Media Discussion - 2023/24

[nmc]

Pound to a pinch of shit the source doesn’t exist.

I beg to differ…. The source totally exists in DeLooneys head!

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

Well done Brighton tonight. Their point means Sly Sports will have to resurrect the ‘big 8’ table again for a while.

 

[mad4city]

What deressses me is how, even after the CAS verdict, not one of the papers questioned the legitimacy of UEFA's original two year ban.

If CAS had only - and I'm going by the MSM's flawed analysis here - proven at the very least eight of the thirteen charges to be lacking sufficient eveidence, how did UEFA arive at such a heavy punishment? On what grounds did they act? What were the motives behind it? Who benefitted? If David Conn could (in my opinion) cast aspersions uopn the judges at CAS, how come not one journalist could question the ethics of the five people on UEFA's disciplinary panel.

Even by the standards of what they themselves are admitting to be true, the level of multi-club corruption thatvwas afoot there is a far bigger story than tiresomely scapegoating one club, over and over.

Why they chose to go down the path they did, only they know but I have my own suspicions and none of them reflect well upon them as people.

 

[mcfcphil]

Excuse me Heinz HP and Branston Sauce does exist.

Never mind the bollocks, here’s Miguel Delaney

 

[eyalluvitt]

Someone should show him the stats. put on here a few weeks ago showing the premier league champions if City and Chelsea hadn’t won. From memory u*i**d would have won it 7 times on the trot. How boring would that have been?
Mind you hope we win it 7 times on the trot to really stick it to the biased fawning t*ats

United’s 7 in a row would have been reported differently though because they did it without spending money and playing the beautiful game the United way

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

What deressses me is how, even after the CAS verdict, not one of the papers questioned the legitimacy of UEFA's original two year ban.

If CAS had only - and I'm going by the MSM's flawed analysis here - proven at the very least eight of the thirteen charges to be lacking sufficient eveidence, how did UEFA arive at such a heavy punishment? On what grounds did they act? What were the motives behind it? Who benefitted? If David Conn could (in my opinion) cast aspersions uopn the judges at CAS, how come not one journalist could question the ethics of the five people on UEFA's disciplinary panel.

Even by the standards of what they themselves are admitting to be true, the level of multi-club corruption thatvwas afoot there is a far bigger story than tiresomely scapegoating one club, over and over.

Why they chose to go down the path they did, only they know but I have my own suspicions and none of them reflect well upon them as people.

Not a peep from anyone in the media with a governing body setting out to destroy a football club because the rest of Europe are jealous of how City are run. Compare and contrast to the situation where ticketless Liverpool supporters turned up to the champions league final in 2022 and caused the game to delayed. Uefa were corrupt and not fit for purpose on that occasion.

 

[spacecadet]

The Daily Fail are back to their unwavering worst again this morning. The shameless shills have the rags as 6 of their top 8 fables this morning. Click, plastic, click rag plastic, click, click, click. I have grabbed the shite so no Blue needs to add to their clickometer. Fucking wankers.

 

[JPAMCR]

One of the things about modern journalism that I truly despise is the way many of them hide behind ‘confidential sources’ to spread lies. They know there is no meaningful way of challenging what they are saying, because of that putative confidentiality. It’s especially sad because sources used to be a necessary and effective journalistic tool and no sports journalist of yesteryear would have considered abusing or subverting that part of their professional operation in that way.

Agree. Thing is, IF they do have a confidential source leaking info then it proves we’re well within our rights to ‘not cooperate’ with the PL as anything we provided would leak.
They’re either too stupid, or being deliberately disingenuous, our outright liars. Then again they’re probably all 3.

 

[mancboy]

So because now i think they are doomed to failure they are trying to push the tagline that we only got off because we could hire the best lawyers and it wasnt a fair fight.

Two things are wrong with this scenario, firstly the pl have more than enough funds to hire anyone they want IF they believed their case had merit and secondly top lawyers are not prone to taking cases that they dont believe they have a fair to good chance of winning, if they took on losers ad nauseum it would cause them massive reputational damage and they wouldnt be top lawyers for very long.

 

[tweety]

But isn't this a case of two neighbours fighting over a hedge, more money than sense and the lawyers will get their fee.

 

[mancboy]

But isn't this a case of two neighbours fighting over a hedge, more money than sense and the lawyers will get their fee.

No this is a case of proving that the premier league are liars who work at the behest of a cadre of red tops and this was nothing more than a shot at us to cause us reputational damage and try to make our achievements look like it was because we were cheating , rather than address their own issues with bad management, as i have said before its yank business practice 101, when you cant compete then your litigate.

 

[tweety]

No this is a case of proving that the premier league are liars who work at the behest of a cadre of red tops and this was nothing more than a shot at us to cause us reputational damage and try to make our achievements look like it was because we were cheating , rather than address their own issues with bad management, as i have said before its yank business practice 101, when you cant compete then your litigate.

I agree with your post 100%. The point was that the lawyers would take the case even if there was only a tiny chance of success. It's a nice fee.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Who put that on there?

 

[Since 76]

Some knob on sly sports has just said that he thinks West Ham had the best year last year!

 

[bluedave1894]

View attachment 103158

Who put that on there?

Casemiro.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Some knob on sly sports has just said that he thinks West Ham had the best year last year!

Dildos were up in 2023...

 

[mancboy]

I agree with your post 100%. The point was that the lawyers would take the case even if there was only a tiny chance of success. It's a nice fee.

i think it very much depends on the lawyer and what level they are at, a qc like pannick does not need the fee , the damage to his reputation from taking cases with little to no chance of success would be worth much more than any fee he would receive.

 

[The perfect fumble]

i think it very much depends on the lawyer and what level they are at, a qc like pannick does not need the fee , the damage to his reputation from taking cases with little to no chance of success would be worth much more than any fee he would receive.

This is the man who defended Boris Johnson over Partygate.

It didn't end well.

 

[mancboy]

This is the man who defended Boris Johnson over Partygate.

It didn't end well.

Fair play, its easy to pick one case where it didnt end well but then ignore the 100s it did, you dont get to the level that he is at without enough credibility to back it up.

 

[Platt Lane 59]

United’s 7 in a row would have been reported differently though because they did it without spending money and playing the beautiful game the United way

Don't forget that all the team were either born & bred in Salford, or they had supported the Trafford Termites from afar, since they were nippers...