Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
I swear you'll never see anything like this ever again.
Watch it.
Drink it in.
Just be careful of the high sodium content.
Watch it.
Drink it in.
Just be careful of the high sodium content.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Salty reactions from other fans and the media
- Thread starter oman0115
- Start date
Man_City_Loyal
Well-Known Member
tebas haha haha
Every time anyone connected with City has expressed any criticism of FFP or dared to suggest it is in any way 'not fit for purpose' they have been met with a resounding chorus of "you knew the rules before you signed up, if you didn't like them then you shouldn't have entered". Well the 5 year statute of limitations is also part of those rules but suddenly, now it's been applied, those people who were so quick to defend FFP, now think they should be able to ignore the bits they don't like!It was a pop at Javier Tebas but you can’t see it because my Twitter account has been suspended due to some mard arse scouse twat reporting me!
As for Evans, that article has got more spin than Shane Warne ;) I can’t wait for the more detailed CAS report to come out - I’m no expert but it appears to me that City won (and UEFA lost) this case on multiple fronts
From Redcafe, pretty sure when ahem, CHINESE and SAUDIs were interested in their club they were pretty giddy about it
This!
As much as I hate having the yanks running the show, at least we know who they are. They didn't go out and murder innocents or abuse other people's rights (as far as we kn0w). So I'm slightly comfortable in that regard, even if its still shit ownership.
This!
As much as I hate having the yanks running the show, at least we know who they are. They didn't go out and murder innocents or abuse other people's rights (as far as we kn0w). So I'm slightly comfortable in that regard, even if its still shit ownership.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
From Redcafe, pretty sure when ahem, CHINESE and SAUDIs were interested in their club they were pretty giddy about it
This!
As much as I hate having the yanks running the show, at least we know who they are. They didn't go out and murder innocents or abuse other people's rights (as far as we kn0w). So I'm slightly comfortable in that regard, even if its still shit ownership.
Of course they were mate. They also ignore the fact that they’re balls deep in sponsorship deals from state-owned companies in countries with far worse human rights records than the UAE (notably Russia and Saudi Arabia). As thick as those Arsenal fans who slate our owner’s country and conveniently forget where their main sponsor is from!
My favourite Red Cafe post was the one who said we should’ve done the decent thing and took the ban on the chin, and not appealed it. Yeah, right - as if an innocent party convicted in what was effectively a kangaroo court would do that ffs!
mcfcbill91
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 78
I'm enjoying the flip-flopping from the self appointed moral guardians of the game.
Also, it's amazing how much new information has come to light from their 'UEFA sources' in the last 24 hours.
Also, it's amazing how much new information has come to light from their 'UEFA sources' in the last 24 hours.
I agree on your view of ffp, however caps on spending won't happen. The game changer was the creation of the champions League, the increased revenue virtually set in stone the make up of each European league to date. In England it was only Chelsea and city that upset the apple cart. There's a lot of clubs in Europe who would like to invest but can't thereby further cementing the status quo. In my previous post I said clubs come and go, for instance Huddersfield who won the title 3 times in a row, look where they are now. If the system carries on, nothing will have changed in a generation.I actually disagree - football should have some caps in terms of spending in order to balance the playing field. However, they need to be uniform and the same for all teams, regardless of 'how big your revenue is'. FFP was totally flawed as it created some sort of system which locked in the traditionally big clubs and didn't really consider any other way of getting the small teams competing.
blue aura
Well-Known Member
Fordyboy46
Well-Known Member
I see the narrative has now changed to them pinning their hopes on the prem league charging us. They really are scum the press, supposed to be non biased my fucking arse, they utterly despise us and the desperation they have to make us suffer is disgraceful.
Come on City no more pussy footing around, go after them please.
Come on City no more pussy footing around, go after them please.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
This doesn’t really belong in this thread as it’s not bitter in any way - in fact it’s the complete opposite. Letter to the F365 mailbox from a United fan who completely nails it:
Don't get angry with cheeky City fans, you should all be getting angry about how this case has been reported.
For a start, the story of 2018 to 2020 cannot be understood without reference to the settlement between City and UEFA of 2014. If you don’t know about that, then you can’t possibly understand what happens later. City and Gianni Infantino cut a deal. The former took a light punishment but got to wipe the FFP slate clean. Why did Infantino cave? Because the clever lawyer that he is realised that the way UEFA had changed the FFP rules about 80% of the way through the game purely to ensure City failed would be shredded in court. The club turned a Nelsonian eye but also knew that the years of paying Roque Santa Cruz while not playing in the Champions League would not be revisited thanks to that wonderful phrase “full and final settlement”. Yes, this was an egregious mistake by UEFA, yes it helped City a lot, and no, Infantino didn’t really have an alternative. If you want to know more, google is your friend.
Then the issue of “limitation” apparently dropped out of the sky yesterday. According to the New York Times “what few knew was that City’s salvation lay in plain sight”.
The problem with that is that it is total bollocks. The highest profile City podcast explained within days of the initial ban in February last year when speaking to a hotshot corporate lawyer who also happens to be a blue (to some people’s amazement, City fans went to Manchester Grammar School as well as comps in Stockport) that this would be, and I quote directly “City’s strongest and cleanest point. It is very hard to see how UEFA could overcome this limitation on any basis.” The fan media led the way and with the exceptions of Simon Evans of Reuters. Simon Mullock of the Mirror and Martin Samuel of the Mail they have absolutely outclassed the traditional media on this story. David Conn has had a very strange time with this story. He has got some things right but has totally missed the main thrust of the tale.
Not only that, in the initial CAS case last autumn which City used to test the CAS waters, they said – and the court papers confirm – that limitation would be front and centre of any possible defence. One tactic they didn’t use was surprise. They then did exactly that at the main hearing in the knowledge that the judges were almost certain to agree with them.
Of course Sheikh Mansour employed some of the best lawyers in the world, but he really didn’t need to. A reputable Manchester solicitor would have done much the same. This was not a case for Perry Mason and the briefs earned some of the easiest money of their careers. This is why City were so confident and did not play for time. They wanted CAS as quickly as possible – hardly the actions of people who think they are a losing cause.
If you think City is an arm of the UAE state (it isn’t but I really can’t be bothered to litigate this now), then look at the way that country rolls out a Corona track and trace app. These people are highly competent and trust the experts they employ. Their confidence wasn’t Swales-like bravado. They knew that barring something totally unforeseen, they were going to win big and that is exactly what happened.
Unfortunately, when pointed to this analysis, the Chief Football Correspondent of The Independent (a self-proclaimed expert on these matters) said “I had read it, found it awful and showed it to people involved. They similarly found it “impenetrable” and “irrelevant”” . Well done, Miguel, your finest hour there mate.
So – did you read any of this before yesterday? Is this news to you? Were you shocked yesterday? Answer those questions and then ask if you should be angry with a football club fighting their corner of the football media that failed its audience by not reporting what was in front of their noses. You have been let down, but don’t worry, I would be somewhat surprised if City buy Messi, Haland and Mbappe in a week this September. They – and we – will roll on much as before.
Don't get angry with cheeky City fans, you should all be getting angry about how this case has been reported.
For a start, the story of 2018 to 2020 cannot be understood without reference to the settlement between City and UEFA of 2014. If you don’t know about that, then you can’t possibly understand what happens later. City and Gianni Infantino cut a deal. The former took a light punishment but got to wipe the FFP slate clean. Why did Infantino cave? Because the clever lawyer that he is realised that the way UEFA had changed the FFP rules about 80% of the way through the game purely to ensure City failed would be shredded in court. The club turned a Nelsonian eye but also knew that the years of paying Roque Santa Cruz while not playing in the Champions League would not be revisited thanks to that wonderful phrase “full and final settlement”. Yes, this was an egregious mistake by UEFA, yes it helped City a lot, and no, Infantino didn’t really have an alternative. If you want to know more, google is your friend.
Then the issue of “limitation” apparently dropped out of the sky yesterday. According to the New York Times “what few knew was that City’s salvation lay in plain sight”.
The problem with that is that it is total bollocks. The highest profile City podcast explained within days of the initial ban in February last year when speaking to a hotshot corporate lawyer who also happens to be a blue (to some people’s amazement, City fans went to Manchester Grammar School as well as comps in Stockport) that this would be, and I quote directly “City’s strongest and cleanest point. It is very hard to see how UEFA could overcome this limitation on any basis.” The fan media led the way and with the exceptions of Simon Evans of Reuters. Simon Mullock of the Mirror and Martin Samuel of the Mail they have absolutely outclassed the traditional media on this story. David Conn has had a very strange time with this story. He has got some things right but has totally missed the main thrust of the tale.
Not only that, in the initial CAS case last autumn which City used to test the CAS waters, they said – and the court papers confirm – that limitation would be front and centre of any possible defence. One tactic they didn’t use was surprise. They then did exactly that at the main hearing in the knowledge that the judges were almost certain to agree with them.
Of course Sheikh Mansour employed some of the best lawyers in the world, but he really didn’t need to. A reputable Manchester solicitor would have done much the same. This was not a case for Perry Mason and the briefs earned some of the easiest money of their careers. This is why City were so confident and did not play for time. They wanted CAS as quickly as possible – hardly the actions of people who think they are a losing cause.
If you think City is an arm of the UAE state (it isn’t but I really can’t be bothered to litigate this now), then look at the way that country rolls out a Corona track and trace app. These people are highly competent and trust the experts they employ. Their confidence wasn’t Swales-like bravado. They knew that barring something totally unforeseen, they were going to win big and that is exactly what happened.
Unfortunately, when pointed to this analysis, the Chief Football Correspondent of The Independent (a self-proclaimed expert on these matters) said “I had read it, found it awful and showed it to people involved. They similarly found it “impenetrable” and “irrelevant”” . Well done, Miguel, your finest hour there mate.
So – did you read any of this before yesterday? Is this news to you? Were you shocked yesterday? Answer those questions and then ask if you should be angry with a football club fighting their corner of the football media that failed its audience by not reporting what was in front of their noses. You have been let down, but don’t worry, I would be somewhat surprised if City buy Messi, Haland and Mbappe in a week this September. They – and we – will roll on much as before.