Media Discussion - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gundoggin said:
Henry Winter gone full hate on MCFC this morning what an absolute Red Cartel loving weapon this once respected “journo” has become. A ridiculously biased and untrue article damming MCFC . Just utterly pathetic !!!
Click to expand...
Courting clicks from the knuckle dragging hordes. He's abandoned any shred of journalistic 'integrity' he ever had.
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
Miscarriages of justice? We’ve already been cleared in a much higher court than the PL kangaroo one of much of this.

If we get through the PL proceedings a lot of journalists heads are going to fall off
Click to expand...
only because we had the bestest lawyers money can buy and uafa used them off the high street
 
Sky Blue said:
Collymore stuck indoors as it's too cold to spunk on car windows. So tweeting shite about us in regards to the Everton and Forest stuff. Scum.
Click to expand...
I dont do twitter or x or whatever shit its called this week but could someone not reply,

"Stan, lets take an example of someone doing something wrong & being up before the court, lets just say dogging in public for example (just a random thought obviously) they admit to doing what they are accused of (thats right Stan dogging in public) & take there punishment, does that mean that in a completely unrelated & different case waiting to be heard at a later date the people charged should automatically be found guilty?"
 
domalino said:
Why do people write shite like this and not link the article.
Click to expand...

Silence over Manchester City proves this is tone-deaf posturing
Everton and Nottingham Forest deserve punishment for breaching financial rules but would the champions be treated this toughly? Of course the answer is no..


www.thetimes.co.uk

Silence over Manchester City proves this is tone-deaf posturing

Everton and Nottingham Forest deserve punishment for breaching financial rules but would the champions be treated this toughly? Of course the answer is no
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
 
domalino said:
And?

You seem to want a medal for the club having big revenues, while completely ignoring the fact we got a 4 year head start of FFP that Newcastle didn't.
Click to expand...
You are the most strident, argumentative poster on here. You really think the fact that our revenue is double Newcastle’s isn’t an issue. We generate our own income within FFP, as we did 4 years ago. FFP came into being at the same time for everyone. Of course higher revenue means you can spend more money, duh, although I would doubt our net spend is higher than Newcastles over the last 4 years. What am I informing? When I look in the dictionary for disagreeable your name crops up
 
J.G.Blue. said:
I dont do twitter or x or whatever shit its called this week but could someone not reply,

"Stan, lets take an example of someone doing something wrong & being up before the court, lets just say dogging in public for example (just a random thought obviously) they admit to doing what they are accused of (thats right Stan dogging in public) & take there punishment, does that mean that in a completely unrelated & different case waiting to be heard at a later date the people charged should automatically be found guilty?"
Click to expand...
This was the best response
Screenshot_20240116_112340_X.jpg
 
BringBackSwales said:
You are the most strident, argumentative poster on here. You really think the fact that our revenue is double Newcastle’s isn’t an issue. We generate our own income within FFP, as we did 4 years ago. FFP came into being at the same time for everyone. Of course higher revenue means you can spend more money, duh, although I would doubt our net spend is higher than Newcastles over the last 4 years. What am I informing? When I look in the dictionary for disagreeable your name crops up
Click to expand...

Again you're being wilfully stupid.

The only thing stopping Newcastle from matching our spending is FFP. That's a statement of fact. You can get upset about it all you want, but it doesn't stop being true just because it upsets you.

Yeah we have higher revenue, it only matters in the context of FFP, and if Newcastle had 4 years before FFP they’d have spent like we did and be in a much better position.

I don’t know why these obvious factual statements upset you.
 
domalino said:
Again you're being wilfully stupid.

The only thing stopping Newcastle from matching our spending is FFP. That's a statement of fact. You can get upset about it all you want, but it doesn't stop being true just because it upsets you.

Yeah we have higher revenue, it only matters in the context of FFP, and if Newcastle had 4 years before FFP they’d have spent like we did and be in a much better position.

I don’t know why these obvious factual statements upset you.
Click to expand...
Answer this - instead of worming and twisting my words (as per) does double the revenue of one entity over another entity give that entity more money to spend? That was my point and still is. But I will add to that, our revenue is higher than Newcastle’s because:-

1. Our club is more successful

2. Our club is better run

3. We have better sponsorship and commercial revenue because of 1 and 2 above

FFP is no different for us than it is for them. Or do you think we are financial cheats?
 
BringBackSwales said:
Answer this - instead of worming and twisting my words (as per) does double the revenue of one entity over another entity give that entity more money to spend? That was my point and still is. But I will add to that, our revenue is higher than Newcastle’s because:-

1. Our club is more successful

2. Our club is better run

3. We have better sponsorship and commercial revenue because of 1 and 2 above

FFP is no different for us than it is for them. Or do you think we are financial cheats?
Click to expand...

Who the fuck cares?! I said a simple matter of fact, the only reason we can spend more is FFP. Thats a fact.

I don’t give a fuck about all the convoluted reasons in which ffp limits their spending, I already know them and I wouldn’t be asking you for an explanation if I didn’t.

Again, you listing all the ways the ffp rules stop them from spending like us does not change the fact that it’s ffp stopping them. Why does revenue even matter? FFP. Why does sponsor income matter? FFP.

So what’s stopping them? FFP.

It’s not hard, you know it’s true, so I don’t know why you think you can make an argument out of it.
 
domalino said:
Who the fuck cares?! I said a simple matter of fact, the only reason we can spend more is FFP. Thats a fact.

I don’t give a fuck about all the convoluted reasons in which ffp limits their spending, I already know them and I wouldn’t be asking you for an explanation if I didn’t.

Again, you listing all the ways the ffp rules stop them from spending like us does not change the fact that it’s ffp stopping them.
Click to expand...
You twist yourself in knots you fraud. I am so bored with you. Answer the questions (1) DOES ONE ORGANISATION HAVING DOUBLE THE REVENUE OF ANOTHER ORGANISATION GIVE THEM MORE SPENDING POWER? (2) IS NEWCASTLE FFP ANY DIFFERENT TO MANCHESTER CITY FFP? (3) IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DENIGRATE A POSTER’s IT ABILITIES ON HERE? Or if you like just answer 3 different questions
 
BringBackSwales said:
You twist yourself in knots you fraud. I am so bored with you. Answer the questions (1) DOES ONE ORGANISATION HAVING DOUBLE THE REVENUE OF ANOTHER ORGANISATION GIVE THEM MORE SPENDING POWER? (2) IS NEWCASTLE FFP ANY DIFFERENT TO MANCHESTER CITY FFP? (3) IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DENIGRATE A POSTER’s IT ABILITIES ON HERE? Or if you like just answer 3 different questions
Click to expand...
Is that domalino not being condescending again
 
J.G.Blue. said:
I dont do twitter or x or whatever shit its called this week but could someone not reply,

"Stan, lets take an example of someone doing something wrong & being up before the court, lets just say dogging in public for example (just a random thought obviously) they admit to doing what they are accused of (thats right Stan dogging in public) & take there punishment, does that mean that in a completely unrelated & different case waiting to be heard at a later date the people charged should automatically be found guilty?"
Click to expand...
to be fair now...dogging in private wouldn't be much fun would it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top