Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: duncshine
Date: 25-06-2008, 16:32

Hi all,

With apologies to those who have topics already running on this subject. Can I ask what the official current position is on the following.

Please, although I respect everyone's views on the rights and wrongs of the issues behind these topics, can we keep this topic to the current position, not what we think SHOULD happen?

Thanks

So, as I understand it

FC Porto of Portugal will compete in CL 2008/9, but may face some punishment for 2009/10.

Steaua Bucuresti have been punished internally by the Romanian FA, but have not been excluded from next year's CL.

CSKA Sofia have not been granted a licence by the Bulgarian FA, so are currently not in UEFA Competitions for 2008/9.

Is this the current positions?

Thanks

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: executor Date: 25-06-2008, 19:04	duncshine, You're right about Steaua. But I have no idea when UEFA will announce their verdict. On Intertoto page, the Romanian participant is still TBC, which indicates that the case is still rolling.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: bert.kassies Date: 25-06-2008, 19:24	The provisional Champions League access list still has Steaua, while CSKA is replaced by Levski.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: Nick Date: 25-06-2008, 23:02 Edited by: Nick at: 25-06-2008, 23:02	The BFU licensing commision will review the CSKA case on thursday. As of now CSKA still has no license.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: Nick Date: 26-06-2008, 17:46	In a new weird desition the BFU licensing commision returned the license to CSKA. The weird thing is that they made this "under conditions".

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: bert.kassies Date: 26-06-2008, 19:04	Any remark or confirmation to this "news"? UEFA officially announces Levski is Bulgaria’s representative in Champions League

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: executor Date: 26-06-2008, 19:10	Bert, I wouldn't put too much price on that article. First, they must've read the Provisional List, skipping the bolded text which warns the reader changes might occur. Second, they don't seem to know much about coefficients: {i>Due to its low coefficient, Levski could have started from the second qualifying round{/i>. A source like that cannot be taken seriously.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: pit Date: 27-06-2008, 06:56 Edited by: pit at: 27-06-2008, 06:58	interesting search result: G o o g l e's cache of http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind=1/newsid=727025.html?cid=rssfeed &att=competitions/ucl/index as retrieved on 25 Jun 2008 15:47:04 GMT. Next season's roads lead to Rome (cached) "hence PFC CSKA Sofia moved forward to the third qualifying round"

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: Nick Date: 27-06-2008, 08:31 Edited by: Nick at: 27-06-2008, 08:33	Well, today we should know more. Bulgaria's IT spot is still "tbc". The weird thing is that as of today to total debt of CSKA towards the state revenue agency is around....17 000 Euro. This is confirmed by a friend who works in the agency. This is an amount even I could pay without greater problems.

Author: cska
Date: 27-06-2008, 11:23
Edited by: cska
at: 27-06-2008, 11:24

Hi friends,

Yesterday I saw some news at BG websites. As I am in Romania right now, it was a bit difficult to confirm the news quickly. Anyway, now I may say that unfortunately for me, the news is correct.
The news is that CSKA will obtain license for top division, but will cede the CL spot to Levski. The interim president of CSKA Emil Kostadinov agreed to this shady and utterly shameful "deal" with the BFU president Borislav Mihaylov.
BFU knew that they would have had severe problems with court and with UEFA (CSKA threatened to sue BFU which may have caused all BG teams to be expelled). CSKA have the legal right on their side, because BFU sent the license refusal letter to UEFA 2 days before the expiration of the licensing period.
So, CSKA now agree not to sue BFU and BFU agree not to refuse license to CSKA any longer.
However, according to this deal, our CL entrant will be Levski...
I wish there is somebody ready to kill both CSKA and BFU presidents...
There was even a scenario, in which CSKA are restored to CL, but sent to division 3, because UEFA might decide that BFU's decision was illegal, but UEFA does not intervene in local championships. I would personally prefer that scenario. CSKA in division 3 might have at least a chance to reform and come out cleared of thieves. The CL and UC elimination would not be a big problem, as I expect no good results with our youth team plus 3-4 of the good players who stayed...

If by any chance I hear something different about the situation, I will gladly post it here. Anyway, UEFA';s website is not quite informative right now. It seems they're a bit busy with the Euro'08 right now...

Author: tanosan
Date: 27-06-2008, 14:38

Since CSKA already got their licence, nevetheless it is "under condition", nothing can`t stop them to apply for the UEFA tournaments. Maybe the reason they are not doing that is they still have tax debts. I 'm wondering if the Bulgarian Football Union issued the lisence without CSKA fulfilling the requirements what is going to happen. Is there a chance UEFA to punish the Union and all Bulgarian clubs?

Author: oggie
Date: 27-06-2008, 17:33

The whole idea of the reinstatement of cska is ridiculous and is the figment of the imagination of incompetent journalists and rampant, equally schizophrenic fans who see the whole deal as an international conspiracy against the pure and innocent team on behalf of the global Levski mafia deemed 'the blue octopus' which has it's grip on FIFA, UEFA and all global football institutions. The clear facts state that the club missed all the official deadlines, hoping that the licensing comity would close their eyes for the n-th consecutive year. Alas no, due probably to fierce pressure from UEFA. Following the decision fans meet with the prime minister who promises that the situation will be resolved. Loud campaigns and attacks on the BFU headquarters add further pressure. Nearly a month later (strange after club management swore to being only the famous two days late) the club hands in 'financial documents' to the BFU who summon the licensing comity to a new hearing. The comity issues a license 'under condition' until August 4th (a date crucially 3 days after the CL draw) securing the threat of the club losing all it's professional players after 30th June.
Rumors speak of an investigation of the BFU by UEFA following the desicion

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: bert.kassies Date: 27-06-2008, 18:31	Benfica appeal against Porto's inclusion in UCL

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: pit Date: 27-06-2008, 21:00	There is one incorrect comment in the last link: as all POR clubs enter GR/Q3 in CL and R1 in UEFA Cup, decision could be met even after 1st July (but before mid July - Q3 CL draw is scheduled for 1st Aug but IC R2 return matches - for 12-13 Jul, R3 first matches - for 19-20 Jul).

Author: Nick
Date: 27-06-2008, 21:12
Edited by: Nick
at: 27-06-2008, 21:13

Oggie: Come on

Ask yourself some very simple questions. How could Batkov know the exact sum that CSKA owes the state? Also some sites (close to Levski) knew about the license refusal days before the announcement. Really strange, don't you think

And how comes that the Appeals commision breaks many rules in order to refuse the license. The most weird thing is that BFU president Milaylov sais on TV on June 2nd that he expects no problems for CSKA. Apparantly by that time the decision was 3 days old

How comes? Is Mihaylov an imbecil or is there something we don't know?
And super taxpayers Levski then announce the joke of the millenium when they publish the taxes they have paid in 2007. This was hillarious. Take a calculator in your hand and try to reverse calculate the salaries at PFC Levski Plc. Hint: They have a total of 240 employees. I did it and found out that the average salary is exactly 270 EUR. Really strange for a club that pays the players between 2 and 5 000 EUR. That means that all others must be really starving...or that Levski is just doing a huge tax offense by paying taxes on minimum wages and paying the rest under the table

Author: badgerboy
Date: 28-06-2008, 12:05

On the Portuguese case it seems that Guimaraes have also appealed.

Announcement on CAS's own site

And according to the International Herald Tribune Platini is not at all happy that the original decision to ban Porto was reversed:

"Three days later Porto was back in the Champions League after UEFA said it could not act in time for next season's draw.

That decision reportedly angered UEFA president Michel Platini.

"I'm not at all pleased by its (Porto's) inclusion in the Champions League," Platini was quoted as saying in an interview Thursday with Spanish sports newspaper Mundo Deportivo. "It follows the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.

"If a team has been penalized by its federation, by UEFA, for corruption it cannot take part in a European competition.""

Author: Ricardo
Date: 28-06-2008, 15:44

As it influences the Intertoto I would say 18 July latest is the possible verdict....
I can imagine Platini is not happy, like he acted with Feyenoord, it shows what kind of guy he is: very hard on the ideas: football should be clean and fun: no corruption and no violence. Any outbreak should be punished hard, very hard.
On one side I hope he gets his ideas through, as I agree with it. But the problem is that it never is so black and white. Feyenoord was a first victim (I still think they were punished too hard after what they have tried to do) and Porto was on the list to become the next...I hope there will be no postponements because of this.

Next season a lot more countries will start earlier. There will be no possibility to appeal to any decision without the whole scheme being postponed..... I fear trouble coming......

Author: jpcccc
Date: 28-06-2008, 16:33

This Porto's ban only shows that UEFA should change its rules in order to have a deadline for decisions based on national associations internal procedures. After that deadline, decisions are postponed for next season.

Now, even if Porto is confirmed as guilty, UEFA can be sued by either Benfica or Guimaraes or, if not, by Porto. And why ? Because of the uncertainty it has caused in all these teams. And why ? Because UEFA was eager to accept a conviction by national association without waiting for confirmation of sentence.

If they had stayed with current position from the start, they would have avoided a lot of trouble.

As for Platini saying he is unhappy about Porto's presence in CL, i bet he can be sued by Porto if he keeps saying it again. He cannot judge something in an appeal. That's too much power in his hands. He should wait and, maybe next year, act accordingly.

Another nice change to UEFA regulations should be to penalize harder a team convicted after all appeals, if the appeals only managed to delay final sentence and brought nothing new to the case.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: bert.kassies Date: 29-06-2008, 16:35	uefa.com: Steaua in Champions League.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: Ricardo Date: 29-06-2008, 18:03	I hope we hear of a final decision by Uefa if the case is domestically closed too ( same goes for Portugal)

Author: jpcccc
Date: 01-07-2008, 00:50
Edited by: jpcccc
at: 01-07-2008, 00:57

Recent news in Portugal:

Porto's president appeal was accepted by the court. Charges against him (based on some 'funny' phone taps and his ex-wife accusations - some say 'vendetta') were deemed unconclusive by the court. Furthermore, the court found that his ex-wife's testimony is full of contradictions and inacuracies, even lies, suggesting she can be held for obstruction of justice.

The public prosecutors say they will appeal against this decision.

Must remember that these 'facts' are the basis for Porto's President conviction in one of the two games were may have occurred attempt of corruption. Also, the 'facts' for the other game are even more dubious.

So, a sort of turnaround for Porto. Let's see if this sticks or we may have appeal on appeal of appeal...

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: bbi Date: 03-07-2008, 16:41	steaua got back theire points after a decision from CAF(i think it is the highest court for football in romania).

Author: ikoon
Date: 03-07-2008, 18:10
Edited by: ikoon
at: 03-07-2008, 18:12

All the punishments against Steaua have been canceled at CAF, the final romanian court in sportive matters. This is a very intersting case for UEFA to look into it. The sanctions have been CANCELED not decresed, which suggest that the previous 2 descisions made by FA are courts highly abusive and they include breaking few fundamental human rights. There are many strange things happening at the romanian FA.

Author: executor
Date: 03-07-2008, 19:00

... or that Becali decided to "invest" more money. I find it very strange that TWO committes found Steaua guilty and the third completely wiped all charges, like with a sponge.

But, like an important TV annalist said: "At the Appeal Committee is where you have to pump money...".

There was no abuse against Steaua. They managed to get away because they are a big club and have tons of money. Look, for instance, at Oþelul, they died with justice in their hands........

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: Overgame Date: 04-07-2008, 09:32	Sanction for Steaua = ban from Europe. Ban for their best team = less results for Romania. Less results for Romania = less money for the FA. ===> Sanction for Steaua = loss of money ==> let's forget everything.

Author: cska
Date: 04-07-2008, 09:51
Edited by: cska
at: 04-07-2008, 09:55

Overgame
There's similar logic in another country:
Sanction for CSKA = ban for the currently (now formerly) best team
Ban for the best team = weaker results for Bulgaria
Weaker results = Less money for clubs and FA from European cups.

However, ban for CSKA was not removed.
It seems that it is not enough to be "big" if the FA is controlled by your rival which is also "big"...

Note for all Levski fans: The ban for CSKA is bad for our national coefficient not because Levski is weaker to play in CL, but because CSKA was actually replaced by Cherno More with the other BG teams staying the same. CSKA would have been seeded in UC R1, while Cherno More is questionable even at QR2. CSKA is regular participant, while Cherno More are absolute newcommer in UC (except if we count last year IT). A team with 16 points margin of victory to the runner-up, good team, traditions, regularity in participation and nearly 20 coefficient is better than a newcommer with 7,644 coefficient.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: cosmin_ultrasteaua Date: 04-07-2008, 10:07	Executor "There was no abuse against Steaua. " Yes, because they had evidence against Steaua, right? But I guess they don't work with evidence, like a normal court.

Author: executor
Date: 04-07-2008, 10:31

Cosmin,

It's actually the lack of ANY punishment for Steaua that really pisses me off. There are trials in this world in which the guilty part has to pay a fine of 1$, for instance. That is, symbolical. In this case there is nothing. So, Steaua is clear as a crystal, as Virgin Mary, as tears of a baby... They did nothing wrong... Give me a break. And there were evidences: statements of U Cluj players and even that of Gigi himself, who, in a moment of "temporary insanity", said he gave money to stimulate them to win, not to corrupt them. Only if you DON'T WANT to see, you won't find evidences....

On another topic, Bert, I see you haven't updated the Qualification page. Our UC4 is FC Timiºoara. The team you have there is in L4

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: cosmin_ultrasteaua Date: 04-07-2008, 10:45	Saying something IS NOT evidence. If I where to say I'll kill you that doesn't mean I will. Not even if I come with a gun outside your house but then leave. Because that is the case. Steaua did nothing. We didn't pay U Cluj players. Would we pay them if they won? Maybe but you can't prove it.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: executor Date: 04-07-2008, 11:08	Your example isn't fitting. Becali said that AFTER the game. If a man is found dead and you say you did it, be sure you won't be let free.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: bert.kassies Date: 04-07-2008, 11:53	executor, does your remark imply that there is a final decision on the Poli name controversy?

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: executor Date: 04-07-2008, 12:15 Edited by: executor at: 04-07-2008, 12:18	Yes, it is a final decision of CAS in Lausanne. You can also check their site. Unfortunately they don't have an English version, but you can still see they've changed even the header and the crest (although the latter still has "Poli" on top).

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: bert.kassies Date: 04-07-2008, 12:19	But the site still uses the name "Politechnica 1921 Stiinta Timisoara". So, maybe it's only a formality.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: executor Date: 04-07-2008, 12:23	No, that's only a technical problem. But I'm pretty sure it will be posted on uefa.com pretty soon.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: cosmin_ultrasteaua Date: 04-07-2008, 12:28	executor, no man was found dead. Meaning no money where given. The example should be "I would have killed that man if he would have done that. But he did so I didn't kill him". Again, you don't go to jail for that.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: blue_shark Date: 04-07-2008, 13:47	@ bert there is a note, dated 2008-07-02 15:38:05, on the official site that executor indicated and it says: "Fotbal Club Timisoara is the new name of our team, after General Assembly's decision on june 30th."

Author: Madeirense
Date: 05-07-2008, 13:27
Edited by: Madeirense
at: 05-07-2008, 13:36

The Justice Committee of the Portuguese Football Federation last night took the decision to turn down the appeal of Pinto da Costa, president of FC Porto, thereby upholding the decision of the Disciplinary Committee which in an earlier stage had punished Pinto da Costa with the exclusion of performing his duties as president of FC Porto during a period of two years for "trafficing of influences".
As this decision is directly connected to the decision of punishing FC Porto with the substraction of 6 points of its total points of last season, (although this substraction does not affect Porto?s 1st place in last season?s competition), it could now be possible once again that the direct consequence of this decision is that Uefa can eventually once again change the list of participants in the Champion?s League, by subtituting FC Porto with Vitória Guimarães, whose place in the preliminary round would then be taken over by Benfica, whose place in Round 1 of the Uefa Cup would be taken by Sporting Braga, leaving a space open in Intertoto Group 3 which originally consisted of Sp. Braga, Sivaspor and FK Grbalj.

Furthermore, the appeal of Boavista, which for the same reason, "trafficing of influences" had been punished with relegation to the lower division, was also rejected so that Paços de Ferreira, which had initially been relegated at the end of last season, will return to the top division

Author: Aliceag
Date: 05-07-2008, 15:50

Madeirense, that is not clear at all yet.

The truth is that that meeting by Portuguese FA Justice Council was suspended in the middle after internal disagreements. The president and the vice president of Justice council abandoned the meeting and called it suspended.

The other 5 members deliberated themselves alone and themselves demanded the president suspension. Boavista contested already the meeting and on TV some justice officers already told that the meeting and deliberation was not legal. The president MUST be there!... We are still waiting further developments on this soap opera.

Author: Madeirense
Date: 05-07-2008, 16:51

Aliceag, apparently you are right in what you say. Earlier, in all the news services appeared the news the way I transcribed it in my earlier post. Since then, the president of the Justice Committee has publicly declared that the decisions made by the other committee members, (rejections of appeals by Pinto de Costa and by Boavista) are illegal because according to the Official Regulations all decisions handed down by the Justice Committee must be mentioned in an official report of the meeting and duly signed by the President and by the Secretary. As this did not happen in this case, because the President had already left the meeting, the decisions handed down by the other members of the Justice Committee on these two matters are deemed to have been made in an informal get-together between these other Committee members and completely illegal!!
You are very right.....how long is this soap opera still going to continue? This is certainly not doing the credibility of Portuguese football any good!!

Author: Ricardo
Date: 05-07-2008, 20:24
Edited by: Ricardo
at: 06-07-2008, 12:54

This is getting incredible.
5 members 'convict' the Porto president. But if they come together 'officialy' next time, who says that the same conclusion will be made. If they do so, then why was the president away of this meeting, and if another outcome arises, then how could that be, 5 is a majority in a group of 7, isn't it?
Let's await.. When will there be an offical meeting?

I think Uefa has already made the decision to hold Porto in CL, and that only for next season Porto can still be excluded based on this outcome. Though there is still an appeal running with the CAS by Benfica and Vitoria

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: Overgame Date: 06-07-2008, 11:05	Again, legally, UEFA will have problems to exclude Porto. The "law" was created in 2007, and Porto was found guilty for a case happened in 2004. P.S. I was ironic with Steaua. I don't know anything about the case :p

Author: Francisco
Date: 06-07-2008, 12:35

Ricardo posted:
"If so, then why was teh president away of this meeting"

Simple, he is in Porto and Boavista's pocket!
I'm going out to buy a newspaper now, because in the cover it's stated that the 5 members that deliberated the decision of punishing Boavista and Pinto da Costa were being coarsed by the President to benefit Porto and Boavista.

As soon as I know more I'll post it...

But for now it appears Paços de Ferreira and Benfica were right when they stated that there are members in Portugal's FA that are corrupt and trying to help Boavista and Porto.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 06-07-2008, 12:58

It indeed seems clear that the president walked away of this meeting to avoid the conviction. But can he really hold it? or only postpone it. Is there still a use to postponing it? I suppose postponing it until the CAS has spoken might be a reason.
And more important question can become: can this president stay in his function? Or must he be releaesed of this function. That too, by the way, will cause postponement.....
A soap, comparable with George W Bush election victory, with all the re-re-counts and the Supreme court taking a decision.

Author: Francisco
Date: 06-07-2008, 14:21
Edited by: Francisco
at: 06-07-2008, 14:25

Read the news related to the case, I'm going to try and explain what it's written and also explain how the process went:

What you need to know:

- The Justice Commitee of the Portuguese FA is composed of 7 members (1 president + 1 vice-president + 5 other councilmen).
- President: António Gonçalves Pereira
- Vice-Prez: Costa Amorim
- Councilman 1(important to the facts): João Abreu
- In the meeting I don't understand if who wrote the minute was one of the councilmen or just a secretary, but his name is also listed in the news: João Leal
- (I don't know the political terms in english) the JC president is an ellected "vereador" of the city of Gondomar while Mr. Valentim Loureiro is the president of the city (In political terms, Gondomar is deemed a "Concelho": County and it elects a president, and for this county, like any other there are elected besides the president, a vice-president and a few "vereadores"). For who doesn't know Valentim Loureiro is highly connected with Boavista (he was its president for more than 20 years, and his son was the president at the time that the current charges are related to)
What was known before the meeting:

- Through non-official contacts it was known that the votes of the 7 members of the commitee regarding the appeals of Boavista and Pinto da Costa (Porto's President) were going down as 4-3 or 5-2 against the appeals.
- The only way to prevent Boavista and Pinto da Costa being punished was to try and go for a 3-3 situation using an illegal move that was trying to take out one of the members that was voting against them, making it a 3-3 vote and then the JC President Gonçalves Pereira would have a quality vote granting them a win by a 4-3 margin.
- During the meeting Gonçalves Pereira called in private João Abreu and asked him to abandon the meeting due to the his opinion that he couldn't be there since he was also member of another commitee in Portugal's FA. Naturally dumb reason and the way Mr. Abreu used to continue on the meeting was to call on a vote on that matter with the rest of the JC members voting in favor of Mr. Abreu to continuing in the meeting .
- This was a main problem for the JC president because since he was unable to suspend Mr. Abreu he knew there was no chance in hell he would win the vote. Due to this fact the JC president decided to end the meeting without much further ado. He asked Mr. João Leal to finish the minute up to that moment where it was stated that the agenda was met for the day. They both signed it (Mr. Leal only because he has to, it's his duty, but his signature has no effectivity on the minute).
- At this moment the JC president noted that only the vice-P Costa Amorim had abandoned the meeting, all the other councilmen and FA employees remained on the meeting. He then ordered the employees to dismiss, but they answered that they don't answer to him, only to the FA and its president Mr. Gilberto Madaíl and everyone else remained on the FA building.

Due to the facts known till the moment (especially the coersion by the JC president and the order given to the employees) the 5 councilmen left on the building decided on the following:
- These members analyzed the laws regarding if they could do what they were about to do, and concluded that they had legitimacy to continue with the works on the schedule;
- A disciplinary process was raised against the JC president;
- The minute signed by the JC president was considered null, which means whatever it wsa written in it was no longer valid;
- It's a fact that the FA statutes allow all decisions taken by these 5 members;
- Finally these councilmen decided that Boavista and Pinto da Costa's appeals were rejected, and therefore in football terms it means that the sports tribunal has reach it's end and they are to be punished.

The only way now is to appeal to the CIVIL courts, but in this case we fall back into Gil Vicente's situation 2 seasons ago, where FIFA threatened to suspend the portuguese teams... and even if Boavista appeals to the civil courts it won't matter because they are officially relegated.

Now both UEFA and CAS will be informed of these decisions.. and it's possible that UEFA takes Porto out of the CL AGAIN!

Now Mr. Gonçalves Pereira statements:

- He refuses to accept any decision taken after he left the meeting;
- He guarantees he won't quit.
- He wants to have a new meeting to decide the matters on the table on the meeting he quit!
- He says: "I'm the president of the JC, was legally elected, I'll stay till the end of my term", "I don't acknowledge any decision making after I ended the meeting, after that moment what happened was just a meeting of a group of people"

Mr. Abreu statements to the press:
- "the president had insistent and arrogant actions against both councilmen and FA's employees", "he tried to coerce the councilmen to vote favorably with Porto and Boavista's position").

Mr. Meirim statements (this is a portuguese specialist in sports laws):
- the decisions made by the JC can be made with the number of members it had at the moment (5)
- the JC can initiate a disciplinary process against any of its own members, including the president
- according to the JC statutes, when nor the president nor the vice-president are present, any other councilman can preside to the meeting
- Relatively to Boavista's future: the club can appeal to the CIVIL courts which could affect the beginning of the new season if the club asks for the suspension of the competition and is fid within reason.

There are a few minor opinions on the matter also on the news from Benfica's lawyer and regarding the CL which states that justice has been done, and now Benfica and Guimarães are going to try to climb up the CL ladder.
The new Boavista president warns to the fact that the entire process is a little dubious (naturally because of the corrupt JC president) and that the FA may end up having to compensate the club. But for now there's no news on appeal to civil courts...
There's also a note for the P.Ferreira president satisfaction in continuing in the I Liga (this was the presiden that last Friday warn about Gonçalves Pereira dangerous relation with Boavista... and wanted the JC president out of the JC)
Porto's president Pinto da Costa will appeal to Civil courts, he's asking for a FA explanation regarding the entire proces, since according to him the meeting had ended when Gonçalves Pereira signed his minute.

Author: jpcccc
Date: 07-07-2008, 19:39
Edited by: jpcccc
at: 07-07-2008, 19:41

Meanwhile, in Civil court Porto's appeal was accepted but it is meaningless for the outcome of FA decision. Why ? Because these are based on first decisions and facts (from which Porto has not appealed, in sports court...). So, it seems that there is a effort to end the matter in sports court (with Boavista and Porto's conviction) even if the civil court is still dealing with it and putting the validity of those phone taps (and its meaning) under serious consideration.

No doubt these sport 'judges', elected as they are, serve who they want. So, i feel this was just another move to speed Porto's downfall (against another to postpone it), allowing Benfica to get into CL. It is so clear now... It's no more about doing proper justice, if not now later next season. It's all about who gets THIS season's CL money.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: sr_sofisticacao Date: 15-07-2008, 14:14	Porto's in! http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=512/newsid=732452.html I hope they win the CL or the UEFA Cup. It would be nice to keep the tradition of corrupt clubs winning... And I will be supporting them to the end (as I always do with Portuguese clubs).

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: Floridian Date: 15-07-2008, 15:36	This confirms the list of the seeded clubs in the CL QR3, with Spartak Moscow being the last seeded team. Now only change possible would be due to an upset in CL QR2 for the 5 top seeds for that round.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: executor Date: 15-07-2008, 16:26	@Floridian That won't matter. The draw for the QR3 takes place at the same time with the one for QR2.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 15-07-2008, 17:55

Incredible!

If the press release on the CAS website is to be believed it somehow took them 11 and a half hours to make the decision it was obvious they were going to make in the first place.

No details of the hearing on the site yet. I bet when it turns up the decision is based on some ridiculous bureaucratic technicality.

My only hope now is that UEFA don't forget the whole thing & they have another go at imposing a proper ban once the Portuguese authorities finally stop pfaffing about. On current form that might be around 2015 but as long as the end result is: "guilty verdict = European ban" it doesn't matter that much when it happens.

Author: jpcccc
Date: 15-07-2008, 18:32
Edited by: jpcccc
at: 15-07-2008, 18:37

I believe the 11 hours were (well, not all of them) necessary because this brings up a nice legal question. Namely, that TAS could decide a conviction based on sports court alone, with proof made on civil courts only, where appeals are pending.

I mean, it is obvious that TAS should force the autonomy of sports court against civil courts, meaning guilty Porto out. The question is: but can sports courts get ahead of civil courts and say guilty, based on civil courts proof, if civil courts still have appeals pending ?

In my view, only if proof came also from sports court, in which the decision could be based. And that is the point.
Benfica wanted the proof to be sufficient (how would a Porto ban next year benefit Benfica ? This year, with Benfica out, is the one!).
On the other hand, UEFA wants to be cautious about possible finantial damage.

I believe UEFA should kill these issues by fixing a deadline for these things and postpone (not forget) the action for another time in next season.

A much interesting related issue is that of Boavista still being given access to this year's 1st league, despite that nice decision of last week (which is waiting to happen because of Porto...) and for which no civil court appeal could prove its innocence.

Re: UEFA Bans / Acceptances
Author: Floridian Date: 15-07-2008, 18:58 Edited by: Floridian at: 15-07-2008, 21:48	@executor, I'm aware of the draw timing. I simply meant that only change possible in the seeded list is the name of the teams qualifying from the QR2 ties involving top 5 teams of that round. There is no way for the currently unseeded teams in QR3 to become seeded.