LONDON -- Arsene Wenger will feel "let down" if UEFA does not take a strong stance against clubs found guilty of breaking Financial Fair Play rules. UEFA will announce the first sanctions this month and more serious cases will be judged in June. A UEFA panel has negotiated settlements with clubs which have breached rules designed to curb owners excessive spending on transfers and wages since 2011. "One of the rules is that normally you should be banned for the excess of the financial amount that is not justified, that is if you are 100 million pounds ($169 million) overboard, you should be punished for 100 million of your wages bill in the Champions League," the Arsenal manager said during a pre-match news conference on Friday. UEFA said in February it targeted 76 clubs which played in the Champions League or Europa League. Speculation centred on big spenders Paris Saint-Germain and Manchester City, which are owned by the ruling families of Qatar and Abu Dhabi, respectively. Wenger said its in UEFAs interest to send a strong message when the first sanctions are issued in order to convince clubs to take its scheme seriously. "I want to see that respected. If that is not respected, then the Financial Fair Play will have problems to be respected in the future because everyone will just not consider it at all," Wenger said. UEFA appointed former Belgium Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene to lead the panel investigating club accounts. Serious sanctions will be decided by a panel led by Jose Cunha Rodrigues of Portugal, a judge at the European Court of Justice. Expulsion from the Champions League and second-tier Europa League are the toughest penalty UEFA reserves but its president, Michel Platini, said last week in an interview with a French newspaper that clubs wont be excluded from next seasons Champions League. Wenger believes Platinis announcement could be linked to TV rights sales. "That has gone now out. I have thought about that problem and the media might play a part in that, because when UEFA sells the rights of the Champions League to a French TV station, it is very difficult to explain to them once they have paid the money that the best club in their country will not play in the competition, so that might be one of the reasons behind that," the French coach said. USA Soccer Jerseys 2020 . 4 jersey of former defenseman Rob Blake this coming season. The ceremony will take place prior to the Kings January 17 game against Anaheim. USA Soccer Jerseys 2019 .ca. Hi Kerry, Love reading your column and loved watching your analysis on the TSN broadcasts!And were now in Round 2! Bruins! Canadiens! We know all about the great games of the past from the players, the broadcasters and the writers. https://www.cheapusasoccer.com/.com) - Minnesota Vikings fans would surely concede Teddy Bridgewater is not Peyton Manning. USA Soccer Shirts . Gauteng High Court Judge Dunstan Mlambo ruled Tuesday that South African media houses will be allowed to install three remote controlled cameras in court for the Olympic athletes trial starting next week to capture images that likely will be seen by millions around the world. USA Soccer Store . -- Manager Bob Melvin shuffled the Athletics batting order and got the type of production he was looking for from the top of the lineup.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. Hey, Kerry! Always enjoy your column. Im wondering if you can give some clarification to the Colorado goal by Dennis Everberg that was waved off in the game in Boston on Monday. Would be interested to hear your perspective. Sure looked like a good goal to me and many other people, apparently. And the video looks pretty conclusive. Thanks! Bill Bayne Bill: You probably didnt realize it when you dropped this one into the CMon Ref mail bag, but your question today has exposed an apparent glaring contradiction in the playing rules. Unless cleaned up immediately, the contradiction found in the language of rule 80.3 (high-sticking the puck) and 78.4 (scoring a goal) could very well impact how a legal goal can be scored once a puck has been struck by an attacking player above the height of the crossbar. First, let me review the play in question. Referee Rob Martell, in good position, made the initial determination that a legal goal had been scored when Ryan OReilly, standing at the top of goal crease, deflected a point shot by Tyson Barrie which subsequently caromed off the shin pad and left skate blade of Dennis Everberg into the Bruins net. From game footage and the Situation Room blog we learned that the officials group huddled in the referee crease and a consensus declared that OReilly deflected the puck into the net with a high stick. Martells call was reversed to no goal on the ice as per rule 60.5 pending confirmation from video review. In fairness, it is often difficult to find a camera angle that definitively demonstrates if a puck has been struck above/below the height of the crossbar. The overhead camera is usually of little value in this situation since it does not provide the necessary depth perception relative to the cross-bar. For this reason I would largely discount the overhead camera had I been in the Situation Room making the call. The farther out from this reference point (goal frame) only compounds the difficulty video review has in making a conclusive determination. Although the front and side angle footage offers more than reasonable evidence to me that OReillys descending blow made contact with the puuck at or below the cross-bar, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the Situation Room personnel that it was too close for them to call.dddddddddddd The inconclusive review kicked the decision back to the officials on the ice. Assuming the on-ice officials determined OReilly contacted the puck above the crossbar but below his shoulders the puck is eligible to be played by any player. We know that the puck did not enter the net directly off the stick of Ryan OReilly but instead glanced off Bruins goalie, Niklas Svedberg and then deflected into the net off the leg and skate of Dennis Everberg. Since there was no distinct kicking motion by Everberg, logic and common sense would indicate that this should be a good hockey goal. Bill, this is where your question has exposed the contradiction! Rule 80.3: When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponents goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed (This translates that the subsequent deflection of the puck off the leg and/or skate of Everberg should still result in no goal). Only to be contradicted by Rule 78.4: If an attacking player has the puck deflect into the net, off his skate or body, in any manner, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal (In this rule, Dennis Everberg should have been credited with his first NHL goal when the puck deflected into the net off his body and skate. If the puck were to deflect into the net off the stick of an attacking player there isnt a referee in the business that would disallow a goal in this situation. A legal deflection, as this rule states, should likewise result in a goal in the opinion of most active referees). It is now time for an amendment to correct these two conflicting rules before another potential good hockey goal is nullified. Additionally, rule 38 was revised this season to empower Hockey Operations with broader discretion to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g., to ensure they are good hockey goals). This just might have been an opportunity to exercise their expanded authority even if the review of the potential high-stick by OReilly was found to be inconclusive. ' ' '