Media discussion - 2024/25

Status
Not open for further replies.
give it to gordon said:
But City could be innocent and nothing to do with 'couldn't make 115 charges stick' surely the most important thing here is the correct outcome.

If guilty you wouldn't need to make them stick ! You only would say that as City are innocent.

It seems dont everyone want a fair hearing, everyone else says we are guilty 100%.
All I want is a fair hearing as do City
Click to expand...

I took that snippet (without having read the original article) as meaning that if you bring 115 charges, you really ought to have something conclusive.

Bring 1 or 2 charges and losing is one of those things.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I took that snippet (without having read the original article) as meaning that if you bring 115 charges, you really ought to have something conclusive.

Bring 1 or 2 charges and losing is one of those things.
Click to expand...
A huge element with the quantity and poor construction (long grass, duplicate charges etc) is about chucking enough shit to make sure some sticks. Even tossers like Jordan admit the 115 actually boil down to around 5 things.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Barmy Droneaway is actually a qualified lawyer, who worked for a 'magic circle' law firm before going into 'journalism'. You could argue that was their gain and our loss but you'd hope he'd bring some element of his legal training and experience into articles like these. Such as, for instance, reading legal documents like the CAS verdict.

He repeats the tired, false narrative that time-barring of key evidence was crucial to the outcome, and that the Etihad contract was significantly overvalued. Yet CAS examined three years of that contract and found that:
(a) there was no evidence it was funded covertly by ADUG.
(b) there was cogent evidence that the 'surplus' funding came from central marketing funds managed by the Executive Council/Tourist Authority
(c) the contract appeared to be fair value commercially for what Etihad were getting.
(d) Etihad received commensurate value from the contract, in terms of the exposure it gave them.

In other words, a legitimate and fair value contract. I've also explained that the cashflow timing was flexible but the accruals basis of accounting only allows us to declare the contractual value of the sponsorship, which was £60m a year. It's typical in kit contracts for the club to take a lump sum up front and a smaller payment annually, but unless the contract is specific about the up-front payment, or the way that the payments will be made, the club accounts will only reflect the contract's annualised value. Is that also dodgy?

Droneaway concludes that the PL could be in severe difficulties if we win this case but manifestly fails to understand why that would be. Rather than the (again) fake narrative that we can win because we have the more expensive lawyers, or recognise that we might actually get the IC to apply the law about admissible evidence or limitation periods (which he should be aware of), he paints a potential victory for us that's based on politics or loopholes, rather than the proper application of the appropriate laws and rules.

What he should be asking is why, in the face of the CAS verdict, the PL came to issue these charges, what the process behind their thinking was and who potentially pressured them into bringing an expensive and potentially disastrous (for them) case.
Click to expand...

All fair points. And whilst I think pressure from the usual suspects led to the PL continuing the investigation after CAS, I think it is City rather than the other clubs who have manoeuvred the PL into an independent panel. Withholding of key external evidence, refusal to settle, and the like gave the PL nowhere to go other than a referral to the disciplinary process. The club knew what they were doing.

Just another reason I am extremely confident the club will prevail on all the most serious charges at the very least. The club wouldn't have done that unless they were extremely confident, and that's good enough for me.

Unlike in a settlement, all the detail will come out in the panel's reasons document.
 
mancboy said:
So ferran is working with fifa on how to sell and broadcast the club world cup, that is the thing to remember in the grand scheme of things england is a very small place and media here is a minor irritation.
Click to expand...
England (or UK) is where most of us live and have to suffer from the constant barrage of negativity. Its like having the most beautiful perfect partner in the world and everyone you know constantly calls them an ugly slag.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
England (or UK) is where most of us live and have to suffer from the constant barrage of negativity. Its like having the most beautiful perfect partner in the world and everyone you know constantly calls them an ugly slag.
Click to expand...
But if you know these people are lying fuckwits why would you care?
 
Saddleworth2 said:
not everyone that thinks we are guilty is a lying fuckwit mate. They have had poison dripped in their ears for years and don't know any better.
Click to expand...

If they are invested in making sure City fans are called cheats without knowing the facts then they are fuckwits mate.

If they know fuck all they should say fuck all.

buswanker-wanker.gif
 
Saddleworth2 said:
not everyone that thinks we are guilty is a lying fuckwit mate. They have had poison dripped in their ears for years and don't know any better.
Click to expand...
Then yes they are mate, if you believe the media and arent capable of the critical thinking required to say yes they might be guilty but they may also be innocent then on some level you are a fuckwit to be fair.
 
mancboy said:
Then yes they are mate, if you believe the media and arent capable of the critical thinking required to say yes they might be guilty but they may also be innocent then on some level you are a fuckwit to be fair.
Click to expand...
see my response to Mexico.
If you are presented with facts in a balanced way and decide to ignore them then I agree with you.
But in the wider public who is presenting facts in a balanced way?
 
Saddleworth2 said:
By that logic anyone that voted Brexit was a fuckwit?
How can they know the facts when they aren't properly presented in any media?
Click to expand...
Their are a multitude of sources of information available to everyone, what media sources you choose to consume them is entirely up to them, by your logic every city fan is a fuckwit and should think we are guilty because we have been fed the same bullshit and uninformed, poorly researched clickbait as everyone else.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
By that logic anyone that voted Brexit was a fuckwit?
How can they know the facts when they aren't properly presented in any media?
Click to expand...

Not at all, how the fuck do you come up with that nonsense from this conversation. Even City fans don't know the charges aimed at City let alone some casually minded fuckwit trying to stick the boot in when they know the sum total of nothing.

Leave your Brexit obsession out of football discussions unless you want to look a twat mate :-)
 
Last edited:
Saddleworth2 said:
see my response to Mexico.
If you are presented with facts in a balanced way and decide to ignore them then I agree with you.
But in the wider public who is presenting facts in a balanced way?
Click to expand...
And see my response, it is a choice of what and how you consume facts and whether you have the ability to employ critical thinking and believe what you can see rather than what you are fed, every week we are fed the same shite that the rags are back, the dippers are the best ever, net result 1 title in 35 for the dippers, none in 11 for the rags, what u r fed should not stop you from seeing reality.
 
mancboy said:
Their are a multitude of sources of information available to everyone, what media sources you choose to consume them is entirely up to them, by your logic every city fan is a fuckwit and should think we are guilty because we have been fed the same bullshit and uninformed, poorly researched clickbait as everyone else.
Click to expand...


It's called whataboutism, we are talking about one topic and all of a sudden out of the fucking blue to support a stance and double down on bollocks you get..

saloon-enter.gif
 
mancboy said:
Their are a multitude of sources of information available to everyone, what media sources you choose to consume them is entirely up to them, by your logic every city fan is a fuckwit and should think we are guilty because we have been fed the same bullshit and uninformed, poorly researched clickbait as everyone else.
Click to expand...
no. we have a vested interest clearly as do the red shirts. I'm talking about those without a vested interest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top