PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

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.

And Rick Parry, David Gill aren't involved at PL level. Notice Tony Evans and Tariq Panja are more out of the loop now too..

Having the panel mention the snide leaking to friendly journalists all along this process would be a big win for me, especially if tied to non-cooperation justification
 
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?
 
Again, 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.
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.
 
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.
Right.......wtf is going on in here? Is everyone off work?
 
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.
David Conn has repeatedly claimed City chose two of the three arbiters in the CAS hearing, which is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
 
Conn, Schindler and Hattenstone have effectively or literally renounced their supporting of City 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
 
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
Mooney?
 
David Conn has repeatedly claimed City chose two of the three arbiters in the CAS hearing, which is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
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."
If Keith Wyness reckons we've done well then that means we're fucked!
 
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
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.
 
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.

I'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
 
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.

1. No. If you live in such ratified air where you can be coy about things you dont want on a public forum then you can extend that privilege to others. We know many of the same people in this fanbase, I'm sure they'll fill you in if youre interested enough

2. Anti-City means you are negative towards the club. Selling them up the river means you are performatively against the club when it is financially or socially prudent for you to do so. These are absolutely not the same thing. One is a permanent state of being, another is a temporary state of being for personal benefit.

As the example I originally gave in myself. Im clearly not anti-City. But if Sky Sports want to pay me a million quid a year to sit in a Sky studio and do the Uncle Tom routine of how we've lost our soul since Hughesey left and the evil Arab cheaters corrupted us then I'd do that because I'd quite like to be paid a million quid a year.

There's a fundamental difference between those two things.
 
He's incompetent if he believes such a basic factual error.
Maybe. So what?
I'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
"Following orders" - deary me
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top