I half want UEFA to ban us from the CL for a season so we can have a ‘straightener’ with both them and the cartel clubs leading them by the nose. We really need to put this shit to bed once and for all.
It won’t be easy and it will get fucking ugly but enough’s enough.
We will not win 'Big Ears' because we will not be allowed to, plus the fact we are simply not good enough this season either.
Our chance playing wise was at best last season
Not to mention Wigan!Similar was said about Chelsea who then went and won `Big Ears` at Bayern`s home stadium with 3/4s of it occupied by Munich supporters.
Sunderland were "simply not good enough" yet still beat Leeds in the FA Cup in `72, Wimbledon did the same to Liverpool.
Keep the faith.
And Southampton in 1976.Not to mention Wigan!
And Bon Accord in 1885.....oh!And Southampton in 1976.
Similar was said about Chelsea who then went and won `Big Ears` at Bayern`s home stadium with 3/4s of it occupied by Munich supporters.
Sunderland were "simply not good enough" yet still beat Leeds in the FA Cup in `72, Wimbledon did the same to Liverpool.
Keep the faith.
Similar was said about Chelsea who then went and won `Big Ears` at Bayern`s home stadium with 3/4s of it occupied by Munich supporters.
Sunderland were "simply not good enough" yet still beat Leeds in the FA Cup in `72, Wimbledon did the same to Liverpool.
Keep the faith.
UEFA obtained a special relief from Eu commission, because 'football is different'.I simple terms are EUFA allowed to work outside the law ? If they are outside the free trade rights or what ever it's called they cant do anything. Unless by joining their club we have to play by their rules even if their rules are against the free trade laws
You left out Hyde losing 26 ~0 to PNE. Cant remeber the date, but I do know that the Hyde keeper was chaired off the pitch.And Bon Accord in 1885.....oh!
Conn?What’s a four letter word starting in C and with N as the third letter?
**** sayConn?
Can’t say**** say
FFP Before 2014
Football | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league
This just about sums up The Guardian writer:
"Uefa is understood to have asked specialist sponsorship consultants to consider whether the money being paid to City by the Abu Dhabi companies was “fair value”. The Etihad deal is thought not to have been considered too excessive."
He could have simply said, yes, the specialist sponsorship consultants advised that it was "fair value" but, instead, he wanted to get the words "too excessive" into his narrative hoping that the "not" beforehand, would be missed !
He`s going on about matters from 6-8 years ago. It`s not new. Just old news re-presented to make him appear relevant. He`s a charlatan who brought out his book very quickly on the back of City`s first Premier League title success in 2012 with Vinny on the front cover and then went for the headline - `Richer Than God`.
He`s another exploitative journo, though one with more between the ears than most of them, who has used his upbringing as a City `fan` and his law background to try and give credibility to his writing. Him, and the other writer who even used the Rags in the title of one his books to get attention, share similar characteristics. They are among the worst kind. who have put personal gains and their own self interest first on the back of the club they proclaim to support.
He should go forth to FCUM where he belongs. Sex and travel also to the Out of Towners Director planted in UEFA, FSG and their cohorts.
"The attempt to damage the club’s reputation is organised and clear.”
I left Tom Morgan the links to the real story and City's refusal to deal this time. Of course, he and the rest of the Telegraph journalists (or any other news organisation) won't even try to reveal the truth.The article in the Telegraph infers the club cannot discuss the details of the agreement in 2014 because of a confidentiality clause. It does sound as if there was some stuff that UEFA didn't want to come out.
Straight bat. Nicely played.Needs Tweeting to Conn. Or is it con?
MEN.
Note: Organised and clear.
City replied to the new details, in The Guardian , saying: “The 2014 settlement agreement resolved all open matters between the parties and was based on comprehensive information disclosure. The settlement agreement contains confidentiality provisions that prevent Manchester City from commenting on both the agreement and the investigation that it settled.
“It continues to be our position that we will not be providing any comment on out-of-context materials. The attempt to damage the club’s reputation is organised and clear.”
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ball-news/man-city-ffp-charges-leaks-17619213
You left out Hyde losing 26 ~0 to PNE. Cant remeber the date, but I do know that the Hyde keeper was chaired off the pitch.
couldn't get a ticket for that game,You left out Hyde losing 26 ~0 to PNE. Cant remeber the date, but I do know that the Hyde keeper was chaired off the pitch.