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

Because good Muslims like our owner shouldn't borrow or lend money. By excluding Loans you are effectively discriminating against Muslim owners, funnily the press don't seem to mention this.
But MCFC do have a loan
 
Doesn't make any sense as the latest development doesnt change anything they voted in new rules which they were obviously in favor of those are now the rules Unless of course the PL executive knows more than what's in the public domain
More than likely shit stirring lies by the author
ian herbert shit stirring, i wont have that, he hasnt got any form for doing that ever has he?
 
mate there isnt enough bandwith available on this forum to go through the amount of examples available to show that teams are reffed differently and im not even talking about subjective decisions im talking about exactly the same incidents reffed differently, you want another example how about two incidents that were reffed differently in the SAME game for the same team, rags against burnley first incident walker pulls down mount outside the box ref cant see it and of course blows for a pen, var get involved and say incident happened outside the box no pen, second incident burnley player pulls back diallo clearly outside the box ref sees it doesnt give it, var gets involved and the offence of sustained holding is invented to give the rags a pen which they desperately need to win. Either both are given or neither are and this is in the same game for the same team except one happened late in the game when a certain needed a decision to win, look at that and tell me teams arent reffed differently, we are three weeks into the season and ten examples i could give you already if we are being fair.

Don't want to drag this out really as it's the wrong thread for it, but can I just clarify what you're saying here?

That because united got given a penalty that var overturned, and then united got given a penalty that was upheld, that means they are reffed differently to City?

I agree that they've been given help so far, but Fulham was the game to focus on for that.

However, those decisions have nothing to do with how we're treated.
 
What's hilarious is he's a Wrexham fan or Hollywood FC as they're now known.
They've literally financially doped their way up the leagues.
Thats OK though as they're American movie stars with white skin.
Hypocritical ****.
As he says, we can sleep easier this weekend knowing Burnley v Liverpool is a level playing field and the outcome unknown...

A ****. A simple one at that.
 
Don't want to drag this out really as it's the wrong thread for it, but can I just clarify what you're saying here?

That because united got given a penalty that var overturned, and then united got given a penalty that was upheld, that means they are reffed differently to City?

I agree that they've been given help so far, but Fulham was the game to focus on for that.

However, those decisions have nothing to do with how we're treated.
i was saying that certain teams are reffed differently and decisions given to others would not be given to city and of course they are treated differently to city, we see erling rugby tackled almost every corner and free kick which is entirely ignored but they invent an offence to give the rags a penalty, in all seriousness have you ever heard of sustained holding before?
 
They had no power to do so. And without allegations of wrongdoing beyond 2018, even if City lose it does not follow the PL can impugn the Etihad contracts in other years even if perception will be of no integrity
Given the PL's remarkable imagination and speed of execution when creating new rules targeted at us it would have been trivial to give themselves that power. Something like, 'No sponsorship renewal will be accepted for assessment if the sponsoring entity is the subject of an ongoing PL disciplinary process". There, I just had a go at it, easy, and of course that would have been voted through as usual by the required majority of clubs.
I just can not separate APT and 115, to me they are inextricably linked, and if we have a green light for renewal then every other soft signal is trivial in comparison, it's all about Etihad for me personally, and I think we have 'won'.
 
i was saying that certain teams are reffed differently and decisions given to others would not be given to city and of course they are treated differently to city, we see erling rugby tackled almost every corner and free kick which is entirely ignored but they invent an offence to give the rags a penalty, in all seriousness have you ever heard of sustained holding before?

Yeah I have, it has happened before but can't remember who and when. Which means I can't rule out that it was them last time I guess.
 
According to The Times, the Premier League assured City that they will not be treated differently compared to other clubs when agreeing sponsorship deals with companies containing ties to their Abu Dhabi-based owners.

The newspaper reports that City will now be free to extend its lucrative commercial partnership with United Arab Emirates (UAE) state-owned airline Etihad Airways, with the new contract potentially worth as much as UK£1 billion (US$1.35 billion). That is said to represent a major uplift on the previous agreement, which was signed in 2011 and worth UK£400 million (US$542 million) over ten years.

So the pl admit a witchhunt against City. When do the 155 get dropped after all the pl have admitted to this witchhunt
 
Whilst we would have all loved to see the PL have their faces rubbed in the mud, I think on balance this is a good outcome. The club must have got what it wanted to settle. That will include a renewed contract with Etihad (not waved through but will go through a fair process and then be agreed). It’s likely to be the biggest sponsorship deal in British sport. The club must also believe that future deals will be dealt with properly. The PL will also probably swallow the legal costs of Apt 2. At the end of the day we have given them a severe bloody nose and they will think twice about fucking us about in future on this kind of thing.
If only we could sort refereeing out by taking them to court.
 
Because good Muslims like our owner shouldn't borrow or lend money. By excluding Loans you are effectively discriminating against Muslim owners, funnily the press don't seem to mention this.
They can take out a loan, just not a loan that requires interest payment. Usury is not permitted. It's why they have their own banks to take loans from.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top