PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Master-Lotus said:
I think a lot of you should simply stop caring what pundits and fans of other clubs think about us. We love who we are, we have won everything we wanted to and because of that we have gotten enough pride, confidence and arrogance to not be bothered what others think about us anymore. There used to be a time when that worked but we simply grew too big for that. We don't need to beg to be appreciated, leave that to the dippers. Remember, their dreams are our reality.
Click to expand...

I remember someone on here making a far better and more eloquent post about it than this, but IIRC the gist of it was that this whole charade has essentially stolen cordial football banter and conversation between us and fans of other clubs. Football is a very common subject to chat about especially among men, both personally and professionally, and that's been taken away from us for absolutely no reason than flagrant greed, fear and racism. Just turning the other cheek isn't enough, nor is it a solution. There's also a good chance so much damage has been done now that it won't be remedied even with full exoneration, which speaks to how extreme and insidious the campaign against us has been.
 
The perfect fumble said:
The lad did alright, but f**k me....

Click to expand...

Adam, Flav and Rory were all part of True Geordie(what a hypocrite btw) and Laurence Mckenna's 'The Kick Off' before they all fell out.

They've been chatting bollocks about City for a long time. So it's no surprise that Flav and Adam both tried to initiate a pile-on based on the bandwagon logical fallacy. Uncomfortable viewing really, as they were almost gaslighting him.

Flav : 'You don't actually believe that City are innocent though do you... '

Adam might as well have gone the full hog and said:
'Yeah nobody believes that innit... Can we all get a show of hands: Who thinks this guy is chatting shit?'

Rory --the giggling sycophant-- more quiet than usual but still doing his best Brent impression in the background. Also, he's always sugarcoating Chelsea's entry into relevance and gets away with that too much but that's for another rant.

Once you identify the flaw in their logical reasoning, it becomes far less persuasive and easily torn to shreds. He could have been polite and passive and said:

'Oh no, most rivals think City can't be innocent? Well holding a popular opinion is all well and good but you've no proof that you're right and I'm wrong do you?'

Likely reply: 'But but the emails'

Answer:
'The majority of those same emails which UEFA were told at CAS, were not evidence that their allegations were correct? Sorry, no the emails aren't proof, yes I've read them, context is key on the correct interpretation. Which was actually provided by City at CAS, if you bothered to read the report or even an impartial summary of it'

He could have also pulled Jamie up on the time-barring at CAS, with a simple:
'Etihad wasn't and that was the most important one'.

No doubt they'd fall back on:
'but it's impossible for City to have a higher commercial revenue than Real Madrid'.

That's defetable too from multiple angles but they'll probably cut the person off long before they land their point and move the convo on. Like they always do, when someone on City's side knows more than them. Or even a neutral who's not falling into line on the narrative they want.

Like others have said, it's a wonder any City fans go on there. They are made to feel as welcome as a fart in a space suit for answering their questions but it's normally the same bad faith conversation that's been done a thousand times over. You already know what arguments they'll fall back on, to dismiss whatever argument you present them with, before you open your mouth.
 
Last edited:
Nightmare Walking said:
Yes, he was a very good player, in an era when it was chock full of quality centre halves. If he was playing now, people would be suggesting he was outstanding and would be a definite for England. Hes a prick, but he was a very good player.
Click to expand...

Don't agree, he was steady, as that was the Liverpool defence as a whole really, but nothing very good about him at all
 
bluealf said:
I'd be no good on that kind of show, I haven't got the best control of my temper at the best of times, bad enough Scholes sitting there with his snide keeper digs, forgetting what keeper is between the sticks at his beloved team, spitty's voice is enough to tip me ove the edge but that spurs fan needed a fucking good slapping.
Click to expand...
It’s why you don’t see Big Steve on there anymore.
He got sick of their bullshit.
Know nowt’s with their snide digs.
 
slbsn said:
Yes and City say they did respond as required - certainly post the High Court. I don't think non-cooperation is a foregone conclusion. The PL process was very different to the UEFA process.
Click to expand...

I recall you posting some sections of the Everton judgement where they also had been accused of not co-operating and the judgement strongly sided with Everton. I think it was meant to be an example of why such accusations shouldn't be seen as a forgone conclusion.
 
Metalartin said:
Adam, Flav and Rory were all part of True Geordie(what a hypocrite btw) and Laurence Mckenna's 'The Kick Off' before they all fell out.

They've been chatting bollocks about City for a long time. So it's no surprise that Flav and Adam both tried to initiate a pile-on based on the bandwagon logical fallacy. Uncomfortable viewing really, as they were almost gaslighting him.

Flav : 'You don't actually believe that City are innocent though do you... '

Adam might as well have gone the full hog and said:
'Yeah nobody believes that innit... Can we all get a show of hands: Who thinks this guy is chatting shit?'

Rory --the giggling sycophant-- more quiet than usual but still doing his best Brent impression in the background. Also, he's always sugarcoating Chelsea's entry into relevance and gets away with that too much but that's for another rant.

Once you identify the flaw in their logical reasoning, it becomes far less persuasive and easily torn to shreds. He could have been polite and passive and said:

'Oh no, most rivals think City can't be innocent? Well holding a popular opinion is all well and good but you've no proof that you're right and I'm wrong do you?'

Likely reply: 'But but the emails'

Answer:
'The majority of those same emails which UEFA were told at CAS, were not evidence that their allegations were correct? Sorry, no the emails aren't proof, yes I've read them, context is key on the correct interpretation. Which was actually provided by City at CAS, if you bothered to read the report or even an impartial summary of it'

He could have also pulled Jamie up on the time-barring at CAS, with a simple:
'Etihad wasn't and that was the most important one'.

No doubt they'd fall back on:
'but it's impossible for City to have a higher commercial revenue than Real Madrid'.

That's defetable too from multiple angles but they'll probably cut the person off long before they land their point and move the convo on. Like they always do, when someone on City's side knows more than them. Or even a neutral who's not falling into line on the narrative they want.

Like others have said, it's a wonder any City fans go on there. They are made to feel as welcome as a fart in a space suit for answering their questions but it's normally the same bad faith conversation that's been done a thousand times over. You already know what arguments they'll fall back on, to dismiss whatever argument you present them with, before you open your mouth.
Click to expand...
What a fucking dour couch that is - Ginger Pig and spitty providing the insightful bantz - fuck me...........
 
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