My god, the media must live in some peoples heads 24/7.
It's a piece about multi-use stadiums to increase revenue and you're drilling down to try and find anything negative even if you have to make crap up to do so.
I agree with the highlighted first part but I find the rest a stretch to say the least.The article was about who is shaping world football. It highlighted the difference between the 2 Manchester clubs (sic) City were building the arena, expanding the stadium, Soriano worked the room for 2 days.... (and then got elected) whereas the rag fellah wasn't even present.
It mentioned the American money men who are shaping the world game. It was in many respects an excellent article about how certain people at certain clubs will shape the future of football and one specific club will not.
So why then mention City 'defeated' uefa. What a strange phrase by the way. And then go on to say about the 115 charges ? The article steers the reader towards a belief that Soriano, having worked the room, having become one of the most powerful men in football will make the charges simply disappear.
There was no need to mention the charges. It was not what the article was about. They were mentioned to keep the red shit fans happy. When we are eventually cleared it will be because Soriano is at the top table not because we are innocent.
Oh dear(lol), you start with a homophobic and/or misogynistic insult and then claim you (and you are known for it on here) aren't the one frothing at the mouth :)Calm down dear… Who’s frothing at the mouth except you.I can only presume you don’t read the Daily Telegraph on a regular basis. Their bias, which verges on outright hatred for our club is both explicit and blatant. There is only one reason the use the words Abhu Dhabi.
If you think and believe differently. Then that’s great. Others on here don’t. Is that OK with you?
Fixed it for youYou should know the rules of the UK sporting media.....the only good Arab is a poor Palestinian and yes, as you point out, an individual Arab is incapable of accumulating personal wealth legally !
The article was about who is shaping world football. It highlighted the difference between the 2 Manchester clubs (sic) City were building the arena, expanding the stadium, Soriano worked the room for 2 days.... (and then got elected) whereas the rag fellah wasn't even present.
It mentioned the American money men who are shaping the world game. It was in many respects an excellent article about how certain people at certain clubs will shape the future of football and one specific club will not.
So why then mention City 'defeated' uefa. What a strange phrase by the way. And then go on to say about the 115 charges ? The article steers the reader towards a belief that Soriano, having worked the room, having become one of the most powerful men in football will make the charges simply disappear.
There was no need to mention the charges. It was not what the article was about. They were mentioned to keep the red shit fans happy. When we are eventually cleared it will be because Soriano is at the top table not because we are innocent.
They are an absolute fucking disgrace.Still not a single word on the BBC about united paedo Konopka, despite their obsession with women’s football, all things red and their ongoing, wall to wall coverage of the Rubiales incident. Laughable and transparent
Their refusal to even acknowledge the story is staggering even for themThey are an absolute fucking disgrace.