Hughes calls for clarity over Tevez row, MuEN block comments

[SWP's back]

Or you could try this GDM:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1282674/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Take-running-jump-Michel-Platini--right-plan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... -plan.html</a>

I agree that Uefa haven't aimed FFP at City per se but at any club that may try and break into the cosy cartel.

If you go back and read my posts that's essentially what I am saying. Jesus we all seem to be arguing (myself included) over very little.

Can we all at least agree that Michel Platini is a very nice man

I thought you were saying that FFP was in no way set up to stifle competition but it has happened as a by product?

I think it WAS set up to stifle teams such as City. Though not just City, anyone.

 

[oakiecokie]

When I did the original post I had no idea that it would reach so many pages, it is by far and away a record for me - many thanks to you all.

I would like to add that it is refreshing to have Stuart Brennan responding to the postings and he even replied to my PM. The reason for the removal of the comment box was, he said, due to the fact that stories with legal implications should not have comment boxes and so somebody make a mistake initially. I fail to see how it is all right for the MuEN to print the story but we as fans can not respond, it smacks of double standards.

I have also read all the arguments for and against the MuEN and am still sticking to my and I suspect the majority view that they have a leaning towards our near neighbours, frequently at our expense.

Once again thanks to all who have contributed, an open debate with an interchange of opinions is exactly what this site is all about.

Its been a very interesting topic and although I still have the same opinions (pro) ref the MEN,I do think it has helped in SB having the balls to come on BM and give his thoughts and where possible,his answers to what at times have been both sensible questions to him and some which appear to be downright lies from a couple of people.
Likewise we all have a different opinion on how the MEN operates,in both a negative and positive manner,depending on your individual outlook.
I`ll still carry on paying my 40p+ every night.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Or you could try this GDM:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1282674/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Take-running-jump-Michel-Platini--right-plan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... -plan.html</a>

I agree that Uefa haven't aimed FFP at City per se but at any club that may try and break into the cosy cartel.

If you go back and read my posts that's essentially what I am saying. Jesus we all seem to be arguing (myself included) over very little.

Can we all at least agree that Michel Platini is a very nice man

I thought you were saying that FFP was in no way set up to stifle competition but it has happened as a by product?

I think it WAS set up to stifle teams such as City. Though not just City, anyone.

That was my (poorly made) point. That I disagree with anyone who thinks FFP was designed only with MCFC in mind. That it is part of some conspiracy to stop us and only us.

I may be naive but I believe that it was started off as a laudable aim but has been corrupted - for want of a better word - along the way.<br /><br />-- Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:48 am --<br /><br />

just like DD eh :)

Interesting. In what way?

he's much misunderstood

In all fairness, that's the first time in twelve months on here that I believe I've had to substatively qualify my comments on any matter.

Perhaps that doesn't reach your exacting standards but I'll try to improve on that over the next twelve months :-)

 

[johnny crossan]

In all fairness, that's the first time in twelve months on here that I believe I've had to substantively qualify my comments on any matter.

your finest hour so far:

Some people think the saddest posters on here are rags masquerading as blues. I disagree.
The saddest posters on here are the pathologically negative blues who are suffering withdrawal symptoms from the stench of defeat that used to stalk this club. They might not admit it to themselves even, but for some reason there's something about that bitter taste of failure that they miss.
Like an alcoholic who knows that his next drink might kill him, they know they should be enjoying our new found status but they cannot help themselves. And dragging everyone down with them into their world of misery seems to make them even more fulfilled. Perhaps it makes them feel better about themselves.
In their quiet lonely moments they must lie awake at night and rue the day that Sheikh Mansour walked into our lives.
Oh they will protest and say what 'big blues' they are, but in their heart of hearts the club doesn't feel right to them. Not like it used to. It's moved on and they don't really belong anymore.
I feel sorry for them.

Who are you referring to mate?

Classic.

 

[mcfc1632]

GDM - it was you earlier on that largely introduced the comments of being extreme - such as all financial regs being changed to stop one club - which was an overstated reaction to other posters comments - and then you ridicule posters for suggesting these things – and then go on and on to defend this position - totally and unnecessarily diverting this thread from its subject matter.

When in a hole and all that..............

Thing is that there seems to be a general understanding / consensus amongst people that have posted on here about FFPR (and in a a manner more considered and informative) that the position is more like:

No – the FFP was not only and expressly introduced to ‘stop CITY’

Yes – the FFPR regs were brought forward as a response to protect the old order from being ousted from their established CL revenue streams

Yes – the regs have been shaped to stop ‘emerging benefactor’ situations – of which CITY is the prime and current example – whilst not doing sensible things (like limiting the amount of debt) that would impinge on the old order

Yes – representatives of the old order make frequent and explicit comments about the need for the FFPR to be used to restrict CITY (with an implied or explicit threat of actions against UeFA if they do not take appropriate action)

Yes – the UeFA arm that have responsibility for the implementation of FFPR make frequent and clear references to events at CITY as the testing ground for their planning to make sure the regs are robust / successful

And yes there are threads for that subject – with no need for you to have diverted this thread for several pages now just to defend a position you have essentially created for other posters – can we get back on topic please – it was a worthwhile discussion on the opinions of CITY fans towards the reporting of the MEN.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

GDM - it was you earlier on that largely introduced the comments of being extreme - such as all financial regs being changed to stop one club - which was an overstated reaction to other posters comments - and then you ridicule posters for suggesting these things – and then go on and on to defend this position - totally and unnecessarily diverting this thread from its subject matter.

When in a hole and all that..............

Thing is that there seems to be a general understanding / consensus amongst people that have posted on here about FFPR (and in a a manner more considered and informative) that the position is more like:

No – the FFP was not only and expressly introduced to ‘stop CITY’

Yes – the FFPR regs were brought forward as a response to protect the old order from being ousted from their established CL revenue streams

Yes – the regs have been shaped to stop ‘emerging benefactor’ situations – of which CITY is the prime and current example – whilst not doing sensible things (like limiting the amount of debt) that would impinge on the old order

Yes – representatives of the old order make frequent and explicit comments about the need for the FFPR to be used to restrict CITY (with an implied or explicit threat of actions against UeFA if they do not take appropriate action)

Yes – the UeFA arm that have responsibility for the implementation of FFPR make frequent and clear references to events at CITY as the testing ground for their planning to make sure the regs are robust / successful

And yes there are threads for that subject – with no need for you to have diverted this thread for several pages now just to defend a position you have essentially created for other posters – can we get back on topic please – it was a worthwhile discussion on the opinions of CITY fans towards the reporting of the MEN.

I have apoligised for the tone of my earlier comments and I repeat that again here. I will now bow out of this thread as it's clear I'm not doing myself any favours and you are correct this should be a thread about the MEN.

-- Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:24 pm --

In all fairness, that's the first time in twelve months on here that I believe I've had to substantively qualify my comments on any matter.

your finest hour so far:

Who are you referring to mate?

Classic.

I think you are more that intelligent enough to see that that post required no qualification whatsoever, but I am pleased that you have taken time out to read through some of my posts.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

[I have apoligised for the tone of my earlier comments and I repeat that again here. I will now bow out of this thread as it's clear I'm not doing myself any favours and you are correct this should be a thread about the MEN.

quote]
See ya!

 

[adammck]

Jesus, hurry up and let the footy start already

 

[bernabias home shirt]

I`ve supported SB on BM because in my honest opinion I think he does a very good job and having read the paper for 30+ years I ain`t stopping now.
However I must admit that I found myself not agreeing with his observations that some of the National Media do not have an agenda against us.
Don`t need to look far to show that he is wrong with that statement,but it wont stop me from enjoying his match assessments etc,nor stop me from reading it.
Some people need to realise that it aint soley a Sports Paper,but a local area tabloid that reports on various aspects of life and people,within the area.

He still wont answer any questions on red top hacks (which is predictable)....would just love him to call neil custis a fat twat or norris is shagging oliver holts mum,go on stuart do it,them 2 are hated and despised on here and for good reason they hate city!

Neil Custis does not hate City, far from it.

His brother, Shaun, that's another matter, but that is more linked into his long-standing alliance with Kia Joorabachian.

Neil Custis has been banned from Old Trafford for large portions of the last 12 months as a result of what Slur Alex considers an agenda.

Oliver Holt, he's just a typical namby, self righteous, living in the past and with a platform for piss and wind.

I could write scores of names who have a lot of time for our club, but can't work past the politics of London-based media.

There are two sports editors who support United, one, The Sun.

As for Chris Bailey, he was never an outright Blue, more Bury FC from his time at Bury Times.

O'k neil!