bobbyowenquiff said:Virtually nothing has leaked out from City at any stage. Even the snide briefings from other Club Directors have dried up. The PL case has been much tighter than UEFA. The Judges don’t like leaks.
MuffinI think you mean fucking bacon on a watercress barm.
1. provide actual examples if you want to make a pointAgain, you should ask around on that podcaster thing.
And you didn't ask who was "anti-City", you asked who would sell them up the river for media opportunities which isn't the same question. Just because you are personally unaware of events doesn't mean they never happened or everyone else is too sensitive. You presume knowledge where you have none.
Right.......wtf is going on in here? Is everyone off work?This is a common mistake made by many blues, in fact I heard someone quoting Godel incorrectly last week in the bogs at Mary Ds. The fact is, mathematics provides many ways to describe infinity (e.g., set theory, ordinal numbers, cardinal numbers). Gödel’s results do not prohibit the study of infinity but rather show that within a given formal system, there will always be undecidable statements about infinite mathematical structures. This naive misrepresentation of Godel probably started around the time of the ADUG takeover, circa 2009.
David Conn has repeatedly claimed City chose two of the three arbiters in the CAS hearing, which is a gross misrepresentation of reality.1. provide actual examples if you want to make a point
2. anti City vs selling City up the river for media opportunities seems a very fine line to me
Frankly, sounds like paranoid bollocks to me.
Cutting-edge Australian scientific research .....
Mooney?Conn, Schindler and Hattenstone have effectively or literally renounced their supporting of Ctiy and write anti-city
Mooney and Pitt-Brooke have sold City down the river for furthering their own careers
That's 5 x City fans in the media. I don't have a definitive list of all City fans but I'd hazard a guess that's a high proportion
He's a journalist, he actually believes this, is barely a City fan and is not simply writing that for money. There is no conspiracy, he just believes it.David Conn has repeatedly claimed City chose two of the three arbiters in the CAS hearing, which is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
Mooney?
He's a journalist, he actually believes this, is barely a City fan and is not simply writing that for money. There is no conspiracy, he just believes it.
If Keith Wyness reckons we've done well then that means we're fucked!Don't worry good old keith and his trusted sources have got our backs - from the fabulous Goal .com today !
He told Football Insider: "All the rumours and there's both sides of the rumour mill are going strongly that Man City are gonna escape, that there's a settlement being done behind the scenes - to the Premier League may well win. So right now you just pick your rumour and see where it goes. My own gut feeling and the sources that I've been trusting so far would tend towards City doing quite well in this case. But I don't think both parties will come out of it unscathed. Let's just wait and see."
He's incompetent if he believes such a basic factual error.He's a journalist, he actually believes this, is barely a City fan and is not simply writing that for money. There is no conspiracy, he just believes it.
Nothing of the sort. It is 4 literal journalists (who by the way barely ever write about City) and someone with 2 City podcasts who it is laughable to claim is anti-City/selling City out. Such paranoid, conspiracy theory nonsense. I'd put good money on the fact that they simply believe what they write.I'm summarising the posts so far. The argument over semantics of anti-city or selling up/down the river, there's examples of both
Would an infinite numbeer of Alan Whickers be able to each take an infinite number of journeys, or would they be restricted to one each?
He's a journalist, he actually believes this, is barely a City fan and is not simply writing that for money. There is no conspiracy, he just believes it.
1. provide actual examples if you want to make a point
2. anti City vs selling City up the river for media opportunities seems a very fine line to me
Frankly, sounds like paranoid bollocks to me.
Maybe. So what?He's incompetent if he believes such a basic factual error.
"Following orders" - deary meI'm not sure he does believe it. He writes for the Guardian so will definitely be following orders to some extent. That example of the CAS panel members is also completely untrue so there's no way a man of his intellect "believes" it. He's writing anti city material to an audience who want just that