monty silva
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 180
But it will help our alleged non cooperation charges, the PL can't keep anything secretThe fact that the report is out there in the public domain won’t impact the hearing and the case.
But it will help our alleged non cooperation charges, the PL can't keep anything secretThe fact that the report is out there in the public domain won’t impact the hearing and the case.
Apologies if linked already but the, brief, discussion at the start of the Price of Football pod is a good analysis of what's going on. Aided by the fact Kevin Maguire had access to the 165 page doc
I very much enjoyed listening to those comments and in my opinion he was very fair about the actual reasons for City taking this forward.kieran maguire, not Kevin - Kevin maguire is a whole other ballgame
It depends on who gave him the full document.No but it highlights the high degree of collusion that exists with the sole objective of tarnishing our name.
Neither could UEFA.But it will help our alleged non cooperation charges, the PL can't keep anything secret
Good listen, balanced and refreshing to hear.
Interesting that "an element of whataboutery [in the document]" is mentioned. How do you demonstrate inequality or unfairness without being accused of indulging in whataboutery? Bloody impossible surely.
U missed out sent it to city only for the document to be hacked from city account by scousers and then sent to media ;)Let's hope Der Spiegel don't get hold of the document, edit it and then forward the edited version on in an email which will probably read " City have took the piss, they have you know" and that gets picked up from the British media and passed as gospel.
(Isn't that what happened with the "incriminating" email saga )
So Kevin Maguire has said that under the associated party rules min 3.20 , neither City or Newcastle can be sponsored by any businesses in the UAE or Saudi but other PL clubs can ?? Have i understood that correctly?? But other clubs can and have been sponsored by companies and even by their owners. And its backdated by three years. Clearly that is fundamentally wrong!
No surprise coming from that cockroach.The Syed article is racist from start to finish. It is based on a false premise that City are "run by Abu Dhabi" when the club is owned by Sheikh Mansour as a personal invesment and Silver Lake. Even by his standards it is despicable. Didn't he previously liken City fans to sewer rats?
Apologies if linked already but the, brief, discussion at the start of the Price of Football pod is a good analysis of what's going on. Aided by the fact Kevin Maguire had access to the 165 page doc
So Kevin Maguire has said that under the associated party rules min 3.20 , neither City or Newcastle can be sponsored by any businesses in the UAE or Saudi but other PL clubs can ?? Have i understood that correctly?? But other clubs can and have been sponsored by companies and even by their owners. And its backdated by three years. Clearly that is fundamentally wrong!
If that's correct, that's got to be unlawfulSo Kevin Maguire has said that under the associated party rules min 3.20 , neither City or Newcastle can be sponsored by any businesses in the UAE or Saudi but other PL clubs can ?? Have i understood that correctly?? But other clubs can and have been sponsored by companies and even by their owners. And its backdated by three years. Clearly that is fundamentally wrong!
They are trying a pincher movement on us, trying to find something that will stick , pity for them that we have the best chairman anywhere in the world and the best legal team , they will regret going to war with us that i am sureI suppose it’s clear just how confident the premier league & cartel are on landing the 115 if they’ve had to go to these extremes to try & stop City.
Shitcunts the lot of them!
So Kevin Maguire has said that under the associated party rules min 3.20 , neither City or Newcastle can be sponsored by any businesses in the UAE or Saudi but other PL clubs can ?? Have i understood that correctly?? But other clubs can and have been sponsored by companies and even by their owners. And its backdated by three years. Clearly that is fundamentally wrong!
Was he Mimi’s son who bummed the security guard in Shameless?kieran maguire, not Kevin - Kevin maguire is a whole other ballgame
Still is, but these days the chat over a pint is about accounting standards and English commercial law.Football used to be about socialising with mates and enjoying the day out, win or lose.
View attachment 121498
How on earth can you back date a rule change? What would that imply? We spent illegally during our 4 in a row? No fucking chance!If that's correct, that's got to be unlawful
No, doesnt apply to themSo this must mean that America owned clubs can't have America sponsors like say an American car company