PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bluenova said:
Not sure there's much to read into that. It's what you'd expect from a regular presenter contract.

The "express opinions he did not believe" part, is the standard for discussion/phone in programs. Nobody listens to two people agreeing for an hour. Either they take opposing sides of an argument, or one is the devil's advocate.

As for "limit(ing) your opinions, if you're a guest, then you can say something outrageous and just not get invited back (and if it's a legal/offensive issue, you'll hear a quick apology). If you're a regular employee, then they'd be expected to have more control. If Sky had received a letter from City threatening legal action if they said X, then they'd be expected to tell their presenters to limit what they say. We know that happens, as various journalists have said they have to be careful what they say about City.
Click to expand...

Seriously? A presenter can stimulate debate, but a pundit is there to express his opinions. If not then what is the point? Might as well have the producers there. This information should be as damning to the credibility of Sky and their idiot pundits as the leaked emails were to City. Let's not treat it as if it's normal.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Now there is a banner:

"Sky had the right to require Thompson to express opinions that he did not believe or limit his own opinions"
Click to expand...
In fairness, the Tribunal didn't say that - that was a submission by HMRC's counsel. From what I can see the Tribunal rejected that...
"The fact that the opinions remained those of Mr Thompson does not detract from this; the control arises from Sky's ability to control the output of the programmes and other services... Mr Thompson had control over his own opinions"

Similar to what I have said about when I go on TS nobody tells me what to say at all. They have editorial control and could, in theory, flip a switch but do not direct an opinion.
 
Blueknows said:
Lost count the amount of times Ive overheard random conversations about us being cheats , recently was at the airport and overheard a couple chatting to this woman and her young son (who was wearing a city shirt) .... "Bet you wont be wearing that when youre found guilty of cheating"......son was about 8 or 9 ffs , cartel have done their job in tarnishing the best side the premiership has ever seen , I really do hope the club come out fighting after all this shit is done with
Click to expand...
When my eldest was 2, I went into the local bakers with him with a City bobble hat on, woman behind the counter said “oh don’t bring him in here wearing that hat”, I politely advised her to fuck off and said we won’t be coming in here any more. I did go back on my word and went in with him the following day in full City (him not me) and said he goes where he wants in his City stuff, he’s 2 and he’s already been to more City games than you’ve been to see the rags, and NOW I will not be coming in this rag shithole again. My son is now 18 and none of us have been in since. Shane, they did good pasties.

Same thing happened with my youngest on checkout at local Sainsbury’s, I told her to fuck off, and took all my stuff of her lane and moved it to the next one. She still works there and I’ve not used her lane since. I’ll join a big queue rather than be served by that ****. He was 2 then and is now 16.

Moral of the story - I’ve never took shit off rags, and never will. My lads have been brought up the same.

The 115 charges has kept me busy
 
halfcenturyup said:
Seriously? A presenter can stimulate debate, but a pundit is there to express his opinions. If not then what is the point? Might as well have the producers there. This information should be as damning to the credibility of Sky and their idiot pundits as the leaked emails were to City. Let's not treat it as if it's normal.
Click to expand...

Yes, seriously. You've got a bit of knowledge, so I'm surprised by your reply. If City's lawyers had sent a letter to Sky, telling them they were at risk of legal action if they used a term like "cheat" for example, or said they'd been found "guilty at CAS", then the Sky lawyers would make a decision on where to draw the line. If they agreed that it was legally a problem to say it, then Sky would have a duty to tell their pundits that they had to limit what they said, even if they believed it to be true.

I'm genuinely surprised you think different, and I would be willing to bet that every regular pundit/commentator/presenter/talking head at any large media organisation, has this in their contracts.
 
In the eyes of the morons, if we are cleared of the main charges we are still cheats. And, if we are found guilty of the main charges, we are cheats. Either way, the morons believe we are cheats. But, say we are cleared of the main charges and there is no expulsion from the premier league/no points deduction/no titles given to the red cartel etc, imagine how tormented the morons are going to feel - they are going to feel absolutely terrible. They may repeat to themselves "City are cheats" while having a shit or combing their hair, but they are going to be burning away inside. They may repeat to themselves "City are cheats, City are cheats", but we will still have the titles, the memories, the records, the accolades etc. The morons, they will have nothing but pain and despair as their best friend. Bring it on.
 
Jimmieblue said:
I don’t want to harp on, but when you’ve been outside the main stand shouting ‘McDowell Out’ then you know what bad owners are. We’ve been so fortunate to have these owners. They have not deserved this witch hunt.
Click to expand...
It's not a 'Witch Hunt' of the owners.

It's legitimate criticism of the executive team who are making bewildering decisions which are alienating the clubs past,present and future core customers.

This is a policy that most 'in touch' businesses avoid.

They may have layers,categories of customers that they 'flex',but they keep the 'core' customers who are there through thin and thinner, because they recognise that these are the people who cover the fixed costs,overheads.

Lose them and the edifice becomes destabilised.

City have become 21st century 'Guinea Hunters', ignoring the pound in pursuit of the shilling !!
 
slbsn said:
In fairness, the Tribunal didn't say that - that was a submission by HMRC's counsel. From what I can see the Tribunal rejected that...
"The fact that the opinions remained those of Mr Thompson does not detract from this; the control arises from Sky's ability to control the output of the programmes and other services... Mr Thompson had control over his own opinions"

Similar to what I have said about when I go on TS nobody tells me what to say at all. They have editorial control and could, in theory, flip a switch but do not direct an opinion.
Click to expand...

Damnation. Should have checked :)
 
Bez said:
In the eyes of the morons, if we are cleared of the main charges we are still cheats. And, if we are found guilty of the main charges, we are cheats. Either way, the morons believe we are cheats. But, say we are cleared of the main charges and there is no expulsion from the premier league/no points deduction/no titles given to the red cartel etc, imagine how tormented the morons are going to feel - they are going to feel absolutely terrible. They may repeat to themselves "City are cheats" while having a shit or combing their hair, but they are going to be burning away inside. They may repeat to themselves "City are cheats, City are cheats", but we will still have the titles, the memories, the records, the accolades etc. The morons, they will have nothing but pain and despair as their best friend. Bring it on.
Click to expand...
Pain, misery, suffering.

Rinse,repeat & multiply.

Nice and simple !!
 
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