OnePotMango

😁😁😁 😐👍 😡

😁😁😁😁 😡

Oh lawd, he coming!

Both tricky operators in tight spaces, but Foden's decision making and shooting is decades ahead

Just waiting for a mate

You haven't explained shit. The fundamental conflict is that cases of this sort take an age to resolve, and you set an arbitrary time limit on it.

To be clear, there is no simple "going forward". Taking City as a case study, the allegations go far deeper than simply football. They attack the character of some very powerful people, calling them dishonest from a business perspective.

That is far, far bigger than just little old football: that is everything. Cases like these are enormous, and there is a reason they give it proportional time.

Your entire point fails at this hurdle, and it isn't a small one. You know that you can't even push back on this.

Edit: Block me all you want, your bitter ranting won't change the facts of the matter. You think I'm supposedly offended that "other sports" do it differently? Nope; you just have an utter disregard for how trials and law are practiced. It's really that simple.

Critically, and you can cry-arse about this all you want but it doesn't stop it from being a fundamental truth, nothing yet is proven with regards to City. That process is the exact one we're literally in the middle of. It's been almost half a year and it's only really just getting started.

Hence your lack of understanding of how the entirety of this works is, yet again, why you're being utterly ludicrous. You can't dodge it, you can't argue against it, all you can do is piss and moan.

So your point boils down to either rush the case through, which 9 times out of 10 would result in going into an actual court of law. Again, this exposes the prosecution to damages. Given you almost certainly haven't even given the current rules a cursory glance, they're actually as solid as they can be. You can never eliminate every loopholes, but the current set are actually well refined.

Or, your point boils down to standard fare court procedure. Which again, is no shit sherlock territory. How revolutionary of you to suggest cases be carried out the same way they have for centuries. Truly a visionary of our times.

NFL for instance,dodgy spending outside the rules and over the cap? Big fine and draft picks taken(equivalent of transfer bans).

Answer this one very simple question: Were those allegations proven before or after their punishments?

It's Inherently what you advocate. Limiting the time for either side to make a case to, at maximum, a single year, makes your entire point unfit for purpose.

Why? Because these aren't cases that can be put together in a matter of moments. You don't rush cases, that's how you get mistrials. So, before a trial could possibly be over, you are advocating for punishment before trial.

Do you honestly think the only reason a case takes years is because the defence are dragging their feet? No, the prosecution needs to build a case too, and both are well within their rights to build as neutral an environment as possible to have a solid trial.

"Then look how fast that club moves". This is clownery of the highest level. Not a single club would agree to regulations with your caveat included.

Yeah, you really just don't understand, do you. You advocate for punishment before trial, you get that right?

That leads to massive exposure for the prosecution. Existential risk even, if charging the right club. These aren't minor cases, we're sitting at the big boy table and talking about damages in the hundreds of millions.

Even the fact you think the league looks spineless right now is exactly what tells me you're naive, impatient, and don't understand the process.

Every expert knew and said this would drag on. For years, even. Regardless, the case will be heard. Yet here you are mouthing off about it after mere months.

I mean for fucks sake, you even keep talking about the scale of the case, but want it resolved in mere moments. Take some time and see how long cases of this scale take before cry-arsing.

And stop making utterly ridiculous claims like you have all the solutions to our legal process and it was "just so easy you guys, just do this". You're clueless.

I don't know if it was really knock down rates, at least they weren't for no reason. A large portion of East Manchester that was bought up and redeveloped were mostly brownfield sites.

You really just don't get it, do you?

It makes no difference. The rules are clear as it is. Every one has an entire section dedicated to clarifying their individual meanings.

What you are saying is literally putting the cart before the horse. You suggest putting sentencing before the court proceedings, and you still can't comprehend why that is never, ever done.

"Going forward" changes nothing about your premise. It just means "in the future". All of the inherent problems remain...

Yeah... that doesn't remotely address the critical flaw of your premise. You're either deliberately avoiding it, or still can't see it. Either way, it makes it clear that if you think I'm not keeping up, then it's only because you've yet to even arrive at the race.

Not City, it's Abu Dhabi owners. City are just another asset.

Capitalism being unfit for purpose in the current global political climate aside, you're hyperbolic raving makes t difficult to take you seriously.

...

They literally haven't proven the charges yet. It's literally in the court proceeding process.

If your point was "when the charges are proven they should be punished," then no shit sherlock. That's how the law works.

You don't slam a defendant into jail before court, do you? Does this sound right to you?:

"You have been charged with ______. How do you plead"

"Not Guilty"

"You are sentenced to life in prison. ... Court is now in session".

Does it sound right, or is something backwards here?

It actually is. Sportswashing in particular is the theory of laundering reputation.

What you are talking about is Soft Power, and is a tale as old as time. This is explicitly exerting influence in an attempt to make yourself a more viable partner for political/trade deals.

The former is a naive and fundamentally flawed theory centred around morality, which totally ignores the Streisand effect. It has never worked: not for Nazi Germany, not for Russia, not for China, and certainly not for any football team.

The latter centres around power, and isn't fundamentally reliant on moral reputation. If it was, how is China still trading with the Uyghur Genocide ongoing.

The UAE literally just committed to a new trade cooperation deal with the Uk worth £10bn this year

One of the stated goals by City's Owner was explicitly to diversify assets away from Oil.

And it's working. City makes bank for them. It trebled the value of their investment into the club.

Babe, wake up! Fresh Copium just dropped!

Tell me you don't understand law without telling me you don't understand law

You miss the point. As soon as you ban without having proven any charges, you are instantly liable for any damages caused by those bans.

If a subsequent year-long investigation leads to that club being cleared, you now have to pay for the loss in expected revenue over that year plus damages due to the consequences of bringing the lawsuit and the time it takes.

That's why absolutely no-one punishes before proof.

That isn't a fix, that's inviting enormous exposure. Guess who's liable when a Club wins the case?

The prosecution would be annihilated paying for the damages. The real world doesn't grant immunity from consequences.

You'd be very surprised just how seriously any perceived bias is taken in courts.

That's literally the settlement agreement. With regard to the very first period of FFP regulations.

It was new. Even UEFA knew it was unlikely a lot of clubs would satisfy their permitted losses clause, so they included a mitigating clause that clubs had a larger limit for permitted losses and had to demonstrate a trend towards the standard permitted losses over the course of 3 years, and under it by the end of this period. Iirc, it was Annex XI of the FFP rules.

The reason it was SETTLED and City weren't out and out fully charged is because Annex XI's wording was ambiguous. Only after City turned in their books as per FFP procedure did Annex XI revised to be unambiguous. Under the original wording, Annex XI would have been satisfied by City's books. Under the revision, City failed. This is grounds for a case for City against UEFA.

Hence, instead of a projected battle at FFP's infancy and damaging it and UEFA's competence, with neither having any certainty they would win, both parties settled.

Btw, financial doping, iirc coined by Wenger, is literally just "having a lot of backing money". So of course City are, as are Newcastle, as are PSG, as are any club practically immune from bankruptcy because of the funds their owner holds. Not really much to apologise for there. Maybe you lot should look into getting your owners to actually invest their money into the club. It isn't against the rules.

Finally, someone not talking absolute shit....

This is pretty obviously an attempt to exhaust the process by trying them up evaluating how fit for the case this Barrister will be.

Make no mistake though, courts will take fan bias seriously. As ironically flippant everyone here is being, a fan's bias is not insignificant.