Is he the one that said we were in trouble because Etihad had financial problems? Wanker is right.Where's that Arsenal fan who likes telling us the media are right and we're wrong. Wanker.
Is he the one that said we were in trouble because Etihad had financial problems? Wanker is right.Where's that Arsenal fan who likes telling us the media are right and we're wrong. Wanker.
There is always a tipping point with these sort of stories. The press like to end up on the winning side. The Mail and Times know Masters is doomed.Our gloves are off I think that's the reason.
Our recent action against the PL was the line drawn in the sand and the Times and a lot of other media have realised this and are now very wary on what they say.
A certain Mr Jordan has also taken a very different stance recently, and again he is not that stupid and knows the winds are changing direction.
I think his point is not that we haven’t been charged with that - because we have - but why would City feel the need to file inaccurate accounts when there was no FFP in place. Just like why would City hide a couple of million quid a year of Mancini’s contract at a time when we’d just spent £17m on a crock from Blackburn, all that £17m went through the books, and we were posting losses north of £100m.
I guess what he, and I, are trying to say is that we know we’ve been charged with filing inaccurate accounts but it makes no logical sense to have done that.
Dead silence in the Telegraph too - no doubt waiting for a steer from their controllers!Nothing that I can see in The Guardian yet on the latest developments. Perhaps Barney has been too busy helping Dan with his mental gymnastics to get round to writing anything of his own?
He's having a 'biggest imbecile' competition with DelaneyNothing that I can see in The Guardian yet on the latest developments. Perhaps Barney has been too busy helping Dan with his mental gymnastics to get round to writing anything of his own?
I have been told that the problem within BBC sport is cultural rather than led from above. It is a laddish banter culture and some key people in there just dislike City for various reasons. They also have very inexperienced staff, especially in the website team, who are easily influenced. Apparently Roan is Teflon man.I think it has to have changed. Like Politics you will have a paper that decides pro Iraq invasion for e.g. & it will never change & the journalist will frame every article that way on the orders of his editor.
Dan Roan must know by now but there is bbc editorial policy backing the premier league, if it’s to change it will be above him & not on the basis of right & wrong. That’s been glaringly obvious from the offset.
Concerning Mancini, I think there was an obligation, at the time, to show all Manager remuneration on the books. It predated FFP. They will have to show his consultancy contract with the Abu Dhabi club was a sham - can’t see this going anywhere tbh.Spot on. It never made sense in the context of the losses we were posting. ADUG were pumping in serious funds to cover player purchases and infrastructure upgrades. There were no PL rules in place about owner investment (UEFA rules were not even in place at the start of Mancini’s tenure), so the idea we were attempting to somehow conceal the true extent of annual losses of around £150m by paying Mancini an extra £1m ‘under the table’ is bizarre.
It would be like trying to conceal an elephant under an acorn.
Bet it felt like you've slept in an AKH!Just reminded me of the Lufthansa Christmas do at the Airport mid 90’s. 2 Steins in it was carnage…!!