by Winston Biscuit » 11 Sep 2025 20:02
by Sutekh » 11 Sep 2025 23:18
Winston Biscuit wrote:Chelsea charged with 74 breaches of rules relating to the use of football agents.
Thoughts with Kes, and Bubble from Big Brother series 2 at this difficult time
by BRO_BOT » 13 Sep 2025 21:54
by AthleticoSpizz » 13 Sep 2025 22:02
and for Premierdonnaship clubs like Chelsea, Citeh, Utd etc etc, a fine is no punishment at all….it’s just money….it’s nothingSutekh wrote:Winston Biscuit wrote:Chelsea charged with 74 breaches of rules relating to the use of football agents.
Thoughts with Kes, and Bubble from Big Brother series 2 at this difficult time
They’re expecting to receive a financial penalty and not a sporting sanction even though it’s through the use of agents you get players.
by Winston Biscuit » 16 Sep 2025 22:38
Sutekh wrote:Winston Biscuit wrote:Chelsea charged with 74 breaches of rules relating to the use of football agents.
Thoughts with Kes, and Bubble from Big Brother series 2 at this difficult time
They’re expecting to receive a financial penalty and not a sporting sanction even though it’s through the use of agents you get players.
by Sutekh » 17 Sep 2025 09:41
Winston Biscuit wrote:Sutekh wrote:Winston Biscuit wrote:Chelsea charged with 74 breaches of rules relating to the use of football agents.
Thoughts with Kes, and Bubble from Big Brother series 2 at this difficult time
They’re expecting to receive a financial penalty and not a sporting sanction even though it’s through the use of agents you get players.
FFP specialist on Talksport today said its Chelsea that have briefing the media that a financial penalty is all thats expected, but he said his understanding is the authorities are looking to hit them with a sporting penalty (possible points deduction and transfer ban)
Also said the 74 breaches includes more dodgy shenanigans that were uncovered since they reported themselves, and were not included in the initial report on themselves
by BRO_BOT » 20 Sep 2025 18:11
by Winston Biscuit » 16 Mar 2026 13:23
by Sanguine » 16 Mar 2026 14:34
But of a joke really. I remain convinced that anyone waiting for City to get a harsh punishment for their 'irregularities' is going to be waiting a long time.Winston Biscuit wrote:Suspended transfer ban and £10.75m fine for breaching Premier League rules over financial reporting, third-party investment and youth development.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... e-breaking
by Winston Biscuit » 16 Mar 2026 14:47
when weighing up whether a punishment for something is fair or not, I often flip it around and think 'would the guilty party have happily taken this punishment as a forfeit up front, if they were then able to get away with the wrongdoing?' and the answer is clearly yes, and therefore the punishment is not strong enough.Sanguine wrote:But of a joke really. I remain convinced that anyone waiting for City to get a harsh punishment for their 'irregularities' is going to be waiting a long time.Winston Biscuit wrote:Suspended transfer ban and £10.75m fine for breaching Premier League rules over financial reporting, third-party investment and youth development.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... e-breaking
Chelsea hid £47m of payments to players, agents and 'other third parties'. The payments covered the signing of half a first team, including David Luiz, Samuel Eto'o, Eden Hazard, Nemanja Matic and Andre Schurrle. And they get a suspended ban and a small (relative to their worth) fine?
by Sutekh » 16 Mar 2026 16:10
Yes, looking forward to FC 115 being told “move along, nothing to see here” when they finally get to the end of it all at some point in the next couple of decades. Presume the whole affair has gone to VAR now, thus the delay.Winston Biscuit wrote:when weighing up whether a punishment for something is fair or not, I often flip it around and think 'would the guilty party have happily taken this punishment as a forfeit up front, if they were then able to get away with the wrongdoing?' and the answer is clearly yes, and therefore the punishment is not strong enough.Sanguine wrote:But of a joke really. I remain convinced that anyone waiting for City to get a harsh punishment for their 'irregularities' is going to be waiting a long time.Winston Biscuit wrote:Suspended transfer ban and £10.75m fine for breaching Premier League rules over financial reporting, third-party investment and youth development.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... e-breaking
Chelsea hid £47m of payments to players, agents and 'other third parties'. The payments covered the signing of half a first team, including David Luiz, Samuel Eto'o, Eden Hazard, Nemanja Matic and Andre Schurrle. And they get a suspended ban and a small (relative to their worth) fine?
by AthleticoSpizz » 16 Mar 2026 19:50
by windermereROYAL » 17 Mar 2026 08:43
by Sanguine » 17 Mar 2026 08:59
By way of comparison, Luton Town were deducted ten points a decade ago for *check notes* making irrregular payments to agents.AthleticoSpizz wrote:It’s only money, no points deductions thanks to them ‘holding their hands up’
EFL teams get to admit lots of shortcomings……and they get fines, embargoes……and the points deductions
It’s all bullsh1t, football’s dead 115
by leon » 17 Mar 2026 09:04
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 57 guests