GianfrancoZola

Sunderland hat eh einen Elfer usw geschenkt bekommen, was willstn noch alles RDT_20261108_151248.mp4

Frohe Weihnachten von der Bridge. Vollkommen verdient auch noch. Bin schon auf Alonsos Erklärung gespannt, weil das war gar nix

Heute vor 30 Jahren viel zu früh gestorben. Das ewige was wäre wenn für Chelsea Fans. Eine echte Chelsea Legend

Bin zwar selten auf der Seite von Real, aber diesbzgl voll verstaendlich auch wenn die englischen Klubs die waren die das Ende von dem Kasperltheater beschleunigt haben.

Cundy v O'Hara live watchalong. Viel besser als der Kommentator

Top Wochenende quer durch die Bank. Lauren James wieder einmal sensationell bei den Frauen.

So wie's ausschaut ist Emi mit einem Kieferbruch davon gekommen. Nicht ideal weil ein gutes / wichtiges Monat plus draußen aber hâtte viel schlimmer kommen können und mit Penders haben wir soliden Ersatz

ja, hoff nur der erste Eindruck aber wie sie ihn weggetragen haben war sehr wenig Licht in seinen Augen. Ziemlich genau 20 Jahre nach Petr Cechs (obwohl heute wars einfach ein Unfall). Fingers crossed, grauslich zum Anschauen Abgesehen davon ein guter Sieg. Zwar nicht gut gespielt, aber bis jetzt zumindest gut verteidigt. 2-0 auswaerts bei einem Bogey team in guter Form, happy days. Erster cleansheet in 9 Monaten / 23 Spiele . fucking hell

Aus einem Bericht im heutigen Telegraph. Bin echt gespannt was da noch rauskommt. Die PL hat auf jeden Fall einiges zum erklaeren. Bin kein Freund von den Regimen im Mittleren Osten, aber im Prinzip schauts so aus als ob die PL behauptet das die Regierung von Abu Dhabi luegt. Das wird weit ueber ein PL Panel rausgehen, soviel steht auf jeden Fall fest und vor Gericht ists dann egal wie selektiv das Panel evidence zugelassen hat. “Manchester City’s claim to have “irrefutable evidence” that will overturn their guilty verdict on appeal is based on a trove of emails, letters and bank statements. A re-examination of Abu Dhabi government documents, receipts and testimony from 24 witnesses – all of which the club believe were wrongly dismissed at the original hearing – will be central in attempts to force a full or partial acquittal or retrial, according to people familiar with the case. City’s legal team will attempt to demonstrate “fundamental errors” in tests applied by an independent commission to the Premier League’s case that commercial revenue was artificially inflated by £920m. Sources with understanding of City’s case have told Telegraph Sport the club are bullish about their appeal, based on: - Contemporaneous bank statements, government records and receipts they believe confirm the Abu Dhabi government as the source of funds for financing of deals - More recent evidence from the Abu Dhabi government reaffirming** **the accuracy of the original records - What they view as fundamental inconsistencies in the findings. Such a position could effectively be a high-stakes challenge to any appeal panel to question the legitimacy of official Abu Dhabi government documents. City lodged an appeal two weeks ago after the independent commission panel, which has never been individually identified, found the club guilty of more than 100 breaches of financial rules stretching back more than a decade. Sources with understanding of the Premier League’s case, however, express ongoing confidence in the verdict. In a league statement on September 29, it said “the commission has ruled (and an appeal board has confirmed) that the commission’s decision is a ‘final award’”. But in a short statement, the club said the commission’s ruling contained “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe”. The club added they had filed “a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence [that] exists in support of all of its positions”. The club are also understood to claim that the Premier League has no “smoking gun” or witnesses to the alleged wrongdoing, and is relying almost entirely on leaked emails. Crux of the matter Central to City’s appeal argument is that the panel overlooked almost all of their evidence that sponsorship payments came from the Abu Dhabi government, the shareholder of the sponsors. An appeal hearing date has yet to be set while a panel is appointed to scrutinise the evidence. In normal circumstances, the appeal commission has to return a decision, under Premier League rules, within 12 weeks. This gives a deadline of January 21. A possibility is that the appeal panel could refer the matter back to a new commission for a retrial. The independent commission ruled that City inflated commercial revenues and reduced costs by £920m, largely thanks to its ownership topping up “sham” sponsorship deals by more than £830m as part of a “disguised funding scheme”. The commission also found that the scheme was conducted without Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan being aware. The verdict sent shock waves through English football, led to calls for a criminal investigation and has prompted protests from rival fans at City’s Premier League matches. City’s case is that the money came from the Abu Dhabi government, rather than the club’s owner, and should therefore be treated as legitimate sponsorship revenue. Telegraph Sport detailed earlier this month how, during a US investigation into state-owned airlines, Etihad Airways stated: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is false.” City have pointed to the remarks being taken out of context and that the airline at the time went on to say that Etihad funded the sponsorship “from its own liquidity”, which is consistent with their position. Case for the defence The club presented three pillars of evidence around state funding at the hearing, which their lawyers claim were not given sufficient weight in terms of government funding involving sponsorship deals. Those pillars included contemporaneous documentation and bank statements from the Abu Dhabi government; letters from the government to the hearing confirming the accuracy of the original records; and witness evidence from club officials, senior figures at sponsors and government officials. City are expected to argue that the Premier League relied almost entirely on leaked emails and produced no direct witness. City have publicly stated that the panel’s approach contains “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact”, making the resulting findings “unsafe”. The commission previously “rejected that explanation” around government funding “as untrue”. “We concluded that it was an ‘explanation’ that the Club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme,” the panel said. City strongly dispute such a claim, believing proper tests were not applied. What could happen next Overturning the source-of-funds findings could have consequences for a substantial part of the case, as the accuracy of the club’s accounts directly affects the club’s compliance with the Premier League’s financial regulations. The extent of any impact would depend on which findings the appeal panel overturned and how the remaining charges were affected. The appeal panel can examine the commission’s decision, the documents submitted and transcripts of witness evidence. Witnesses are not generally re-examined, making the process different from a full rehearing. Possible outcomes include upholding the findings, overturning some or all of them, or referring matters back for further consideration. City also argue that the earlier Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling in 2020 supports their position, rejecting the suggestion that they escaped the Uefa case solely on a technicality that the case was time-barred and that specific findings were made by Cas that Etihad did not receive funds from Sheikh Mansour. There is unhappiness behind the scenes with the timing and presentation of the Premier League verdict, according to people familiar with the club’s position.

Habt's eh grad genug sportliche issues, aber hier eine gute Zusammenfassung vom aktuellen Private Eye ueber Ratcliffe. https://www.private-eye.co.uk/columnists

Fuer die Statistik sicher, aber als massiver Radsportfan weis ich auch das ALLE von Armstrongs Konkurrenten damals genauso pumpvoll waren wie er. Was den Unterschied ausmachte war das es damals ja nicht nur ums Doping per se ging, sondern auch um das wie. und da hast auch schon eine wichtige Parallele zum City Fall. Der Skandal ist nicht das sie beschissen haben, da gibts keinen Klub/Verband/Spieler der das nicht schon in irgendeiner Form selbst gemacht hat. Das wie ist auch hier den Unterschied. Weil weder fuer Armstrong/Fans noch fuer City Spieler/Fans (falls es dazu kommt, was ich mir aufgrund der rechtlichen Konsequenzen nicht vorstellen kann) macht es einen Unterschied. Die Erinnerungen und die Emotionen beim Titelgewinn sind erlebt und unvergessbar, egal was in den Geschichtsbuechern spaeter einmal steht.

Stimm die zu, nur sind 100 oder auch 200m für Sheikh Mansoor soviel als ob wir einen 20er verlieren. Schade aber im Endeffekt für ihn irrelevant. Der Rest ist wo es eh tut, obwohl Titel abnehmen eher nur was für die Geschichtsbücher ist weil du weder die Emotionen noch den finanziellen Zugewinn der mit Erfolg kommt kompensieren kannst. Oder glaubst ernsthaft das United und Liverpool die von den 2 anerkannten Titeln profitieren würden deswegen eine Bus Parade machen würden

Wird wohl um einiges mehr sein aufgrund der Anzahl der Vergehen aber eh irrelevant egal wie hoch. Titel wegnehmen ist mMn ähnlich irrelevant weil die Emotion Weg ist. Ich nehme an es wird sich auf eine 50m+ Strafe, einen langen Transfer ban und Punktabzug einspielen. Aber zuerst geht's einmal vor den Gerichten weiter, obwohl eine Beschwerde bei CAS ist nicht möglich, sprich es sollte bald eine definitive Entscheidung geben