City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

When I was working in the newspaper trade, I kept every email which could lead to shit further down the line. It is very good practice. You are working in a vipers nest. There are liars, bullshitters, lickspittals and other cheating bastards. It worked wonders for me, every single time there was mither. I left the industry seven years ago and still have them in my possession. A blue scouser (ironically) from the nationals taught me this. It appears to this day, that what few are left in this now fanboy industry, are still cunts.
 
blue ranger said:
Does anyone on here have texts and WhatsApp messages from 15 years ago. Surely the answer is no none of us do. And just like Johnson did in the Covid enquiry people will say phones lost and all messages deleted?
Click to expand...
I don't. I've never enabled WhatsApp to backup my messages and you can easily delete and reinstall WhatsApp to lose all of the existing messages on your phone.

Same as when you get a new phone. They get wiped.
 
Whatever comes of this, there’s been a massive momentum shift in narrative, and it’s just the start, the seeds of panic have been sown, the tables been turned, all the PL can do now is double down or turn in on itself, if it doubles down with more leaks it will be obvious, if they take the silent approach, the vacuum will be filled with pro City, hopefully there’s a rat-sinking ship scenario
 
Otamendi's Beard said:
I don't. I've never enabled WhatsApp to backup my messages and you can easily delete and reinstall WhatsApp to lose all of the existing messages on your phone.

Same as when you get a new phone. They get wiped.
Click to expand...
Yea possibly off the phone but not off WhatsApp servers though .
 
Kippaxpete said:
amp.theguardian.com

Manchester City’s legal case has power to blow Premier League’s house down | Paul MacInnes

Champions’ claims threaten the collectivism that has been central to the league’s success over three decades
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com

Apologies if this link has already been posted but I'm astounded by its insight, balance and absence of bile, particularly coming from that bastion of City hostility, the Guardian.
Click to expand...
It’s a decent article but I think collectivism is a bit of a myth. Smaller clubs have always had to go along with what suited the big boys.
 
give it to gordon said:
No disrespect projectriver but is it worth it ?
Knobhead Simon wants City kick out the league for just being against the new rule about sponsor's.
Knobhead Simon just spends the whole interview trying to talk over you.

I understand you are putting out our side and putting out the truth, trouble is people don't want hear the truth.
Click to expand...
1717922165343.jpeg
 
Saw this comment in the mail and I don’t understand it

No they didn't. City get 67m from Etihad which is 2.5m over what the PL claim is fair market value. Arsenal are 2.5m over and Aston Villa are 13.5m over. Forest and Newcastle are well over too. It's easy to find this information if you can be bothered to look.

I didn’t think Etihad was classed as related party. Nor did I think any of the others where so why would the value be assessed and if it was why was no action taken ?
 
journolud said:
It’s a decent article but I think collectivism is a bit of a myth. Smaller clubs have always had to go along with what suited the big boys.
Click to expand...
i agree decent article but to suggest this is just city and the collectivism of the dippers and the rags has not been insidious in the prem over a number of years is false.
 
Do we know which sponsorships are APT and which are Related party and which are normal a list would give us a chance to spot bias. Which might actually be the main issue more than rules themselves. Chelsea have a relationship for example with their shirt sponsor which doesn’t seem to be an issue but maybe it just feels that way due to the press. Have the Premier league had an issue with it ? Do we know what’s going on with the hotel ?
 
WRicko said:
Saw this comment in the mail and I don’t understand it

No they didn't. City get 67m from Etihad which is 2.5m over what the PL claim is fair market value. Arsenal are 2.5m over and Aston Villa are 13.5m over. Forest and Newcastle are well over too. It's easy to find this information if you can be bothered to look.

I didn’t think Etihad was classed as related party. Nor did I think any of the others where so why would the value be assessed and if it was why was no action taken ?
Click to expand...
What comment?
 
Coatigan said:
The investigation itself goes back 15 years, because the charges go back that far.
Click to expand...
i suppose the big question is why now, this investigation has been going on for 5 years and has been referred to the IPC for almost a year, why at this specific point are they being ask to reveal their communications, what has been discovered that would prompt this.
 
Otamendi's Beard said:
But Meta wouldn't be likely to share anything would they? I believe they pride themselves on WhatsApp being a private / encrypted messaging service.
Click to expand...
its not up to meta to share, its up to the persons requested to provide the relevant data, if they cannot provide said data, then questions would need to be asked as to why not and what they have to gain by not supplying it, like i said earlier lack of information and the reasons behind that can expose someone just as much as the information itself.

Its like if i said to you where were you between 5 and 8 this morning and you said quite frankly its none of your damn business (and youd be right it isnt) but a lawyer could then ask well why doesnt he want to tell us what he was up to, it must be something nefarious (chances are it isnt) but they will lay the seeds of doubt.
 
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