this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Football / Soccer / Calcio / Futebol / Fußball

142 readers
4 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NotClayMerritt@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (5 children)

You do have to question this entire piece of journalism considering it’s not telling us anything new or groundbreaking. We already know as fact that Clearlake have reported secret payments that were made under previous ownership to the Premier League months ago when going through the club’s finances. I don’t suppose Bruce Buck or Marina are around to face questioning?

I swear it’s like a new publication gets to write this exact story every couple of weeks (coincidentally the last one came during the last international break aka slow news cycle).

Next they’re going to tell us we paid Andreas Christensen’s dad as a scout or that we paid Bertrand Traore’s mum - both of which we’ve already served two transfer bans for btw.

[–] empiresk@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

You do have to question this entire piece of journalism considering it’s not telling us anything new or groundbreaking.

Did you read the article? It literally states multiple instances of rule breaches that have not been self reported.

[–] Tricky-Jackfruit8366@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

I’m not convinced you clicked the link and read the article

[–] depressingmirror2@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Do you not think that maybe that is why Clearlake reported what they did. To muddy the water like this. They report the least damning thing they can find and lump every other accusation in as what they’ve already reported.

[–] Rare-Ad-2777@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

They've found more payments haven't they. That's what this is saying. It's more of the same stuff. Not looming good for chelsea

[–] Lyrical_Forklift@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We already know as fact that Clearlake have reported secret payments that were made under previous ownership to the Premier League months ago when going through the club’s finances.

I don't think much of it has been leaked to the press though - this is the media doing what the should be doing.

The question is, what kind of punishments should Chelsea face? If it's a small points deduction years later, when it ultimately doesn't matter, then it's not much of a deterrent to anyone else.

[–] not-always-online@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The only fair punishment that would also act as a deterrent, is to strip them of all their titles during this period.

[–] PurpleSi@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Or make them take Havertz and Mount back and refund the clubs.

[–] niceville@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Lol, that's not a deterrent at all as that has no tangible impact on the team.

The games still happened, the players got their bonuses and new contracts, the fans got their parades and merch. Who cares if a wikipedia entry gets changed?

[–] Lyrical_Forklift@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You can never take back those moments, but it's definitely a more severe punishment than a points deduction on a season where it's likely not going to matter that much.

[–] niceville@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

A points deduction would keep Chelsea out of Europe for another year and hurt them financially. What's an asterisk going to do?

[–] Oliver-Mc10@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Bet you won’t have this opinion when city fans sing “champions of Europe, you’ll never sing that” at the Etihad

[–] niceville@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

I really doubt if Chelsea's CL wins get vacated that City's will stand...