PL have to wait for appeal, I believe? Suppose they could hand down their own verdict subject to the CAS appeal. Saying on SkySports that they could appeal to the Swiss civil courts if they don't get the result they like at CAS - presumably that means UEFA could too? Anyway, as I said yesterday - doesn't a football federation have the final sanction as it stands, as in it's their club, their rules, and you have to abide by them if you want to be in the club, regardless of whether you like the rules or not? Ergo, the case, as much as City want it to focus on the 'injustice' of FFP (as Martin Samuel focussed upon yesterday) is simply about whether they broke the rules or not. If City get it overturned on the basis that they don't like the rules they signed up to comply with, then that's the ****ing end of all sporting federations, let alone Uefa.
Gosh, so salary caps and spending limits in US sport are counter to international commercial law? Well **** me and my MBA then. And btw, investment into infrastructure such as stadiums is not subject to FFP.
There's a limit to what "rules" any governing body can impose on their sport. First of all City, nor any UEFA club, didn't sign up to FFP rules. Most Football clubs were created in the late 1800's or early 1900's. FFP was created in 2009, more than a century after most clubs "signed up" for UEFA jurisdiction. Also if the rules that UEFA want to impose were to contravene generally accepted Fair trade rules or Human rights, then those rules wouldn't be allowed. For example, if the RFU created a rule where a player who fumbles a pass has to be arse raped by a rampant wilderbeast at half time, then I am sure the punishment would not be held up in court as it violates someones human rights. So in short, no, a governing body cannot just create any rule it likes and everyone has to lump it.
I know nothing about US sports clubs, how they are run, or US commercial law, nor do I care to find out. Nor is it relevant in this case.
There’s a surprise Chelsea fans think City should be allowed to spend without the finances being questioned wonder why
I think any business should be allowed to spend whatever the **** they want, unless the money was generated through illegal means, like organised crime or some ****.
I see a football club, much in the same way as a football supporter. If I want to go to a game, I have to be bound by the terms of the ticket, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. Therefore, I can be banned from smoking, drinking beer, from even having in my possession a coke bottle lid! Also in the terms of that ticket, my behaviour can also be monitored and if considered inappropriate, I can be served a lifetime ban without even having faced a law court. So Bod is talking utter bolloxs, fook whether Man City signed up and agreed to anything, much like that football supporter, if you want to participate in the competition, you abide by UEFA rules whether you like it or not! Otherwise we start creating a system for the haves and have nots, but I expected no less from Chelsea supporters
No, City have to abide by the rules set out by UEFA, doesn't mean they cannot challenge the rules in court if they disagree with them
They can challenge all they like, fook em I say, they get the same voice as I do in a football ground, NONE!
What a vivid imagination you have. To continue in any franchise, conglomerate, franchise or organisation you have to sign up CONTINUOUSLY to its rules, and you are allowed to challenge them through the courts if you don't like them - not when you've been caught breaking them and trying to hide the evidence. See banking, for instance. FFP may well be unfair - that's not the argument. The legal standpoint is that you abide by a rule whilst trying to change it. Even if you fantasise about being buggered by wilderbeast.
So City have been pulled up for pretending that they got a 400 mill sponsor for their training ground. Only for it to be proven that the company was infact a company belonging to family and Mansour was putting in the majority of the money in himself That’s organised something and stinks of fraudulent behaviour to me. Rules are their for a reason
Yes, but your argument is that they don't have to abide them, be caught breaking them and trying to conceal that, then turn around and say the rules aren't fair.
They have. They had the right to withdraw from participation in Uefa and Prem competition if they didn't like the law as it stood, and challenge it from the outside. The fact that they didn't infers compliance with the law as it stands, even if you don't like it and you wish to change it. Your ticket analogy is valid.
Pending any proposed court case to rule on FFP's validity, at worst I think if City just straight up appeal the ban will be reduced to one season, at best i think the punishment will be changed to just a fine (reduced of course) or possibly a suspended ban. If they are found to be unlawful, then any punishment due to City for breaking them will likely be cancelled, or at least diluted ridiculously. City's problem is that cases like this can take years, and UEFA will then have to decide whether to suspend the punishment pending the outcome of the appeal, which most of the time they do. But not always.
Oh, I agree that will happen, and that's where the brown envelopes you referred to will come into it. But - and let's be 100% clear about this - in legal terms City are NOT being restricted access to trade because they don't like the laws: they are being punished because they broke those laws and concealed their wrong-doing. UEFA has the right to impose its own rules, to change the rules of game (in conjunction with FIFA), and clubs have the right to try and change those rules. But until they do - they have to abide by them. The time for City to challenge those rules (even with an attempted injunction? That would have been fun) was when they were introduced, not eight years later.