Salty reactions from other fans and the media

I've been having a right laugh this morning listening to the tears of other fans and journalists, can we have a thread dedicated to laughing at their pain?

I liked this comment from RAWK;

''Can't we just create another breakaway English league and just not invite these criminals?''
It might have been mentioned already, but there was a scouse fan on Talksport yesterday with similar opinions. He sounded like a middle aged/older fella too but his bitter, childish nonsense was embarrassing. He was saying there's a club football association (or something along those lines) and other clubs could vote to refuse to play against City. What a bellend. Liverpool have just won the league but some of their fans want to take their ball home if there's someone that can compete with them.
 
It's a shame the Sheikh thinks it's below him to sue the arse off these rats. I really would love to see some action taken. But it looks like the policy is to just shrug it off and continue.
 
This doesn’t really belong in this thread as it’s not bitter in any way - in fact it’s the complete opposite. Letter to the F365 mailbox from a United fan who completely nails it:...
Superb. I'll have to qualify all my posts about "all united supporters" with a *!

A reputable Manchester solicitor would have done much the same.
I can see why GDM didn't get the brief now.
 
From Redcafe, pretty sure when ahem, CHINESE and SAUDIs were interested in their club they were pretty giddy about it

This!

As much as I hate having the yanks running the show, at least we know who they are. They didn't go out and murder innocents or abuse other people's rights (as far as we kn0w). So I'm slightly comfortable in that regard, even if its still shit ownership.
RAWK also needs to bear in mind this pic when slating the UAE.

liverpoolprotest_thumb.jpg
 
It might have been mentioned already, but there was a scouse fan on Talksport yesterday with similar opinions. He sounded like a middle aged/older fella too but his bitter, childish nonsense was embarrassing. He was saying there's a club football association (or something along those lines) and other clubs could vote to refuse to play against City. What a bellend. Liverpool have just won the league but some of their fans want to take their ball home if there's someone that can compete with them.

They've just won the league, after 3 decades - you'd think they would be focusing and celebrating that, rather than obsessing over this sort of stuff. They really need to build a fucking bridge and get over it.
 
This doesn’t really belong in this thread as it’s not bitter in any way - in fact it’s the complete opposite. Letter to the F365 mailbox from a United fan who completely nails it:

Don't get angry with cheeky City fans, you should all be getting angry about how this case has been reported.
For a start, the story of 2018 to 2020 cannot be understood without reference to the settlement between City and UEFA of 2014. If you don’t know about that, then you can’t possibly understand what happens later. City and Gianni Infantino cut a deal. The former took a light punishment but got to wipe the FFP slate clean. Why did Infantino cave? Because the clever lawyer that he is realised that the way UEFA had changed the FFP rules about 80% of the way through the game purely to ensure City failed would be shredded in court. The club turned a Nelsonian eye but also knew that the years of paying Roque Santa Cruz while not playing in the Champions League would not be revisited thanks to that wonderful phrase “full and final settlement”. Yes, this was an egregious mistake by UEFA, yes it helped City a lot, and no, Infantino didn’t really have an alternative. If you want to know more, google is your friend.

Then the issue of “limitation” apparently dropped out of the sky yesterday. According to the New York Times “what few knew was that City’s salvation lay in plain sight”.
The problem with that is that it is total bollocks. The highest profile City podcast explained within days of the initial ban in February last year when speaking to a hotshot corporate lawyer who also happens to be a blue (to some people’s amazement, City fans went to Manchester Grammar School as well as comps in Stockport) that this would be, and I quote directly “City’s strongest and cleanest point. It is very hard to see how UEFA could overcome this limitation on any basis.” The fan media led the way and with the exceptions of Simon Evans of Reuters. Simon Mullock of the Mirror and Martin Samuel of the Mail they have absolutely outclassed the traditional media on this story. David Conn has had a very strange time with this story. He has got some things right but has totally missed the main thrust of the tale.

Not only that, in the initial CAS case last autumn which City used to test the CAS waters, they said – and the court papers confirm – that limitation would be front and centre of any possible defence. One tactic they didn’t use was surprise. They then did exactly that at the main hearing in the knowledge that the judges were almost certain to agree with them.
Of course Sheikh Mansour employed some of the best lawyers in the world, but he really didn’t need to. A reputable Manchester solicitor would have done much the same. This was not a case for Perry Mason and the briefs earned some of the easiest money of their careers. This is why City were so confident and did not play for time. They wanted CAS as quickly as possible – hardly the actions of people who think they are a losing cause.
If you think City is an arm of the UAE state (it isn’t but I really can’t be bothered to litigate this now), then look at the way that country rolls out a Corona track and trace app. These people are highly competent and trust the experts they employ. Their confidence wasn’t Swales-like bravado. They knew that barring something totally unforeseen, they were going to win big and that is exactly what happened.
Unfortunately, when pointed to this analysis, the Chief Football Correspondent of The Independent (a self-proclaimed expert on these matters) said “I had read it, found it awful and showed it to people involved. They similarly found it “impenetrable” and “irrelevant”” . Well done, Miguel, your finest hour there mate.
So – did you read any of this before yesterday? Is this news to you? Were you shocked yesterday? Answer those questions and then ask if you should be angry with a football club fighting their corner of the football media that failed its audience by not reporting what was in front of their noses. You have been let down, but don’t worry, I would be somewhat surprised if City buy Messi, Haland and Mbappe in a week this September. They – and we – will roll on much as before.
Great read.
Just posted it on twitter
 
This doesn’t really belong in this thread as it’s not bitter in any way - in fact it’s the complete opposite. Letter to the F365 mailbox from a United fan who completely nails it:

Don't get angry with cheeky City fans, you should all be getting angry about how this case has been reported.
For a start, the story of 2018 to 2020 cannot be understood without reference to the settlement between City and UEFA of 2014. If you don’t know about that, then you can’t possibly understand what happens later. City and Gianni Infantino cut a deal. The former took a light punishment but got to wipe the FFP slate clean. Why did Infantino cave? Because the clever lawyer that he is realised that the way UEFA had changed the FFP rules about 80% of the way through the game purely to ensure City failed would be shredded in court. The club turned a Nelsonian eye but also knew that the years of paying Roque Santa Cruz while not playing in the Champions League would not be revisited thanks to that wonderful phrase “full and final settlement”. Yes, this was an egregious mistake by UEFA, yes it helped City a lot, and no, Infantino didn’t really have an alternative. If you want to know more, google is your friend.

Then the issue of “limitation” apparently dropped out of the sky yesterday. According to the New York Times “what few knew was that City’s salvation lay in plain sight”.
The problem with that is that it is total bollocks. The highest profile City podcast explained within days of the initial ban in February last year when speaking to a hotshot corporate lawyer who also happens to be a blue (to some people’s amazement, City fans went to Manchester Grammar School as well as comps in Stockport) that this would be, and I quote directly “City’s strongest and cleanest point. It is very hard to see how UEFA could overcome this limitation on any basis.” The fan media led the way and with the exceptions of Simon Evans of Reuters. Simon Mullock of the Mirror and Martin Samuel of the Mail they have absolutely outclassed the traditional media on this story. David Conn has had a very strange time with this story. He has got some things right but has totally missed the main thrust of the tale.

Not only that, in the initial CAS case last autumn which City used to test the CAS waters, they said – and the court papers confirm – that limitation would be front and centre of any possible defence. One tactic they didn’t use was surprise. They then did exactly that at the main hearing in the knowledge that the judges were almost certain to agree with them.
Of course Sheikh Mansour employed some of the best lawyers in the world, but he really didn’t need to. A reputable Manchester solicitor would have done much the same. This was not a case for Perry Mason and the briefs earned some of the easiest money of their careers. This is why City were so confident and did not play for time. They wanted CAS as quickly as possible – hardly the actions of people who think they are a losing cause.
If you think City is an arm of the UAE state (it isn’t but I really can’t be bothered to litigate this now), then look at the way that country rolls out a Corona track and trace app. These people are highly competent and trust the experts they employ. Their confidence wasn’t Swales-like bravado. They knew that barring something totally unforeseen, they were going to win big and that is exactly what happened.
Unfortunately, when pointed to this analysis, the Chief Football Correspondent of The Independent (a self-proclaimed expert on these matters) said “I had read it, found it awful and showed it to people involved. They similarly found it “impenetrable” and “irrelevant”” . Well done, Miguel, your finest hour there mate.
So – did you read any of this before yesterday? Is this news to you? Were you shocked yesterday? Answer those questions and then ask if you should be angry with a football club fighting their corner of the football media that failed its audience by not reporting what was in front of their noses. You have been let down, but don’t worry, I would be somewhat surprised if City buy Messi, Haland and Mbappe in a week this September. They – and we – will roll on much as before.
What a post that is!
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.