Match Day Thread Toon General Matchday Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Roland Deschain said:
What’s really ****ing frustrating is we’re doing everything by the book, are in a desperate fight for top 5 and meanwhile City are still unpunished for 115 charges, and Chelsea’s ludicrous sale of its women’s team remains un-ratified. Both should see penalties and I am firmly of the belief that had Man U and Spurs been the ones at the top and not Newcastle, Forest and Villa, both clubs would’ve been punished. I think that purely because 4 of the so called big 6 should be hit, the PL will delay and delay.

Clubs like us MUST be aware, so why does nothing happen??????
Click to expand...

The city case is still ongoing
 
Cockface said:
Actually If Man City win APT2 that's the 115 or a large number of them more than likely up in smoke, because how can you take issue with a clubs revenue if another set of rules restricting increased revenues over the same period are found completely unlawful.

Newcastle simply get on with it and wait.
Click to expand...

Aren’t a lot of them about fake revenues and paying staff off the books?

im not sure using a defence of, yes we paid them via 3rd party companies (and avoided paying tax) but we only did it cos you didn’t let us sponsor ourselves for 500m is going to work on those ones?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obi Wan
InBiscanWeTrust said:
Aren’t a lot of them about fake revenues and paying staff off the books?

im not sure using a defence of, yes we paid them via 3rd party companies (and avoided paying tax) but we only did it cos you didn’t let us sponsor ourselves for 500m is going to work on those ones?
Click to expand...

The defence would simply be that they've been unlawfully restricted from increasing revenues in the first place.

I would imagine the significance of APT2 will be quite big with at least some if not all the charges over the time period they were in place.
 
Cockface said:
The defence would simply be that they've been unlawfully restricted from increasing revenues in the first place.

I would imagine the significance of APT2 will be quite big with at least some if not all the charges over the time period they were in place.
Click to expand...

City signed up the those rules at the time. They then broke the rules.

If I pay someone to take a driving test for me because they unlawfully said I couldn’t take it myself, doesn’t mean what I did wasn’t wrong and shouldn’t be punished.
 
InBiscanWeTrust said:
City signed up the those rules at the time. They then broke the rules.

If I pay someone to take a driving test for me because they unlawfully said I couldn’t take it myself, doesn’t mean what I did wasn’t wrong and shouldn’t be punished.
Click to expand...

They sat out the APT one actually and voted against the 2nd.

I'm a nerd for this story.
 
Cockface said:
They sat out the APT one actually and voted against the 2nd.

I'm a nerd for this story.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the rules they broke; but that's irrelevant, as the rules were the rules and they've done some shady stuff to get around them.

On APT, that was all such utter and complete bollocks designed to protect the "big 6" and stifle growth from underneath; only when it started to impact City did they make their moves. Then they tried to bring in a tweaked rule that once again protected teams like Spurs and Arsenal.

My main issue is with Chelsea. UEFA have already said they aren't compliant (they refuse to acknowledge the sale of the women's team) but rather than have some backbone and ban them from Europe, which is supposed to be the punishment, they are negotiating a repayment structure of the fine!! The PL have stayed completely silent, purely because their punishment will have to be points. I just find the whole thing so abhorrent and insular. One rule for, say, Everton, another for Chelsea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obi Wan
InBiscanWeTrust said:
City signed up the those rules at the time. They then broke the rules.

If I pay someone to take a driving test for me because they unlawfully said I couldn’t take it myself, doesn’t mean what I did wasn’t wrong and shouldn’t be punished.
Click to expand...

Is that a confession?

:police:
 
Roland Deschain said:
I don't agree with the rules they broke; but that's irrelevant, as the rules were the rules and they've done some shady stuff to get around them.

On APT, that was all such utter and complete bollocks designed to protect the "big 6" and stifle growth from underneath; only when it started to impact City did they make their moves. Then they tried to bring in a tweaked rule that once again protected teams like Spurs and Arsenal.

My main issue is with Chelsea. UEFA have already said they aren't compliant (they refuse to acknowledge the sale of the women's team) but rather than have some backbone and ban them from Europe, which is supposed to be the punishment, they are negotiating a repayment structure of the fine!! The PL have stayed completely silent, purely because their punishment will have to be points. I just find the whole thing so abhorrent and insular. One rule for, say, Everton, another for Chelsea.
Click to expand...
This. Chelsea should get a serious points deduction, get banned from European competition and have a transfer embargo. But they won't.
 
InBiscanWeTrust said:
Aren’t a lot of them about fake revenues and paying staff off the books?

im not sure using a defence of, yes we paid them via 3rd party companies (and avoided paying tax) but we only did it cos you didn’t let us sponsor ourselves for 500m is going to work on those ones?
Click to expand...
Not sure of the breakdown of charges but figure the defence would be we aren’t guilty of breaking rules that weren’t legal in the first place and, therefore, can’t be broken as they are null and void ab initio.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sheikh_of_Araby
Cockface said:
The defence would simply be that they've been unlawfully restricted from increasing revenues in the first place.

I would imagine the significance of APT2 will be quite big with at least some if not all the charges over the time period they were in place.
Click to expand...

You must log in or register to see images
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back