If I remember correctly we've threatened him with legal action before and when we didn’t follow up on it he mocked us. If my memory is correct and that is what happened he probably thinks he can continue spouting vitriolic bile as he thinks we are too weak to follow up on our threats.Tebas has crossed the line with these latest quotes, if we don't threaten him with legal action now then I doubt we ever will with anyone.
Thats why I think the final report of findings will show just how ridiculous the original punishment was. How we use that is an interesting question.I have thought about this.
That punishment was so extreme,even i started doubting,thinking we must be seriously banged to rights.
Maybe they wanted to damage the brand.
They wanted neutrals to automatically assume serious guilt,by issuing an unprecedentedly harsh sentence.
That sentence would not have even reflected the crime,had a crime been proven.
It was like hanging someone for stealing an Apple.
How much of this campaign was controlled by Parry,Gill, i wonder.
You know one click equates to less than a penny in ad revenue.Not sure I said he wasn't, and it's not against the CoC to post a few salient points, just the whole article due to copyright, I refuse to give give clickbait newspapers ad revenue, and it applies to them all. The daily fail in particular for personal reasons, most of it's reporters (won't call them journalists) make shit up, and run a racist line, including in the past against a City player, for that, they deserve no clicks from here imho, but you feel free to support them.
You know one click equates to less than a penny in ad revenue.
I never understand the whole “I’m not clicking that” malarkey and the need to announce it. It makes absolutely no difference to The Mail whether one person does or doesn’t.
He may want to look at how much more City bring in through TV for both PL and CL than United if he doesn’t to look a ****."City haven't signed with their own resources, like Manchester United do, who bring in money through television or sponsors.
It really doesn’t. Cleavers not clicking on any article posted on here for an entire season wouldn’t even starve them of the cost of a cappuccino.All adds up though
Clicking is no big deal but contributing to other football sites brings in traffic. That's the important aspect. Don't contribute to their journalism. In theory I like the idea of a national fans network but not one that sits in a commercial framework which carries opinion pieces that are hostile to City.All adds up though how many articles a day a week a month? Plus if those got to site they get sponsors on that site on how much traffic passes those sites.
Ive reread it a number of times and it doesn't make sense
Oh dear not one word of it truth just a jealous non sensicle rant of a raving looney!I've seen this "they use petrodollars and not real 'earned' income" crap many times before. Has anyone, when asked, actually replied with a sensible or at least well thought out reason for it? Or is it just out & out racism as it appears?
FFS City... if you don't act on this then you've got no right to complain about the amount of bad mouthing going on.
Spoil sport ;-)I haven't caught up with what people are saying. I am GUESSING the award says:
a) certain matters were time barred (UEFA say it is 5 year limitation that the Panel found)
b) the Panel makes no finding on those time barred matters (it doesn't need to so may hide behind that)
c) the non-time barred matters were unproven (not established) - UEFA's evidence inconclusive to support such serious allegations. There may be some discussion of the standard of proof
d) it may excuse UEFA for making unproved serious allegation partly because of City's obstructive conduct in co-operation
e) it will support UEFA's argument as to the importance of co-operation
f) it will support UEFA that "MCFC’s disregard of such principle and its obstruction of the investigations" was an aggravating factor
So all in all fairly dry. Probably. I don't see it likely it will criticise UEFA. If it was scathing of UEFA I don't think it would have awarded €10m, it would have said words to the effect that "although we accept UEFA's argument as to the importance of non-cooperation, in this case UEFA's conduct in pursuing the investigation was so unfounded that we consider MCFC's breach to be largely excusable."
It really doesn’t. Cleavers not clicking on any article posted on here for an entire season wouldn’t even starve them of the cost of a cappuccino.
Think we have battered that jingle into submission, might be time for a new one! Be interesting to know everyone’s thoughts going forward if the club did ask us to respect the anthem, no protest banners, don’t boo etc (vote thread?) I’m all for peace if a few heads roll & we see and feel real change in attitudes toward our club, first acid test will be the refereeing against Madrid
At least he’s got progressive views on racism, especially about Raz.....All he is is an opinionated gobshite
He has stated things in here that could see him in court as he cannot know or substantiate them
He is the sort of person we should tie in knots to send a message
How the fuck does he think he knows more than pep who is involved in the case
Pep is a better footballer, manager, human and obviously knows more than this fuckwit
I’d nail the ****
He’s not even clever enough to hint it like most of the weasels do so they can’t be sued
We could easy financially ruin them all and we should
Offer either they issue a full apology or we go legal
The hitler video is out, hilarious :)
A bit of wishful thinking there. The game is run by the broadcasters for the benefit of millions of armchair fans. That's why UEFA have such distorted competitions in the first place.My gut tells me that when the CAS ruling comes out we are going to think this is the case even more so.
I also think this is being used to shape a new footballing landscape, not run by the big clubs, but more competitive, with the ability to invest, to build better clubs with better business models. Things are going to change