Post Reply to Clark's Pitch

This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

Message:

HTTP Link (optional):

Poster's Email (optional):

 


Post being replied to

By “new evidence,” you refer to illegally obtained emails. by tex29

Regardless, I would be surprised if that is a permissible basis to avoid a settlement agreement that specifically addressed the issue of whether City inflated the value of its sponsorships from purportedly related entities in the relevant time period—a settlement UEFA has already formally acknowledged was complied with and closed. Moreover, FFP’s limitations provisions appear to prohibit punishment for alleged breaches from more than 5 years ago—regardless of whatever “new evidence” is claimed to have been found.

Of course, we don’t have access to UEFA’s opinion, so we don’t have any way to know the strength of its legal analysis.

In any event, if you are a lawyer or are at all interested in an intellectually honest look at the situation, I recommend the following links for your reading pleasure:

https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/

https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/

For a good piece about how FFP itself is a sham, I recommend:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8013475/amp/The-game-framed-UEFA-Europes-privileged-elite-BENT.html?__twitter_impression=true