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

halfcenturyup said:
Where are we with all this? I know what PGMOL say, but did we actually see the flag go up and Kavanagh signal offside? At the time it just looked like a big disorganized mess .....
Click to expand...

Yeah it has been briefed officially that it was disallowed on field and then var allowed the ref to see Bernardo wasn't interfering etc.

I never saw the flag go up watching in TV, but the linesman did seem to be holding his earpiece and probably speaking to the ref for a fair bit. Probably saying he's definitely off, but I don't know if he's in the keepers eyeline, or something like that.
 
mattcity5 said:
Yeah it has been briefed officially that it was disallowed on field and then var allowed the ref to see Bernardo wasn't interfering etc.

I never saw the flag go up watching in TV, but the linesman did seem to be holding his earpiece and probably speaking to the ref for a fair bit. Probably saying he's definitely off, but I don't know if he's in the keepers eyeline, or something like that.
Click to expand...

But then surely the linesman should have put his flag up as the ball went over the line, after which the referee talks to the linesman and determines if he thinks Silva was interfering. Then VAR look at it. Wrong thread I know, just trying to match the official explanation to what happened on the pitch. Not sure it can be.
 
Vic said:
Odd that he's not picked up that City's winner was given offside by the referee and VAR got it allowed.
Click to expand...
Also seems to think Bernardo’s actions before Stones headed the ball could affect an offside decision so doesn’t know the rules!
 
cheekybids said:
Ziegler has spoken

Inside ‘feisty’ crisis meeting as Man City and Richard Masters clash

www.thetimes.com

Latest news & breaking headlines

The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com
Click to expand...
Fuck me, even now continuing the myth that we are 'effectively owned by Abu-Dhabi'...
 
halfcenturyup said:
But then surely the linesman should have put his flag up as the ball went over the line, after which the referee talks to the linesman and determines if he thinks Silva was interfering. Then VAR look at it. Wrong thread I know, just trying to match the official explanation to what happened on the pitch. Not sure it can be.
Click to expand...
@halfcenturyup Bang on. It may be the wrong thread, this one is about the Premier League lying about PSR.
Your very valid point about Pigmob lying about an incident during a game should be elsewhere.......
Nah, sod that. It's about the people in charge lying to us. This is the right thread.
 
mattcity5 said:
Yeah it has been briefed officially that it was disallowed on field and then var allowed the ref to see Bernardo wasn't interfering etc.

I never saw the flag go up watching in TV, but the linesman did seem to be holding his earpiece and probably speaking to the ref for a fair bit. Probably saying he's definitely off, but I don't know if he's in the keepers eyeline, or something like that.
Click to expand...

That's how I saw it. Lots of noise to make it hard to hear, the City players clearly were aware that it had been disallowed at some point - you can tell from the reaction.

Incompetent sky camerawork not showing the events.

It's pretty much how linesmen are meant to behave - tell the ref, don't give the goal, and then let VAR correct if the player is not actively offside.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Some new stuff in there, but such a poor article.
Click to expand...
Couldn't read it when the headline screams "City's fight to fend off spending restrictions"... like we were trying to create a lawless Wild (north-)West, erm, no!, City's rightful push-back against discriminatory restriction of their own commercial processes (Etihad sponsorship)
And, btw, have we heard of any other club's sponsorships being derailed under the PL's bullshit view of APT/FMV..? Any at all..?
 
train man said:
Couldn't read it when the headline screams "City's fight to fend off spending restrictions"... like we were trying to create a lawless Wild (north-)West, erm, no!, City's rightful push-back against discriminatory restriction of their own commercial processes (Etihad sponsorship)
And, btw, have we heard of any other club's sponsorships being derailed under the PL's bullshit view of APT/FMV..? Any at all..?
Click to expand...
It's not like the APT rules have stopped us winning. We've won 4 PL titles, an FA Cup and a CL since they were introduced. But the media line is that we've challenged the rules as they've stopped us spending and have impeded our domination.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It's not like the APT rules have stopped us winning. We've won 4 PL titles, an FA Cup and a CL since they were introduced. But the media line is that we've challenged the rules as they've stopped us spending and have impeded our domination.
Click to expand...
We are net spend champs every year these days. Been a while since we went big in the transfer market.
 
train man said:
Couldn't read it when the headline screams "City's fight to fend off spending restrictions"... like we were trying to create a lawless Wild (north-)West, erm, no!, City's rightful push-back against discriminatory restriction of their own commercial processes (Etihad sponsorship)
And, btw, have we heard of any other club's sponsorships being derailed under the PL's bullshit view of APT/FMV..? Any at all..?
Click to expand...
I expected to see loads of articles / links down my newsnowmancity feed about yesterday's meeting but hardly a thing. You can tell it didn't go down well for the Premier League and fit in with the almost universial scenario earlier that it was a win for them and it would all be over in a week with a few tweaks of the pen!
 
halfcenturyup said:
But then surely the linesman should have put his flag up as the ball went over the line, after which the referee talks to the linesman and determines if he thinks Silva was interfering. Then VAR look at it. Wrong thread I know, just trying to match the official explanation to what happened on the pitch. Not sure it can be.
Click to expand...
There's a post from a Blue who was at the match who stated the Linesman did actually put his flag up but after a considerable delay, he said it looked like someone was in his ear telling him to flag offside.

That can be the only explanation of why the VAR box gesture was made after the on field review. I, like the vast majority I suspect thought the goal was being overturned as I had no idea the flag had gone up. I think even the Wolves fans thought the goal had been overturned.

Now, back to the thread, Masters is a proper red shirt influenced toss pot.
 
johnny crossan said:
"Sponsorship deal changes The concept of ATPs (sic) was introduced to address clubs being able to turn to companies linked to the ownership to bring in sponsorship. How & when they are then assessed at "Fair Market Value" is in dispute - with Abu Dhabi-funded City and Saudi-owned Newcastle, particularly in the sights of rivals and concerns the value of deals could be inflated."
Like US funded Arsenal, Dippers, Rags, Fulham, Bournemouth, Chelsea, Ipswich, Palace, Villa, West Ham, Spurs
China funded Wolves,
Thailand funded Leicester,
Greece funded Forest,
Serbia funded Southampton,
Russia funded Everton
Hong Kong funded Brentford & Brighton (bookies)
??
Pathetic and blatant racist reporting from US owned media outlet SKY
Click to expand...
Reading that list does make me wonder what has happened to football since the greedy formation of the Premier League. Alan Hardacre and Stanley Rous would be spinning in their graves if they could see the game now.
 
johnny crossan said:
"Sponsorship deal changes The concept of ATPs (sic) was introduced to address clubs being able to turn to companies linked to the ownership to bring in sponsorship. How & when they are then assessed at "Fair Market Value" is in dispute - with Abu Dhabi-funded City and Saudi-owned Newcastle, particularly in the sights of rivals and concerns the value of deals could be inflated."
Like US funded Arsenal, Dippers, Rags, Fulham, Bournemouth, Chelsea, Ipswich, Palace, Villa, West Ham, Spurs
China funded Wolves,
Thailand funded Leicester,
Greece funded Forest,
Serbia funded Southampton,
Russia funded Everton
Hong Kong funded Brentford & Brighton (bookies)
??
Pathetic and blatant racist reporting from US owned media outlet SKY
Click to expand...
Hollywoodbet at Brentford (South Africa) and Betway who are one of Brighton's sponsors are US listed. However both Bloom and Bentham have made fortunes from statistical betting data on football with the Far East being a significant chunk of the business.
 
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