules is allowed, so I'm giving your take the benefit of the doubt.  

 

6 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You seem to be holding UEFA up as some paragon of virtue and City are cheating scoundrels.

They can both be scumbags.  

But right here the discussion is about City having been caught out being scumbags.

 

6 minutes ago, eastynh said:

That is quite ironic as UEFA has repeatedly been seen to be riddled with corruption. Where is Mr Plattini now by the way?

Hmmm, who's been nailed more often for being involved in corruption, UEFA or City's owners...?  

 

6 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You just want City to be punished. What for you don't know. Anything will do for you.

And you want them to get off scott-free whether they're guilty or not. 

At least me being warped about it is warped with moral standards, and not warped with no standards.  

[rock the clock]

Looks like HM Son could be out for the season. The race for 4th (5th) is gunna be like last year, really hope Sheff utd get a place.

[Hugh Jass]

Son played 89 minutes with a broken arm on Sunday.

[jyoung]

Looks like an unbelievable atmosphere in the ground in Madrid tonight.

[Hugh Jass]

28 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Looks like an unbelievable atmosphere in the ground in Madrid tonight.

Watched the Dortmund - PSG game (hipster!). Last half hour was excellent.

[jyoung]

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

Watched the Dortmund - PSG game (hipster!). Last half hour was excellent.

Håland is a different beast.

[Hugh Jass]

Just now, jyoung said:

Håland is a different beast.

He looks special, no doubt about it.

[Gnomicide]

I'd forgotten what losing felt like.

Great defensive performance from Atletico, going to be tough to break them down in the 2and leg without them getting an away goal.

[DareToDibble]

Gifted them the goal which perfectly fell into their game plan of defending a lead. Some utter shithousery at work from their players tonight.
 

One of the worst refereeing performances I’ve ever seen. Shocking.

Having said that, despite all that we weren’t good enough. Nowhere near our best and they have incredible defence. 

Need an early goal in the second leg. It feels like the longer the game goes on the more they get into their defensive rhythm.