Martin Samuel appreciation

This is the thing, we don't want Journos blowing smoke up us, Samuels has been critical when warranted.

We just want fair & balanced reporting and he is one of a very small number.
 
bluemanchester said:
Blimey Ancoats, glad to see the gloom has lifted.;)
Click to expand...

just a realist hahaha
i hate uefa and the dirty tricks they have up their sleeves and VAR. we have already seen us done over in europe with VAR so am not 100%, but the clouds are lifting and the win at CAS will make me feel a lot better until the champions league starts hahahhaha
 
shevtheblue said:
Sorry to give this it's own thread, but i truly think it deserves one. Absolute brilliant piece of journalism by Martin here, and not just because it's on City's side but because he is telling the whole facts and not just the ones to suit his own personal agenda:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...lost-appeal-against-European-ban-CRUSHED.html
Click to expand...
Samuel has written articles with great content all through this pantomime.
If you scroll down and read Ian Herbert’s article, you’ll find that not so uplifting!!!
 
ancoats said:
the premier league investigation into man city was on the back of the uefa ban and CAS verdict ? city was cleared so i would think the premier league will back off and don't get involved because, they (premier league) will know city are not messing about anymore and will take on anybody
Click to expand...
We won't know until the CAS details are given if we have been cleared on time limitation or lack of evidence or our own demonstration of the source of funding? Our enemies are not going to give up until they have exhausted all possibilities of taking us down. As you say we have shown we are up for the fight.
 
shevtheblue said:
Sorry to give this it's own thread, but i truly think it deserves one. Absolute brilliant piece of journalism by Martin here, and not just because it's on City's side but because he is telling the whole facts and not just the ones to suit his own personal agenda:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...lost-appeal-against-European-ban-CRUSHED.html
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting, what a magnificent article from the best sports reporter in the UK.

I hope everyone on here respects Martin Samuel, he has supported us every inch of the way, and I for one will always have nothing but respect for that.
Thank you Martin!
 
Plain Speaking said:
We won't know until the CAS details are given if we have been cleared on time limitation or lack of evidence or our own demonstration of the source of funding? Our enemies are not going to give up until they have exhausted all possibilities of taking us down. As you say we have shown we are up for the fight.
Click to expand...

i think the time bar limitation is dating back to the first time in 2014 and we can not be re-punished for something we have already been punished for as for the sponsorship deal with the etihad then we was found not guilty
 
ancoats said:
i think the time bar limitation is dating back to the first time in 2014 and we can not be re-punished for something we have already been punished for as for the sponsorship deal with the etihad then we was found not guilty
Click to expand...
It's not. I assume that's also a rule though. Our initial fine and squad reduction was because our income exceeded our outgoings too much (after they changed the rules last minute) whereas these allegations were that the income that we did declare wasn't really what we claimed it was. But it's UEFA's own rules that put the 5 year limit on it. The CAS don't have that rule, but have to base it on the rules of the competition as written by UEFA. And given that they wrote the rules, it's amazing that they would then bring them to court, unless the only reason to do so is to further smear us. They know that if they bring inadmissible evidence, even if it's bollocks, it will be reported, and the story won't be that we were cleared of all charges, it will be that we were cleared of all charges and that some of the evidence was inadmissible. And in the hands of a willing media, that would then be quickly turned into "they were cleared of all charged because some of the evidence was inadmissible."
 
I wonder what Pep makes of all the vitriol aimed against us.

I bet it has surpassed anything Pep has experienced anywhere else.

On the plus side Pep loves a good scrap.It might make him stay with us longer.
 
Brilliant, as ever!

I have always been a staunch supporter of Martin Samuel, even if he does write fir the daily mail. He is always, honest, fair and impartial.

Always has, I won't say a good word fir City, but a fair word.

He should always be welcomed at the club and if possible without it being too obvious given better and preferential treatment to that given to his industry colleagues.

Thank you Martin for your continued impartial writings, please keep up your great work across the football spectrum!
 
I'm With Stupid said:
It's not. I assume that's also a rule though. Our initial fine and squad reduction was because our income exceeded our outgoings too much (after they changed the rules last minute) whereas these allegations were that the income that we did declare wasn't really what we claimed it was. But it's UEFA's own rules that put the 5 year limit on it. The CAS don't have that rule, but have to base it on the rules of the competition as written by UEFA. And given that they wrote the rules, it's amazing that they would then bring them to court, unless the only reason to do so is to further smear us. They know that if they bring inadmissible evidence, even if it's bollocks, it will be reported, and the story won't be that we were cleared of all charges, it will be that we were cleared of all charges and that some of the evidence was inadmissible. And in the hands of a willing media, that would then be quickly turned into "they were cleared of all charged because some of the evidence was inadmissible."
Click to expand...

i think this case at uefa and at CAS was for 5 or 6 things and mancini payoff was one ? and the 2014 case was revisited because of the leaks and the etihad sponsorship was also another and the fine was for not working with uefa and not shown the books when asked
 
The other teams really shot themselves in the foot when they all signed bigger sponsorship deals than us straight after we signed the Etihad deal. It's hard to argue we're cooking the books when a team that hasn't challenged for the title in 10 years and another than hadn't challenged for it for 25 years have a bigger shirt deal than us.
 
Fantastic journalist.
Always does his research, doesn’t follow the herd and always gives a balanced article.
We should sit him a directors box and put all the other shithouse journalists in a piss stained portacabin with a leaky roof.
 
I respect Martin Samuel due to his impartial, balanced views and the quality of his articles. I would not want him to treat us favourably just fairly as he has done to date. If this integrity earns him privileged access to senior City officials that is a just reward and would serve as an example to other journalists.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
It's not. I assume that's also a rule though. Our initial fine and squad reduction was because our income exceeded our outgoings too much (after they changed the rules last minute) whereas these allegations were that the income that we did declare wasn't really what we claimed it was. But it's UEFA's own rules that put the 5 year limit on it. The CAS don't have that rule, but have to base it on the rules of the competition as written by UEFA. And given that they wrote the rules, it's amazing that they would then bring them to court, unless the only reason to do so is to further smear us. They know that if they bring inadmissible evidence, even if it's bollocks, it will be reported, and the story won't be that we were cleared of all charges, it will be that we were cleared of all charges and that some of the evidence was inadmissible. And in the hands of a willing media, that would then be quickly turned into "they were cleared of all charged because some of the evidence was inadmissible."
Click to expand...

Yes and the next question is why? Or, who, persuaded them. There's a really big story here for some journo or other and a major collusion/corruption scandal underneath it
 
Gone in again. He sees it properly
Hes not blinded by loyalties or clicks.
He just tells it as it is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top