I agree with you but I truely believe this is a just cause for clicking there, if not only out of respect for the journalist himself.
Please don't cut your nose off to spite your face, trust me it's worth it!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Martin Samuel appreciation
- Thread starter EL APACHE TEVEZ
- Start date
Please don't cut your nose off to spite your face, trust me it's worth it!
It's not. I assume that's also a rule though. Our initial fine and squad reduction was because our income exceeded our outgoings too much (after they changed the rules last minute) whereas these allegations were that the income that we did declare wasn't really what we claimed it was. But it's UEFA's own rules that put the 5 year limit on it. The CAS don't have that rule, but have to base it on the rules of the competition as written by UEFA. And given that they wrote the rules, it's amazing that they would then bring them to court, unless the only reason to do so is to further smear us. They know that if they bring inadmissible evidence, even if it's bollocks, it will be reported, and the story won't be that we were cleared of all charges, it will be that we were cleared of all charges and that some of the evidence was inadmissible. And in the hands of a willing media, that would then be quickly turned into "they were cleared of all charged because some of the evidence was inadmissible."
i think this case at uefa and at CAS was for 5 or 6 things and mancini payoff was one ? and the 2014 case was revisited because of the leaks and the etihad sponsorship was also another and the fine was for not working with uefa and not shown the books when asked
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 18,876
The other teams really shot themselves in the foot when they all signed bigger sponsorship deals than us straight after we signed the Etihad deal. It's hard to argue we're cooking the books when a team that hasn't challenged for the title in 10 years and another than hadn't challenged for it for 25 years have a bigger shirt deal than us.
Fantastic journalist.
Always does his research, doesn’t follow the herd and always gives a balanced article.
We should sit him a directors box and put all the other shithouse journalists in a piss stained portacabin with a leaky roof.
Always does his research, doesn’t follow the herd and always gives a balanced article.
We should sit him a directors box and put all the other shithouse journalists in a piss stained portacabin with a leaky roof.
jamesha
Well-Known Member
I respect Martin Samuel due to his impartial, balanced views and the quality of his articles. I would not want him to treat us favourably just fairly as he has done to date. If this integrity earns him privileged access to senior City officials that is a just reward and would serve as an example to other journalists.
theres only one carlito
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 1,912
- Team supported
- Manchester City since 1980
Bang on the money.
it’s a shame he’s only one of not even a handful that see it for what it is.
Pingu the Penguin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 7,013
It's not. I assume that's also a rule though. Our initial fine and squad reduction was because our income exceeded our outgoings too much (after they changed the rules last minute) whereas these allegations were that the income that we did declare wasn't really what we claimed it was. But it's UEFA's own rules that put the 5 year limit on it. The CAS don't have that rule, but have to base it on the rules of the competition as written by UEFA. And given that they wrote the rules, it's amazing that they would then bring them to court, unless the only reason to do so is to further smear us. They know that if they bring inadmissible evidence, even if it's bollocks, it will be reported, and the story won't be that we were cleared of all charges, it will be that we were cleared of all charges and that some of the evidence was inadmissible. And in the hands of a willing media, that would then be quickly turned into "they were cleared of all charged because some of the evidence was inadmissible."
Yes and the next question is why? Or, who, persuaded them. There's a really big story here for some journo or other and a major collusion/corruption scandal underneath it