It's not that you mentioned Trump -- I get the comparison -- it's that you said, "You see it with Trump who, in essence, is actually not far from the truth when he labels stuff as Fake News" which is a bad take, whether you were being flippant or not.
I worked in MSM too and the blanket dismissal of its value by those MSM criticizes shouldn't be surprising. My problem is that dismissal is done so often by those too lazy, stupid or ignorant to read critically, expand their own sourcing and think for themselves. It's simply easier to say "it's all tosh" -- and it's especially easy when what you read in MSM doesn't comport with your worldview, whether fact or opinion.
So when you as a journalist imply an agenda so broad you suggest dismissing the MSM as a whole, it gets on my tits a little. Whether Trump or someone else is saying it, crying "Fake news!" IS far from the truth.
It's also a Brit/Yank thing -- some of the UK rags (as in papers) are quite astounding in their poor quality. But then you have some outstanding ones too.
Of course... you can fail FFP under current UEFA regulations but these are not law. I may be reading too much into City’s statement, but it reads to me that their opening shot is ... our accounts have been audited and filed properly within the legal and regulatory record, nothing we have declared is illegal."The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false. The Club’s published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record." FFP compliance is just about our accounts isn't it ?
Fucking hell the attack dogs are every where,we need to really back the team at every game,they are determined to make us lose concentration,tragic
what is this mysterious united way you speak of
Not falling out..No point in falling out amongst yourselves lads. Your owners will have this thoroughly under control. It's not as if they are naive chancers or something.
They are shrewd billionaire businessmen and will know international law like the back of their hands. Imagine billionaire business men not being allowed to spend their own money on their club. None of this ffp makes sense. UEFA are probably shitting themselves and are making a gesture to pacify the established clubs but I doubt very much they want to take on Abudhabi in a legal battle. It's not going to happen.
A slap on the wrist and that's it. All done.
Have a look at the PL investigation threadWho and what's been said?
Have a look at the PL investigation thread
Good post, and it raises an interesting question I've always wanted to ask a US based journalist.
I'm talking with broad strokes here, but please try to see the logic in my question.
Broadly speaking, I would say with mainstream politics, the US is to the right of the UK.
Of course there are exceptions, but broadly speaking the Dems are to the right of Labour and GOP to the right of the Tories.
But the trends with our media are the exact opposite.
The UK press is overwhelmingly positioned to the right of the US media.
The UK mainstream media is dominated by the right-wing; the Mail, Sun, Telegraph, ITV, Sky News etc.
But the US media is generally dominated by the left - NYT, Washington Post, NBC, CNN etc.
What would you put that down to?
Surely, logic would suggest MSM would cater to the political persuasions of its market?
The fact that they are in Switzerland won't help them with EU law. The commission looks at activities that take place in the EU irrespective of where the HQ is. Remember Blatter saying FIFA is bigger than the EU? Doesn't stop EU enforcing laws on its own territory. The Commission might, however, take the view that ffp is a private voluntary agreement between clubs.That’s where their argument will ultimately fall down the original premise of FFP was to stop clubs borrowing recklessly and distorting the football industry on the basis of debt. There are numerous examples of this. With our owners all the investment has been equity based and results in almost zero debt. The elite clubs didn’t like this so they have created an anti-competition cartel that effectively outlaws equity investment- or certainly restricts it. That is in conflict with a whole range of EU directives including the Treaty of Rome that the whole premise of the EU is founded upon. The problem of course is that UEFA are not a nation state and have sat themselves in Switzerland but I still think they’ll find it difficult to defend what effectively is a restrictive practice in terms of FFP in any court or tribunal and our best defence might be to refuse any deals this time around and threaten to bring the whole house of cards down - you can be pretty certain UEFA will blink first; and we can put ourselves in a very powerful position going forward when we’ve got them by the balls.
Yeah me too but the UAE is the bitch little sibling of the worst regime around in the KSA.I kinda wish there wouldnt be so much stress between UAE and Qatar and somehow the two countries could work together as joint forces regarding FFP PSG and City...
Indeed. It was Ziegler at the Times who started all this by interpreting Ceferin's "...concrete case..." comment as meaning we'd been hung, drawn & quartered already. Someone's pulling his strings in my opinion.
And his mate Syed is being a bit bitchy as well. Does make you wonder if there's an agenda or if someone is yanking their chains.He's certainly keen on this, to the point of zealotry.
Yes, there is. I'd agree that our lawyers in any hypothetical CIS case would fancy their chances of having hacked emails excluded, but they might have to argue the point. I just wanted to say that it's too simplistic to argue that if evidence is illegal, CIS will never entertain it (I know you didn't say that but some people have).
Project Longbow was spotted by UEFA and ruled out. The Inland Revenue subsequently made such schemes illegal.
Good post, and it raises an interesting question I've always wanted to ask a US based journalist.
I'm talking with broad strokes here, but please try to see the logic in my question.
Broadly speaking, I would say with mainstream politics, the US is to the right of the UK.
Of course there are exceptions, but broadly speaking the Dems are to the right of Labour and GOP to the right of the Tories.
But the trends with our media are the exact opposite.
The UK press is overwhelmingly positioned to the right of the US media.
The UK mainstream media is dominated by the right-wing; the Mail, Sun, Telegraph, ITV, Sky News etc.
But the US media is generally dominated by the left - NYT, Washington Post, NBC, CNN etc.
What would you put that down to?
Surely, logic would suggest MSM would cater to the political persuasions of its market?
And his mate Syed is being a bit bitchy as well. Does make you wonder if there's an agenda or if someone is yanking their chains.