Saw it. Absolutely scandalous. Chelsea were robbed.Chelsea robbed of victory against Real Madrid by two clear and obvious errors because there was no VAR
When Real Madrid are in town, referees go wobbly-legged.Chelsea robbed of victory against Real Madrid by two clear and obvious errors because there was no VAR
Nine clear and obvious errors. Nine. I mean….f*cking nine.Chelsea vs Barcelona in 2009, is the most outrageous night of refereeing that i have seen in a long time. Whether VAR would have overturned the UEFA agenda, i don't know, probably not.
The Blades' inexorable rise up the league continues.https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67448714 Well I suppose Everton are easier to pick on than Citeh and Chelsea?
Wonder why 10 point deduction doesn't apply to last season? I'll be interested to read the full facts.
We turned in a profit in our last two Premier League seasons and will no doubt do this. I know it's stupid but I and 30,000 other "winners" at Bramall Lane don't fully appreciate our good fortune...,,,, so I feel for the fans, who are always the ones who suffer the most from mismanagement in the boardroom.
As a 71 year old City fan I would like to know your source for “inflated income, hidden costs” is because as far as Me and Bluemoon are concerned nobody knows what any of the actual charges are.Everton are easier to 'pick on' because they made a loss that is above the allowed sum. I can't speak for Chelsea, but the accusations against City are very different - inflated income, hidden costs, but not profit related directly. I am listening to the debate on Five Live now and the host and guests have spent more time talking about City than they have Everton; the desperation at equivalence is somewhat ridiculous. Of course, I will defend my club, but the case against City is yet to be proven. In fact, Everton are my '2nd' team, living in Liverpool as I do and supporting the '2nd team' in the city, as Manchester City were for most of my lifetime, so I feel for the fans, who are always the ones who suffer the most from mismanagement in the boardroom.
The original document produced by the PL was released into the public domain many months ago. The 115 charges all relate to 3 key areas. I can't remember the exact details but remember it relates to a payment to Roberto Mancini; inflated sponsorship; and I think the latter was one about cooperation. Fundamentally, it is false accounting. There is a football finance expert who goes by the name of Project River, possibly on Twitter, but he is a serious player in the industry who gave some heavyweight analysis of the accusations back then.As a 71 year old City fan I would like to know your source for “inflated income, hidden costs” is because as far as Me and Bluemoon are concerned nobody knows what any of the actual charges are.
That is correct - it isn't really 115, but it feeds the masses.according to Prestwich on the other forum
” there are essentially just three substantive charges, plus the consequent ones deriving from those three (failure to provide accurate accounts, which then impacts PL cost control rules and UEFA's FFP).
The three are:
If none of those can be proven then the rest automatically fail.
- Mancini's Al Jazira contract. Red herring and UEFA also knew about it in 2018.
- Image rights payments. UEFA knew about this by 2015 & it was resolved.
- Sponsorship revenue, probably the Etisalat contract that was time-barred. Again, UEFA knew about that and had agreed there was no issue.
Multiply that by multiple rules and multiple years to get the magic 115 number.”
City.https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67448714 Well I suppose Everton are easier to pick on than Citeh and Chelsea?
Wonder why 10 point deduction doesn't apply to last season? I'll be interested to read the full facts.