It's a nonsense guideline. You could say that trying to sign another team's best player is against that rule.
Yes it is but compelling private documents is well past the authority and in 15 years you might get through the courts. Mean time about 8 of the 14 clubs will have been relegated.
What’s that got to do with the actual process and the list of punishments that you said didn’t exist?
**** reading that load of bollocks it was like being back at work PS doesn't say Judge led just legally qualified so could just appoint Hiag as he now has time on his hands .
If youd bothered yourelf to actually even try not to be awkward and twisting you'd see that you said L.9 and I said L.9 as well but all I said was the section itself offers a large amount of guidance but absolutely no guidance on what would actually happen to a club who breach that rule. In any regulation no guidance means you are free to interpret and suggest what you've done is in line. Simple as that. As the section fails to outline that would happen to a club entering a competition without permission it leaves itself wide open to challenge. By all means try to have a panel as the rules suggest but it will be stone walled and the 6 will simply line up hard on everything and the whole thing will sour. I kept to l.9 as the clear breach. It's as obvious as anything but with 6 not 1 it's impossible to try twist their nipples. That's why certain clubs who are just out for self advantage want to get control of committees and are saying they will black all certain executives from clubs and not talk to them at meetings. It winds up as a pissing contest over gaining advantage rather than getting a real reform out of it.
I wasn’t being awkward, I merely posted how it works. You chose to post your subjective opinion re: the lack of possible published punishments, when you’d clearly not understood the process and the potential punishments for any rule breach, that’s clearly defined in the same rulebook ffs You’ve now tried to suggest that actually enforcing those protocols and bringing about the judge lead review, would somehow be ‘stonewalled’ by those who’ve clearly broken the rules in the most snide way possible, and are again trying to push a narrative that claims it’d somehow be a waste of time to bring the ****s to book. It isn’t, it’s the rules, and the protocol will be followed as it has to be, otherwise it’s pointless.
This is possibly the truest sentence you've ever written on here, in general not just in this instance. Far too often clubs, fans et al let their tribal rivalries blind them to the greater good of the game. Ultimately we're all football fans and it's in all our interests to see the game thrive and be fair for everyone. If possible, a just and proportionate punishment should be meted out to all the transgressors in this, but those gleefully calling for Draconian measures and looking to twist the knife aren't considering what is the best way forward for all of us to get out of this mess and move on.
i thought when Sky had CL coverage it was shared with ITV so one showed Tuesday and one Wed with ITV doing a highlights show on the Wed and it was when BT got the whole package that CL football disappeared off terrestial TV .
I think it was just on ITV that initially. Sky bought rights and it got split but then, as you say, BT took all of them. Doesn't really matter though, point still stands; games aren't on terrestrial television anymore
i can sign a contract to start a new job. Doesn’t mean I’m doing it yet though... look none of us are lawyers, there will be people going through all the fine print of every document to find loopholes where they can argue that they haven’t ‘technically’ broken any rules I’m sure.
Can you clarify for me but I’m getting the impression you’re attempting to suggest it would be unfair to penalise the Six as the rules are vague and the 14 would have done exactly the same if only they’d had the chance. If I’m wrong I apologise but if I’m right that attitude and view stinks. There has to be a punishment, it has to be fair but it has to deter which is a difficult balancing act. Otherwise as Tubbs says, what’s the point. The Authorities may bottle it and sadly I can see a negotiation between the Authorities and the Six to try and agree a punishment. To suggest that the PL can’t unilaterally impose a penalty for fear of the Six’s response fails to acknowledge what’s just happened where in reality the Six bottled it themselves. If the PL act quickly then they can ride the current animosity towards the Six and impose an appropriate penalty and the Six won’t resurrect these plans as they’d get the same reaction they’ve just experienced and resulted in the recent 180 degree about turn. Do I think the PL has the bottle to take on the Six, sadly no. That’s why I expect a negotiated penalty. Edit: The PL will also push through as part of that negotiated penalty clear and specific penalties for similar future infractions.
I am. But I haven’t read all the papers, rules etc so the previous is just my gut reaction on what I’ve read.
However, punish them too much and suddenly the clubs can play the ‘poor me’ card and maybe the fans will be less pissed off if it happened again because they could say well the prem clewrly don’t want us around as look what they’ve done.
It’s not about the punishment for me, it’s about accountability and transparency, and only by holding the review as per the rules will this be achieved. I don’t expect there’ll be a draconian penalty, nor am I arsed if there is one, but it can’t simply be left to disappear into the ether.
That was the killer. Its a decision that has really worked out. Uefa sitting around why nobody is watching football anymore, blaming teenagers for having short attention spans and other 'teenager' problems, or could it be that the sold it to a channel almost nobody had and that nobody was going out of their way to buy. Want people to watch... stick it on terrestrial channels.
