CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

Hence why we need a PR set up within the club to get our message out and not let the media dictate the narrative.
My view as well, PR wise, the club have not, afik, publicly emphasised the investments and regeneartion created in East Manchester on the back of the takeover.
On Martin Samuel's column in the DM this week I posted this-
"How much urban re-generation took place around Anfield (Liverpool F.C.) and Old Trafford/Stretford (Manchester Utd.) after those clubs were taken over by new owners? How much did those owners invest in the local community?
How much debt do those clubs have?"
 
At long last a post of sense and perspective to counter some of the paranoid dross we've been treated to. There seems to have been an attack of almost collective amnesia. Let me remind everyone that in the last ten years our club, little citeh, the national laughing stock have won 4 PL titles, 4 league cups and 2 FA cups (as well as runners up once) and we can throw in 3 community shields. I think that's all but we've won so many I lose count! Off the pitch things are at least as good. Sheikh Mansour bought the club in 2008 for £90 million and paid off the debts. Revenue was about £79 million pa. He has invested some £1.5 billion just in City and (say) £1 billion in the other members of the group, although I suspect that's an overestimate. City's own revenue stands at over half a billion a year. The CFG now has major investment from American and Chinese conglomerates and is worth - not valued but made worth, by actual investment - $5.5 billion. That represents a pretty hefty return for the Sheikh, but it also means City have little to fear if "the Sheikh walks away". I reckon that's a pretty good decade as decades go at City!

And what's happened to our rivals, the awesome cartel? Stony broke, borrowing right left and centre and hardly a trophy between the lot of them and so desperate they have to rely on a set of ready bent rules to ruin us. But we are not the little guys here. We don't need to break their rules to win. Khaldoon tells them that any independent court will rule in our favour, and it does. And any rules which are bent enough to hurt us will absolutely destroy them. The only thing they can do is to pick up their bat and wickets and go and play somewhere else with their own little gang.

So, for god's sake let's shut up about City being passive and supine, taking everything the cartel throw at us. At the moment the cartel are flat on the canvas and he ref's checking VAR to make sure he's actually said "ten".

Five league cups ;)
 
Who is this Dave Kitson? Didn't he play for Stoke a while back? How is he now such an expert on FFP and our case? Has he seen all the evidence ? Or is he just an opinionated nobody with some kind of axe to grind? I guess he hasn't got any experience in law, FFP, UEFA or CAS and like many struggle to comprehend the simple English in the Monday ruling by CAS.

Google him, he's a no mark whose after Taylor's job at the PFA.
 
The amount of dippers and rags who still think were guilty because we got a fine is staggering So to explain to a dipper I thought of this analogy
Imagine your in a fervant hostile crowd waiting for the opposition coach to arrive at your ground. As the tension is ramped up a copper pulls you away even though you were doing nothing. You protest your Innocence but the coppers not for turning you become uncooperative and eventually your done for resisting arrest
 
Hi Mike,

Got to say i agree fully with you here. I know we like to get stuff done quietly but having Kitson quietly having to say sorry doesn't cut it here. We should be seeing reports of "City take aim at "insert name here" for defamation" and letting the world know we won't take this wilfull lying sitting down. You can't let rubbish like this go unchecked. It, in my mind, demands action where the broadcaster has to make a full public statement saying we are sorry we let this occur and such slander will never be allowed on our station again. We feel points of view are important but in this case we allowed willful defamation to be broadcast without correcting it immediatly via our presenter/moderator.

More to that Kitson should see his pocket lighter paying for court costs and getting slammed for talking out of his rear end.

I agree fully with your sentiment that if we won't challenge it we should stfu saying its bad whilst wringing our hands. We have kept our powder dry long enough, time to light the fuse now we have the upper hand and are not inhibited by the court case any longer. Something tells me we will take more proactive action now where we can legally, well i hope we do.
I think we should keep our powder dry and target the bigger players. The BBC (especially Dan Roan) has done a lot damage to City with a lot of inaccurate and defamatory stories, so has the Guardian, and some of the tabloids at different stages. Some of these organisations have left themselves wide open for action, others have been smarter. A few selective legal actions would be helpful. We could donate any damages won to local charities in Manchester or even pledge to double any amount awarded from our own coffers. That's not to say we shouldn't send a warning legal letter to the Kitsons of this world. We need to get rid of our image as a "soft touch."
 
I think we should keep our powder dry and target the bigger players. The BBC (especially Dan Roan) has done a lot damage to City with a lot of inaccurate and defamatory stories, so has the Guardian, and some of the tabloids at different stages. Some of these organisations have left themselves wide open for action, others have been smarter. A few selective legal actions would be helpful. We could donate any damages won to local charities in Manchester or even pledge to double any amount awarded from our own coffers. That's not to say we shouldn't send a warning legal letter to the Kitsons of this world. We need to get rid of our image as a "soft touch."

just make sure his PFA ambitions are well and truly crushed if not already, and lean on mainstream publications not to book him "at risk of being faced with lawsuits if he presents these opinions in the public domain again", or words to that effect.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.