|
|
Post by superscfc on Aug 20, 2014 10:55:24 GMT
BBCSky SportsNow they have the players they wanted/needed the appeal gets rejected something very fishy about how this has all been done, especially with the Suarez incident thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 10:57:52 GMT
nothing fishy at all.
ANY club has the right to appeal the ruling and if so then the original ban is lifted until the appeal has been dealt with.it's a rule that was written down long long before Barca were in trouble and a rule that applies to EVERYONE who wants to appeal the decision.
same happened to Chelsea but people like to ignore those kind of precedents and focus solely on situations where they can shoehorn some conspiracy into it about Barca or Real.
|
|
|
|
Post by superscfc on Aug 20, 2014 11:02:17 GMT
nothing fishy at all. ANY club has the right to appeal the ruling and if so then the original ban is lifted until the appeal has been dealt with. same happened to Chelsea but people only seem to moan if they can shoehorn some conspiracy into it I knew that they obviously had the right to appeal, just think it's all very convenient considering what Suarez did and the implications they put on his ban whilst he was at Liverpool (can't go to Melwood/Anfield, can't appear in the press etc) I just think it's interesting how he's bit an opponent, left the club who stuck by him, gone to a club who were pending a transfer ban, now allowed to play in non competitive matches train etc. I just think it's weird that he was officially unveiled this week and had his sanctions removed last week and now the appeal has been dealt with. Corruption IMO. I vaguely remember the Chelsea incident but could you elaborate? struggling to think what exactly went on EDIT - Suarez was banned from all football activity, how can someone sign for another club or register himself to a squad if he is banned from all activities? I just think the rules have been bent in Barca's favour, it has confused me to no end |
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Aug 20, 2014 11:08:04 GMT
No argument about the right to appeal, but the appeal was lodged in April. Whilst I am no legal expert I'm not clear as to why it should take four months to go through, thereby giving them chance to sign a load of players. Surely they could have concluded it before the end of June when the window opened?
|
|
|
|
Post by superscfc on Aug 20, 2014 11:11:42 GMT
No argument about the right to appeal, but the appeal was lodged in April. Whilst I am no legal expert I'm not clear as to why it should take four months to go through, thereby giving them chance to sign a load of players. Surely they could have concluded it before the end of June when the window opened? This is pretty much my point, the appeals have benefited Barca in every way, the decision on Suarez took a number of weeks whereas the Barca appeal has took much, much longer Everyone know's FIFA & UEFA are corrupt but it's so bloody obvious in this case IMO |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 11:15:19 GMT
nothing fishy at all. ANY club has the right to appeal the ruling and if so then the original ban is lifted until the appeal has been dealt with. same happened to Chelsea but people only seem to moan if they can shoehorn some conspiracy into it I knew that they obviously had the right to appeal, just think it's all very convenient considering what Suarez did and the implications they put on his ban whilst he was at Liverpool (can't go to Melwood/Anfield, can't appear in the press etc) I just think it's interesting how he's bit an opponent, left the club who stuck by him, gone to a club who were pending a transfer ban, now allowed to play in non competitive matches train etc. I just think it's weird that he was officially unveiled this week and had his sanctions removed last week and now the appeal has been dealt with. Corruption IMO. I vaguely remember the Chelsea incident but could you elaborate? struggling to think what exactly went on EDIT - Suarez was banned from all football activity, how can someone sign for another club or register himself to a squad if he is banned from all activities? I just think the rules have been bent in Barca's favour, it has confused me to no end but the Suarez thing and the part of the punishment that was lifted (which pretty much everyone disagreed with anyway becuse it was ridiculous and unenforceable) was dealt with by the Court of Arbitration so had nothing to do with UEFA or FIFA anyway; it actually overruled their punishment so unless you're saying that an independent body is now in on it as well and in cahoots with FIFA and UEFA then i really don't see the connection between the 2 completely separate events that led to the 2 complete separate and unrelated punishments. if you're saying that the Court for Arbitration IS in on it then that's taking the conspiracy thing to an entirely new level!! the Chelsea incident was about Gael Kakuta. Lens said Chelsea had tapped him up and convinced him to leave and FIFA banned them from making transfers until 2011. Chelsea went to the Court of Arbitration who lifted the ban as it was found that his contract with Lens wasn't valid anyway so Chelsea had every right to talk to him. whilst the case with the Court of Arbitration was going on the transfer ban was lifted pending the outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 11:16:24 GMT
No argument about the right to appeal, but the appeal was lodged in April. Whilst I am no legal expert I'm not clear as to why it should take four months to go through, thereby giving them chance to sign a load of players. Surely they could have concluded it before the end of June when the window opened? i'd imagine FIFA may have been busy with a small tournament they hold every four years that happened this summer  the reason the ban was lifted was something that FIFA actually explained at the time when the appeal was lodged. they said that due to the complexity of the case and the fact that Barca could (and now probably will) launch an appeal to the Court for Arbitration it was unlikely to be concluded before the start of the transfer window so therefore they couldn't implementit as any subsequent may disagree with FIFAs original ruling and Barca could be found to be completely innocent and then Barca would have been unfairly stopped from buying players this summer. it was simply a case of timing. i put money on it that if this was ANY other club in ANY other league then we wouldn't have all the conspiracy, Barca favouritism bullshit. just lazy accusations (FIFA are sometimes corrupt = therefore everything they do must therefore be corrupt...it's a complete false equivalency) without anything to back them up really as the rules are clearly laid down by FIFA, have been for a long time and other teams have been in exactly the same situation |
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Aug 20, 2014 11:16:31 GMT
I guess Suarez's ban from FIFA was based almost entirely on one piece of evidence - video footage of him chomping on Chiellini. And to be fair the court for arbitration for sport has only just finished their ruling on the terms of his ban. For this Barca case I think there were multiple kiddies involved and gathering the evidence is a bit trickier when you're probably looking at where they lived at what time and why etc (although I presume the vast majority of evidence had been gathered at the original case).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 11:18:07 GMT
No argument about the right to appeal, but the appeal was lodged in April. Whilst I am no legal expert I'm not clear as to why it should take four months to go through, thereby giving them chance to sign a load of players. Surely they could have concluded it before the end of June when the window opened? This is pretty much my point, the appeals have benefited Barca in every way, the decision on Suarez took a number of weeks whereas the Barca appeal has took much, much longer Everyone know's FIFA & UEFA are corrupt but it's so bloody obvious in this case IMO the Suarez decision WASN'T FIFA though!!! it was the Court for Arbitration |
|
|
|
Post by superscfc on Aug 20, 2014 11:23:06 GMT
This is pretty much my point, the appeals have benefited Barca in every way, the decision on Suarez took a number of weeks whereas the Barca appeal has took much, much longer Everyone know's FIFA & UEFA are corrupt but it's so bloody obvious in this case IMO the Suarez decision WASN'T FIFA though!!! it was the Court for Arbitration I'm still lost with all this, everyone know's Blatter has a massive hard on for Barca, he could easily have put some more money in a swiss bank account to get the Suarez stuff dealt with much quicker. I'm struggling to get my point across I just think it stinks of corruption, you seem well clued up on the subject so you're probably right about the finer details I just think FIFA have helped Barca get Suarez signed up and had his sanctions reduced, I could be completely wrong and you probably think I am, I just really believe it's not legit, why has it taken them until after Barca have spent £100m in the window? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 11:28:11 GMT
the Suarez decision WASN'T FIFA though!!! it was the Court for Arbitration I'm still lost with all this, everyone know's Blatter has a massive hard on for Barca, he could easily have put some more money in a swiss bank account to get the Suarez stuff dealt with much quicker. I'm struggling to get my point across I just think it stinks of corruption, you seem well clued up on the subject so you're probably right about the finer details I just think FIFA have helped Barca get Suarez signed up and had his sanctions reduced, I could be completely wrong and you probably think I am, I just really believe it's not legit, why has it taken them until after Barca have spent £100m in the window? if Barca had been found completely innocent at appeal then they'd have lost the ability to sign players completely unfairly. it's a rule that's been there for years and other clubs have utilised it as well. Suarez havng his sanctions reduced is NOTHING to do with FIFA. it was FIFA that imposed the original,far more stringent sanctions. it was the Court for Arbitration (who are completely independent and also govern rulings for athletics, the Olympics and other sports) who are completely independent of FIFA and Blatter who lessened the restrictions. i don't see how FIFA can have some conspiracy about Suarez thrown at them when it was FIFA that wanted and imposed the harsher ban in the first place and also threw Suarez's appeal to them out! P.S. re: why it's taken so long....FIFA said at the time that due to the complexity of the case (as it involves many young players from outside of the EU etc.) that it was very unlikely to have that concluded, a possible appeal concluded and then a possible appeal to the Court of arbitration concluded before the transfer window was open or shut and therefore they couldn't legitimately impose the ban as if Barca were subsequently found to be completely innocent they'd have been stopped from buying players completely unfairly. if Barca HAD had to stick to the ban, it was then investigated further and found they'd done nothing wrong then they'd end up suing FIFA foe tens of millions as it would have seriously restricted their ability to improve the squad when they hadn't done anything wrong in the first place. how would that be fair? you can't say "FIFA are corrupt because they've helped Barca" but then if they HAD been stopped from buying players and been found innocent say "Hahahaha isn't is funny that FIFA being corrupt screwed Barca over". if you want to see FIFA being fair (which we all do and is a rarity) then in this case they have been as they've 100% stuck to their own rules that were laid down well before the Barca situation came up. if they hadn't then you'd be applauding them for making the rules up as they go along....bizarre really; FIFA do something right and by the book and they're slagged off for it, if they'd bypassed the rules and NOT lifted the ban (i.e. been corrupt) then people would be all for it because of the club involved. i just think some people on here conveniently ignore facts, precedents that have already been set and the rules as laid down as and when they choose which is usually based on the name of the club involved. |
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Aug 20, 2014 11:34:22 GMT
No argument about the right to appeal, but the appeal was lodged in April. Whilst I am no legal expert I'm not clear as to why it should take four months to go through, thereby giving them chance to sign a load of players. Surely they could have concluded it before the end of June when the window opened? pretty obvious barca knew what they were doing in appealing. They had probably been advised that they were caught bang to rights and would be best placed to appeal so that they simply deferred the ban and could sign players this window knowing that it might be their last activity for 18 months. This was especially important with Valdes and Puyol both announcing they would be leaving this summer (announced before the ban) |
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Aug 20, 2014 11:35:42 GMT
Not sure if there is a conspiracy theory, but the rules are just daft and toothless. You also suspect that money influences decisions, and the rich clubs get away with more than poor clubs. The whole murky issue of work permits springs to mind.
I agree with the OP and Banksy. Barca have used the appeal process simply to bend the rules.
I've nicked the following from the BBC website. FIFA rules state that international players under the age of 18 "...can move to a club in a different country if their parents move there for non-footballing reasons, if they are from another nation within the European Union or European Economic Area and aged between 16 and 18, or if they live within 100km of the club."
3 clear guidelines. If Barca have been banned you would think there must be fairly clear evidence of a breach of one of these guidelines. As Banksy points out, why has the appeal taken so long? The Legia Warsaw appeal was heard in a matter of days. And why if the ban is upheld can Barca still make transfer dealings in this window?
The rules and subsequent ban appear to be meaningless to Barcalona.
Similarly, if Suarez is a FIFA registered player, why can't their ban stand? I also think it is strange that he can be transferred and registered for another club when he is banned "from all footballing activity".
Rules for the rich I'm afraid - does anybody actually believe that Chelsea, Manchester City or PSG will not be able to wriggle out of any meaningful FFP sanctions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 11:52:59 GMT
Not sure if there is a conspiracy theory, but the rules are just daft and toothles. You also suspect that money influences decisions, and the rich clubs get away with more than poor clubs. The whole murky issue of work permits springs to mind. I agree with the OP and Banksy. Barca have used the appeal process simply to bend the rules. I've nicked the following from the BBC website. FIFA rules state that international players under the age of 18 "...can move to a club in a different country if their parents move there for non-footballing reasons, if they are from another nation within the European Union or European Economic Area and aged between 16 and 18, or if they live within 100km of the club." 3 clear guidelines. If Barca have been banned you would think there must be fairly clear evidence of a breach of one of these guidelines. As Banksy points out, why has the appeal taken so long? The Legia Warsaw appeal was heard in a matter of days. And why if the ban is upheld can Barca still make transfer dealings in this window? The rules and subsequent ban appear to be meaningless to Barcalona. Similarly, if Suarez is a FIFA registered player, why can't their ban stand? I also think it is strange that he can be transferred and registered for another club when he is banned "from all footballing activity". Rules for the rich I'm afraid - does anybody actually believe that Chelsea, Manchester City or PSG will not be able to wriggle out of any meaningful FFP sanctions? Work permits????? the current rules are laid down by the FA and ratified by the UK Home office not FIFA...in fact most other countries within FIFA have far less stringent WP rules than we do. the rules Barca are believed to have breached is that they basically tapped up the parents to move to Spain so they could sign the player. it involves many many players and their families so will obviously take a long time to look into as it;s a very complex case. the comparison to the Legia Warsaw is case is spurious as that was a straightforward situation. FIFA also laid down what constituted "Footballing activity" and because transferring to another club simply involved signing a piece of paper, it doesn't fall into the ruling (which is perfect common sense). what i don't get is people are saying FIFA are corrupt yet seem to be 100% sure they were right to ban them in the first place. are you all choosing as and when FIFA are corrupt now? why has no-one presumed their original ruling to ban them was corrupt? everyone just automatically believes THAT bit is correct and THIS bit is corrupt. you can't just pick and choose whn it suits when there's literally nothing whatsoever to back up any conspiracy idea here! FIFA imposed the Suarez ban, CAS overturned part of it. they are 2 entirely 2 separate bodiesand not linked in any way.....so it now appears that what you're saying is FIFA are corrupt due to WP rules even though they don't set them for us FIFAs decision was perfectly right in banning Barca from transfers (despite you not kneing the facts of the case), they were corrupt for lifting the ban despite it being a rule so it would actually have been corrupt to NOT lift it (but that's fine as it's Barca so sometimes we'll allow FIFA to be corrupt but only when we can laugh at a big team) and now they're right again (despite still not knowing the reasons for the ruling) far too many people completely blinded by club name on here and deciding that if it's a big club then: a) they HAVE to done something wrong somewhere b) if they haven't then it HAS to be because FIFA are hiding it for them c) because there may have been conspiracies in the past then everything they do IS automatically a conspiracy FIFA apparently are corrupt in everything they do but were apparently 100% right in banning Barca in the first place then went back to being corrupt afterwards...cracking logic there guys! i'm all for slagging off unfair and unjust treatment but i get the feeling the only people being unjust here are you guys as you have nothing to back up any conspiracy idea here (as i've said it actually would have been corrupt of them to NOT lift the ban as it's a laid down rule) whatsoever, seem to be muddling up decisions given by FIFA and those given by the CAS at will as and when it suits and i'm guessing wouldn't give a shit whatsoever if the team had been Fulham or Hull for instance but because it's Barca......i'm also guessing that if FIFA HAD been corrupt by NOT lifting the ban when Barca appealed you'd be all for that then as apparently if they're going to be corrupt against a big side then it's just funny. it's very very simply a case of them actually following the rules for once and, like i said earlier, for once we should actually be applauding them for following their own rules but some of you it would seem would be happier if they did exactly what you're slagging them off for i.e. made them up as they went along. in this case they quite simply haven't done that, they've stuck to them and are now seen as corrupt for..well, not being corrupt. you really couldn't make it up or get it anywhere else but on the Oatcake!  |
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Aug 20, 2014 12:13:19 GMT
Without wishing to get involved in an argument where your long posts just wear me down, Mick, you have missed the point.
I didn't say FIFA was corrupt on this issue, I said Barca had knowingly used the appeal process to suit their own purposes. They have rendered the ban useless, and made hay while the sun is shining. Why is this case so complex? Did these families move to within 100km of Barca for non-footballing reasons or not? Maybe it's only complex because Barca's PR and legal machine tell the world its complex.
I used the work permit issue to demonstrate that there appears to be an advantage for rich clubs, even if it is only that they have the budget to buy more established international players.
Lens have a contractual dispute with Chelsea. The odds are stacked in the favour of the rich clubs, even if its just in the legal resource they have at their disposal.
Two simple questions. In general, do you think the structure of modern football favours the rich clubs and is designed to maintain the status quo? Secondly, in this case, do you think that Barca have used the appeal process to suit their own immediate ends?
|
|
|
|
Post by superscfc on Aug 20, 2014 12:22:42 GMT
Barca knew they wouldn't win the appeal they just knew appealing would give them time to make a couple of signings.
Massive coincidence that it's about 2 days after Barca officially unveiled Suarez that's the point I'm getting at, yes FIFA have kept to the rules but that doesn't necessarily say that they have been as quick as possible, this IMO could have been dealt with before the Suarez deal but we're going round in circles here.
Off Topic.
What happened with the Neymar transfer? there was a scandal about that
Did Messi ever get done for his alleged tax avoidance?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 12:29:40 GMT
Without wishing to get involved in an argument where your long posts just wear me down, Mick, you have missed the point. I didn't say FIFA was corrupt on this issue, I said Barca had knowingly used the appeal process to suit their own purposes. They have rendered the ban useless, and made hay while the sun is shining. Why is this case so complex? Did these families move to within 100km of Barca for non-footballing reasons or not? Maybe it's only complex because Barca's PR and legal machine tell the world its complex. I used the work permit issue to demonstrate that there appears to be an advantage for rich clubs, even if it is only that they have the budget to buy more established international players. Lens have a contractual dispute with Chelsea. The odds are stacked in the favour of the rich clubs, even if its just in the legal resource they have at their disposal. Two simple questions. In general, do you think the structure of modern football favours the rich clubs and is designed to maintain the status quo? Secondly, in this case, do you think that Barca have used the appeal process to suit their own immediate ends? sorry if giving you the salient facts of the case wears you down. personally i usually find it best to actually know them before leveling accusations of wrongdoing at people but that's just me i suppose 1) yes, i do think Barca have used the appeal process in their favour. in the same way ANY club could do in the same or similar situation. so if it's a rule that can be applied to literally EVERY team under FIFAs jurisidiction then what's the problem? 2) The 100km rule you've quoted is actually only applicable if they are living in a different country to where they play (i.e. if they are resident still in Germany then if they joining a French club but remaining living in Germany then it has to be within 100km of where they live...those rules are clear as mud i know and it took me ages to get my head around them myself a few months ago when i was looking into it for WP rules etc. cos i'm a boring arsehole i know  ). the rule they've apparently broken is that they paid families to move into Spain so they could sign their children to the club. in order for FIFA to prove they broke the rules they would have to prove beyond doubt that those families never had the intention to move to Spain for any other reason (as Barca can only sign them if the family moved over for non-footballing reasons). Now, given the fact that if Barca are found guilty then they will have to dissolve the contracts with those players, how likely is it do you think that the families involved will just fess up as soon as they are asked in the full knowledge that if they do then their son't career and their own financial situation will be completely ruined? it involves nearly 20 player and therefore 20 families that won't be too keen on Barca being found guilty. therefore an investigation will not just be concluded in a week or two 3)The Chelsea/Lens thing had nothing to do with Chelsea having access to rich lawyers. in the end it was Lens that actually admitted it freely themselves and Chelsea as a thank you even gave Lens compensation for the player as a show of goodwill for not stringing the situation out. again, the financial clout of Chelsea is just another lazy presumption and wasn't relevant in their case at all as both Lens and Chelsea happily settled it amicably. it was the transfer ban that Chelsea then had to overturn BECAUSE of the admission by Lens yes, of course rich clubs are at an advantage but they are largely rich because of their success over many many years so therefore deserve that advantage of being able to get better, more established players in etc. if they don't get that advantage then what the hell point is there in trying to be successful and improve year on year? we may as well just give football up as a sport if those that are successful and have worked for decades to have that success are now only allowed the same transfer fees etc. as Leicester City and West Ham. are you complaining that we can now afford the likes of the players we have rather than just making do with Chris Iwelumo and Tony Dinning? no, thought not! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 12:31:45 GMT
Barca knew they wouldn't win the appeal they just knew appealing would give them time to make a couple of signings. Massive coincidence that it's about 2 days after Barca officially unveiled Suarez that's the point I'm getting at, yes FIFA have kept to the rules but that doesn't necessarily say that they have been as quick as possible, this IMO could have been dealt with before the Suarez deal but we're going round in circles here. Off Topic. What happened with the Neymar transfer? there was a scandal about that Did Messi ever get done for his alleged tax avoidance? dunno about the Neymar thing but Messi got off the tax avoidance as they believed it was his dad (i think) that was behind it all and found nothing to show that Messi himself had any involvement. Messi is currently being investigated for something else though, namely making lots of money for appearing in Charity matches set up by his own foundation where he guaranteed not to take a wage from. |
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Aug 20, 2014 12:43:53 GMT
You need to wake up and smell the coffee. Money rules.
"Chelsea gave Lens a settlement for not stringing the case out" ? Is this a thank you, an out of court settlement, an additional private payment to make it worth while to shut up or a straight bung?
You seem to be the kind of person who believes everything you read in the papers. This "news" comes from highly paid PR companies. Do you really believe Chelsea didn't seek any legal advice in this case, and that the "thank you payment" didn't just buy off Lens?
I'm determined not to get drawn in, but thankfully you couldn't have proved my point any better. The system is totally geared to the rich clubs, and while people like you are happy to accept it, it will never change.
In a league of 20 teams, we will never, ever get into the top 4 never mind win it, because too many people are happy for the rich to get richer and the other clubs to be excluded.
|
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Aug 20, 2014 12:51:36 GMT
Pisses me off that now we have to cross off another potential suitor for Palacios.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 12:59:02 GMT
You need to wake up and smell the coffee. Money rules. "Chelsea gave Lens a settlement for not stringing the case out" ? Is this a thank you, an out of court settlement, an additional private payment to make it worth while to shut up or a straight bung? You seem to be the kind of person who believes everything you read in the papers. This "news" comes from highly paid PR companies. Do you really believe Chelsea didn't seek any legal advice in this case, and that the "thank you payment" didn't just buy off Lens? I'm determined not to get drawn in, but thankfully you couldn't have proved my point any better. The system is totally geared to the rich clubs, and while people like you are happy to accept it, it will never change. In a league of 20 teams, we will never, ever get into the top 4 never mind win it, because too many people are happy for the rich to get richer and the other clubs to be excluded. and literally EVERYTHING you've just written there is based upon YOUR presumption and no facts whatsoever.....in other words what i've said doesn't prove your point in any way, shape or form apart from in your own mind where because people are sometimes corrupt, cynical and dodgy then apparently EVERYTHING that a rich club does therefore has to be so. like i said earlier, it's a complete and utter false equivalency that doesn't follow, doesn't contain any logical reasoning or stand up to any kind of argument whatsoever. it's purely what you've decided to believe, interpret and misinterpret in your own head to suit what you want to believe. a bit sad really! no, i don't believe everything i read...unlike you however i don't automatically think that because i've read something it HAS to be lies (as long as it's about certain clubs/organisations that i've already decided i'm going to disbelieve whatever they say) and then proceed to make up my own bullshit devoid of any facts or evidence whatsoever. i believe the technical term for you is "Fuckin nutjob"....toddle off along with starkiller and leave sensible discussions to those that can actually validate anything they say P.S. amazing how you don't seem to have ANY issue whatsoever with Stoke getting richer while other clubs continue to be excluded eh? either stop being so hypocritical or bugger off with your conspiracy bollocks. at least the OP tried to back up what he said without resorting to just accusing others of being naive simply because they're not fuckin paranoid about the world and everything in it like you |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Aug 20, 2014 13:04:16 GMT
nothing fishy at all. ANY club has the right to appeal the ruling and if so then the original ban is lifted until the appeal has been dealt with.it's a rule that was written down long long before Barca were in trouble and a rule that applies to EVERYONE who wants to appeal the decision. same happened to Chelsea but people like to ignore those kind of precedents and focus solely on situations where they can shoehorn some conspiracy into it about Barca or Real. Wasn't quite the same at Chelsea though MMLC. A large stuffed brown envelope passed to Lens An agreement with Lens meant they dropped their complaint and the ban was lifted. Anyway what's wrong with a good juicy conspiracy theory....this board thrives on them doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 13:06:26 GMT
nothing fishy at all. ANY club has the right to appeal the ruling and if so then the original ban is lifted until the appeal has been dealt with.it's a rule that was written down long long before Barca were in trouble and a rule that applies to EVERYONE who wants to appeal the decision. same happened to Chelsea but people like to ignore those kind of precedents and focus solely on situations where they can shoehorn some conspiracy into it about Barca or Real. Wasn't quite the same at Chelsea though. A large stuffed brown envelope passed to Lens an agreement with Lens meant they dropped their complaint and the ban was lifted. it was the CAS that lifted the ban mate because of Lens admitting to what they did. it wasn't FIFA that lifted it, they suspended the ban pending the outcome of the CAS |
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Aug 20, 2014 13:22:45 GMT
Mick you are a strange individual. I have visions of you on a soap box at Hyde Park Corner with a sandwich board over your head, droning on while people walk past trying to ignore you. I'm not the first who feels like they are banging their head against the wall trying to reason with you, and I'm sure I won't be the last.
Let's hope you are right, and that the world is as sweet as you paint it, and Chelsea didn't buy off Lens and Barca didn't deliberately abuse the rules and appeal system. Rich clubs don't pay lawyers and PR firms to influence opinion.
I give up. You win. I haven't time in my life and I really don't know why get involved. Something about your holier than thou, know it all style makes me bite. It's futile.
You must be right. I am a nutjob. Just like you are the voice of reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 13:29:32 GMT
Mick you are a strange individual. I have visions of you on a soap box at Hyde Park Corner with a sandwich board over your head, droning on while people walk past trying to ignore you. I'm not the first who feels like they are banging their head against the wall trying to reason with you, and I'm sure I won't be the last. Let's hope you are right, and that the world is as sweet as you paint it, and Chelsea didn't buy off Lens and Barca didn't deliberately abuse the rules and appeal system. Rich clubs don't pay lawyers and PR firms to influence opinion. I give up. You win. I haven't time in my life and I really don't know why get involved. Something about your holier than though, know it all style makes me bite. It's futile. You must be right. I am a nutjob. Just like you are the voice of reason. ???? simply saying "Chelsea bought them off" and "Barca are getting away with it because they're rich" with no evidence whatsoever to back it up isn't reasoning with anyone, it's simply you trying to get them to believe you despite having nothing to back up why they should. if you have any evidence other than a complete cynicism of anyone richer than stoke (because apparently we're allowed to get richer and continue to let smaller clubs feel excluded..you have no issue with that seemingly) and a presumption they therefore simply HAVE to be cheating the systems put in place then feel free to share them; THAT would be reasoning with someone. as of yet you've done nothing of the sort though. |
|
|
|
Post by coates on Aug 20, 2014 13:37:36 GMT
If Barcelona have already signed 5 players it's not really a punishment, unless they get any bad injuries then these players will get them through the next 2 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by superscfc on Aug 20, 2014 13:49:44 GMT
Barca knew they wouldn't win the appeal they just knew appealing would give them time to make a couple of signings. Massive coincidence that it's about 2 days after Barca officially unveiled Suarez that's the point I'm getting at, yes FIFA have kept to the rules but that doesn't necessarily say that they have been as quick as possible, this IMO could have been dealt with before the Suarez deal but we're going round in circles here. Off Topic. What happened with the Neymar transfer? there was a scandal about that Did Messi ever get done for his alleged tax avoidance? dunno about the Neymar thing but Messi got off the tax avoidance as they believed it was his dad (i think) that was behind it all and found nothing to show that Messi himself had any involvement. Messi is currently being investigated for something else though, namely making lots of money for appearing in Charity matches set up by his own foundation where he guaranteed not to take a wage from. Isn't Messi meant to be the humble model pro that Ronaldo isn't? Messi who's under a 2nd investigation re - money Ronaldo gets abuse for being arrogant and only caring about money when infact he does more for charity than most footballers in the world, the guy gets unfair stick |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 14:18:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by superscfc on Aug 20, 2014 14:25:56 GMT
those are interesting reads, I'm curious what will happen if found guilty and wonder if he is found guilty whether the alleged fraud with himself and his father will go under another investigation |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 14:29:25 GMT
those are interesting reads, I'm curious what will happen if found guilty and wonder if he is found guilty whether the alleged fraud with himself and his father will go under another investigation if nothing else it shows how powerful the "Messi machine" is...if this had been Beckahm, ronaldo, Bale etc. then everyone would already know all about it. as it is, it's been kept very quiet |
|
). the rule they've apparently broken is that they paid families to move into Spain so they could sign their children to the club. in order for FIFA to prove they broke the rules they would have to prove beyond doubt that those families never had the intention to move to Spain for any other reason (as Barca can only sign them if the family moved over for non-footballing reasons). Now, given the fact that if Barca are found guilty then they will have to dissolve the contracts with those players, how likely is it do you think that the families involved will just fess up as soon as they are asked in the full knowledge that if they do then their son't career and their own financial situation will be completely ruined? it involves nearly 20 player and therefore 20 families that won't be too keen on Barca being found guilty. therefore an investigation will not just be concluded in a week or two
