Nu stiu de unde ai copiat prostia asta, dar e o prostie foarte mare. Si pare scrisa chiar de un baiat de la TAS sau de cineva apropiat TAS-ului. In primul rand, ce ai scris mai sus e foarte fals. TAS nu are nicio putere adevarata iar deciziile sale nu pot ”enforced” nicaieri. O decizie TAS poti sa alegi sa o respecti sau nu. Nimeni nu te poate obliga sa o accepti. TAS nu este un tribunal adevarat. Iar daca o decizie a TAS e in contradictoriu cu o decizie a unui tribunal adevarat, iti garantez ca nu va exista nicio problema si ca echipa de fotbal va respecta decizia tribunalului adevarat, nu a TAS-ului.

”
In reality, the Brussels Court of Appeal rejected an objection against its own jurisdiction to rule on the dispute between
Doyen Sports/RFC Seraing and FIFA/UEFA/URBSFA/FIFPro. The Court said that, in the light of Belgian law, the
arbitration exception does not apply in this particular matter, on the grounds that the arbitration clause in the FIFA
Statutes is not specific enough. In other words, had that specific CAS clause been more detailed, the arbitration exception
would have been upheld and the Brussels Court of Appeal could have denied its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the problem
lies only with the wording of the CAS clause in the FIFA Statutes; such drafting issue does not affect the jurisdiction of
CAS globally. The Court neither expressed any objection nor reservation towards sports arbitration as a dispute
resolution mechanism globally, nor criticized the CAS system. Furthermore, no CAS arbitration clauses have been
declared “illegal” in the Brussels judgment. Such judgment also does not revisit the reasons expressed by the German
Federal Tribunal in the case ISU/Pechstein in 2016, whose decision confirmed the status of CAS as a genuine
independent arbitration tribunal.

The decision of the Brussels Court of Appeal does not affect the decision issued by CAS in this matter in 2017 (see
http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/4490.pdf), which remains in force. The main difficulty is that
one may potentially end up with two contradictory decisions: one issued by the Belgian courts, enforceable in Belgium
only, and the original one issued by CAS (and which was confirmed by the Swiss Federal Tribunal), enforceable in the
rest of the world. In any event, the proceedings before the Belgian courts in the matter of RFC Seraing are still ongoing
and for an undetermined period of time.
The risk that a national court does not recognize CAS arbitration or does not enforce a CAS award is very limited, is
quite rare and mostly depends on local legislation (e.g. see the case of Roberto Heras in Spain / Cycling / Vuelta 2005).
However, these exceptions are isolated and are not new. It must be emphasized that CAS awards can always be
challenged before the Swiss Federal Tribunal, which is the highest court in Switzerland.
„

Toate au fost probabil cumparate de angajatii clubului.

Cifra este una ireala tinand seama de faptul ca echipa lui Dica este in continuare, cel putin la nivel declarativ, cel mai iubit club din Romania. Cu alte cuvinte, FCSB a reusit sa vanda in medie 1,5 abonamente pe zi. Dunarea Calarasi, echipa nou promovata in prima liga, a vandut deja 360 de abonamente, de aproape 8 ori mai mult decat echipa lui Becali.

Craiova conduce in acest top cu 7.000 de abonamente vandute. Pe locul 2 se afla CFR Cluj, cu 2.600, in timp ce Viitorul (1.250) este pe locul 3. De altfel, FCSB este singura echipa care emite abonamente care nu a trecut de pragul de 100 pana acum.”

LOL 42 de abonamente…42 !!!!