PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

the weird thing with the investigation into eto'o and willian is that it was self reported for the pl to look into which shows how thorough their investigations werent into other clubs, the pl has really backed themselves into a corner here with our charges because the way they have handled everything relating to other clubs has just been downright incompetent and it will be no less incompetent with us.
 
shozzabluebird said:
There will be a great deal of egg on face if as Ballon D’Or team of the year we get hit by the PL charges, don’t you think ?
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, but we've already been hit by the 115 charges.

Admittedly it is easy to miss that in here due to the boring derailment regarding postcodes.
 
mancboy said:
the weird thing with the investigation into eto'o and willian is that it was self reported for the pl to look into which shows how thorough their investigations werent into other clubs, the pl has really backed themselves into a corner here with our charges because the way they have handled everything relating to other clubs has just been downright incompetent and it will be no less incompetent with us.
Click to expand...
I guess if they find we've done something wrong it won't make much difference, but it does seem ridiculous that part of the complaint is that we're not letting them go on a fishing expedition, when they've shown so little interest in other clubs.
 
nmc said:
Are they sex toys?
Click to expand...
I know that some people think of women in football as tokenism, but to call them sex toys is a bit too far!
 
Rochdale Blue said:
I had forgot he even existed as I hadn't heard anything from the Muppet for a long time, but I would have thought there were people at the bbc who keep tabs on people like Nolan, if only to stop their grubby corporation from looking even more incompetent than they are.
Click to expand...
How do you think I feel, he rings me ten times a day!!
 
I know some are getting annoyed at the postcode off-topic debate but I do find it interesting personally. Mainly because it does seem to annoy the rags when you remind them United haven't been based in Manchester for over 100 years. I don't think it's a matter of what the post office thinks, that's their system isn't it? Either it's in a district of the city of Manchester or it isn't.

I actually discovered while fact checking in a recent debate, that neither Newton Heath or West Gorton were classed as Manchester districts until 1890(Longsight too). It was only West Gorton too, until 1909 when the rest of Gorton was incorporated.

Either way both clubs were based in Manchester when they took the name for their club and it all started in 1890 officially. Edit: Or 1887 in City's case(a slightly earlier right to claim.. .get in haha), since they were in Ardwick by then. The difference is, since 1887 City have always been based in a Manchester district, United have only been based in one for 20 years total(1890-1910). That's a diss, that I'm trying to find a way to say as succinctly as possible for future use.
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
I know some are getting annoyed at the postcode off-topic debate but I do find it interesting personally. Mainly because it does seem to annoy the rags when you remind them United haven't been based in Manchester for over 100 years. I don't think it's a matter of what the post office thinks, that's their system isn't it? Either it's in a district of the city of Manchester or it isn't.

I actually discovered while fact checking in a recent debate, that neither Newton Heath or West Gorton were classed as Manchester districts until 1890. It was only West Gorton too, until 1909 when the rest of Gorton was incorporated.

Either way both clubs were based in Manchester when they took the name for their club and it all started in 1890 officially. The difference is, since 1890 City have always been based in a Manchester district, United have only been based in one for 20 years total(1890-1910). That's a diss, that I'm trying to find a way to say as succinctly as possible for future use.
Click to expand...

I thought utd only took the name Manchester after newton heath went bust and they moved out of Manchester to Trafford
 
give it to gordon said:
I thought utd only took the name Manchester after newton heath went bust and they moved out of Manchester to Trafford
Click to expand...
Yes that's true(1902 was it?), I'm more talking about how long the location Newton Heath was classed as a Manchester district and United's right to claim the name. I suppose I made a slight error on City's part, they moved out of West Gorton(the Bull's Head Hotel on Reddish Lane was the last time they were based there) in 1887 to Hyde Road, Ardwick. I was just surprised by the 1890 bit about West Gorton.

Edit: Kind of confused that most sources state Hyde Road Stadium was based in West Gorton still. However, as Gary James stated(quoted on the wiki page), the name change to Ardwick AFC was a choice made because the club were no longer based within Gorton's boundaries, once they moved to Hyde Road. So which is it? The name change wouldn't make sense if the stadium wasn't in Ardwick.
No longer based within the limits of Gorton, it was decided that to continue to go by the name Gorton Association Football Club was now a misnomer. Consequently, the club officially renamed themselves Ardwick Association Football Club, inheriting the name of their new home district in place of the old.
Click to expand...

Has Ardwick always been a Manchester district anyone know?
Edit: Found the answer. It was part of the borough of Manchester since 1838. Manchester gained city status in 1853. So yes, in terms of the city of Manchester.
 
Last edited:
Another thought. The PL cannot afford to not have City, so fuck them.

United however can fuck right off, they're skint.

P.S. Howay the lads!
 
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