City fined

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Prem (U7618)
posted 1 minute ago
Chelsea broke that rule 29 times, and then had the audacity to appeal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This works in the Russian courts if you know the right people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn’t surprise me.

comment by Mad Max (U22216)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
I dont see how admitting guilt AFTER being collared for it should result in leniency.

I can see Barca and Chelsea challenging this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course its different. For a start, admitting your guilt is at least a sign of remorse and thus tends to lead to less harsh sanctions. I've held disciplinary meetings where the outcome has been different because the accused admitted guilt and showed remorse. Not only does it save a ton of time in fighting it, especially if someone appeals, you would assume they are more likely to learn from their mistakes and act differently in future. It happens with legal cases as well.

Then when you add that the circumstances are probably different, the outcomes should be different. I haven't read into it but if Chelsea not only broke it more frequently, denied any wrong doing and appealed, it makes sense that their sanction would be more severe.

comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Mad Max (U22216)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
I dont see how admitting guilt AFTER being collared for it should result in leniency.

I can see Barca and Chelsea challenging this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course its different. For a start, admitting your guilt is at least a sign of remorse and thus tends to lead to less harsh sanctions. I've held disciplinary meetings where the outcome has been different because the accused admitted guilt and showed remorse. Not only does it save a ton of time in fighting it, especially if someone appeals, you would assume they are more likely to learn from their mistakes and act differently in future. It happens with legal cases as well.

Then when you add that the circumstances are probably different, the outcomes should be different. I haven't read into it but if Chelsea not only broke it more frequently, denied any wrong doing and appealed, it makes sense that their sanction would be more severe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep; won’t help them next time they’re collared though

comment by Prem (U7618)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
Chelsea broke that rule 29 times, and then had the audacity to appeal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A little different to cities two then to be fair.

whats funny is they completely denied the allegations, then came out and said we accept them when found guilty

Arab gold lining FIFA pockets.

Shock.

comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Mad Max (U22216)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
I dont see how admitting guilt AFTER being collared for it should result in leniency.

I can see Barca and Chelsea challenging this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course its different. For a start, admitting your guilt is at least a sign of remorse and thus tends to lead to less harsh sanctions. I've held disciplinary meetings where the outcome has been different because the accused admitted guilt and showed remorse. Not only does it save a ton of time in fighting it, especially if someone appeals, you would assume they are more likely to learn from their mistakes and act differently in future. It happens with legal cases as well.

Then when you add that the circumstances are probably different, the outcomes should be different. I haven't read into it but if Chelsea not only broke it more frequently, denied any wrong doing and appealed, it makes sense that their sanction would be more severe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They broke the rules more than once. They arent remorseful, they are just looking for a softer punishment, which they have achieved.

We were found guilty (well, we admitted to it) in two cases out of the nine we were investigated for. Those two both also predated 2016, when FIFA reclarified the regulations.

Chelsea was found guilty of 29 out of 92, of which a lot were post 2016 and also broke two rules instead of one.

I do think they were hard done to given Atletico were found guilty of 112 breaches and got the exact same punishment as Chelsea though.

2, 29, 112. If you break the rules you should be severely punished. Fines just don't cut it given the money in football.

I agree, in which case you’d have to make the punishments handed out to others even more stringent then