Media Thread 2020/21

Status
Not open for further replies.
KS55 said:
Actually, Martin wrote that he thought we had broken the rules. That surprised me, given his views on ffp.
He missed a chance to be the only journo to get it right.
And what a chance: five minutes with a first year law student on the subject of evidence would have set him going.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's really fair.he wrote directly after the announcement:

www.dailymail.co.uk

MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City

MARTIN SAMUEL - CHIEF SPORTS WRITER: There will not be much sympathy for Manchester City in football. They misled UEFA and its Club Financial Control Body.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk


They inflated figures, deceived over revenue streams, and the size of their punishment, the suspension from European competition, the fine of £25million, is confirmation of the gravity of this offence.

If this case is proven after appeal, City did wrong, that is unarguable. Yet they did wrong in the face of rules that are there to protect a privileged elite; put in place to prevent unexpected journeys to the top of football’s pyramid. You know, the interesting stuff.

It was a matter of fact at that point SUBJECT TO APPEAL because we had been found guilty of inflating figures etc.
He was heavy handed as ever in the rest of the article.
 
Kazzydeyna said:
Exactly.

I remember well all the furore once the ban had been announced but before the CAS verdict came through.

I said at the time that the club were in a true, existential, fight for its very survival. Read the Simon Jordan piece in particular. This was only an amuse-bouche for what would have followed if the ban had been upheld. Titles,cups,records WOULD have been stripped from us. The media and their acolytes in the game would have ensured the pressure was applied to such an extent it would have become impossible to hold back the tide.
Next would have come the briefing in the media about how ‘club X’ wants to ‘rescue’ KDB/Raheem/AGuero/name any of our players you want to from the ‘nightmare’ they found themselves in at City ‘the proven cheats’.
Then would have come the claims for financial compensation from ‘rivals’ who had been ‘cheated’ out of prize money/tv revenue (CL) etc. Even if they hadn’t won the clamour and endless negative publicity around these claims would have served to constantly continue dragging the clubs name through the mud for years afterwards. And by extension the good name of our owner. The pressure on him to abandon us would have risen day by day, and there may well have come a point where in order to protect the good name of his nation he may have felt it sensible to give in.
All of the above accompanied in the media by the sobriquet “Proven cheats”, which the club would have been powerless to combat if CAS had been as bent as uefa and upheld the farcical ban.

It is why I will never, under any circumstances, ever, turn against Pep. At the beginning of all this when the times were as dark for City as at any time In our long and illustrious history, He responded loudly and very publicly to stories in the media that he was going to leave if the ban was upheld with a resounding “I believe in this club, I believe in our owners and my bosses, I am staying at City and seeing out my contract come what may”. THAT is leadership.

I also remember well a thread around the time of the CAS verdict where I actually had to argue with City fans (only two to be fair to every other sensible and normal poster on here) that the above scenarios weren’t excessively pessimistic, but were in fact very real.

Thank God I didn’t have to be proven correct as CAS did the correct thing.

I will never forgive the media Though. Never. They danced on our grave before we were dead and fed their fetid, rancid readership a daily diet of racism, lies, xenophobia and outright glee at the prospect that “the Arabs” were going to get it.

How wrong they were.

CTID.
Click to expand...

Don't usually post that much on here but have to say this is spot on. The vultures were circling & there would have been an orchestrated campaign to destroy the club & everything that the owners have built over the last 10 years. Organised & clear. Anybody who thinks otherwise wasn't paying attention.
 
Man-chester copperpot said:
How fake is that and how gullible do you have to be to beleive it’s true.
Look at the tattoo - even though he’s arched forward slightly and his back is curved the tattoo is completely straight which means that tattoo pic and been printed in top of a photo
Click to expand...
The perspective is as dodgy as a var 'straight' line
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
I'm not sure that's really fair.he wrote directly after the announcement:

www.dailymail.co.uk

MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City

MARTIN SAMUEL - CHIEF SPORTS WRITER: There will not be much sympathy for Manchester City in football. They misled UEFA and its Club Financial Control Body.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk


They inflated figures, deceived over revenue streams, and the size of their punishment, the suspension from European competition, the fine of £25million, is confirmation of the gravity of this offence.

If this case is proven after appeal, City did wrong, that is unarguable. Yet they did wrong in the face of rules that are there to protect a privileged elite; put in place to prevent unexpected journeys to the top of football’s pyramid. You know, the interesting stuff.

It was a matter of fact at that point SUBJECT TO APPEAL because we had been found guilty of inflating figures etc.
He was heavy handed as ever in the rest of the article.
Click to expand...
Not unfair at all. Between the verdict of the investigatory chamber and that of the judicial chamber, Martin made no attempt to say City did not break the rules and yet and yet......The answers were all there:
Clue 1.
The club had already made its statement that "Our audited accounts are a matter of public record. " (Thats our defence right there, you dummies)
Clue 2
The emails were evidence only of conversations, not of actions.
Samuel did not speak to the club or get decent legal advice on the question of evidence. Uefa knew they were on thin ice, as they kept leaking that "We have other evidence, contained in documents provided by City themselves." This, of course, was a bare faced lie.
Samuel made no attempt to test this, because he was convinced we had broken the rules.
He was sound on the nonsense of ffp, but he really did miss a major opportunity here.
Check out the relevant thread on here for what ppl thought at the time. There was plenty of stuff from lawyers and accountants that Samuel should have checked out.
 
Centurions said:
The papers don't care whether it's true or not, only whether it sells...

The Weekly world news : nostalgia
Moon
Click to expand...
So thats Blue Moon Rising is it? Ugly bugger but still better looking than l imagined.
 
Last edited:
The Future is Blue said:
BBC Gossip page had us yesterday interested in buying Lumpkaku from Inter....however today they declare he has no interest in joining us! Snubbed again!
Click to expand...
Actually it said he had no interest in playing for Manchester City. Given that he showed no interest in playing for Manchester United even when they were paying him we shouldn’t be too downhearted
 
KS55 said:
Actually, Martin wrote that he thought we had broken the rules. That surprised me, given his views on ffp.
He missed a chance to be the only journo to get it right.
And what a chance: five minutes with a first year law student on the subject of evidence would have set him going.
Click to expand...

TBF to him, he has been on our side 90% of the time. That’s not to say he isn’t allowed to disagree with us.(City)

Anytime City and FFP was reported in the Daily United, and he did a follow up article, he would as a rule defend City, and attack and point the finger of blame towards UEFA, Tebas, Untied, Liverpool, and the other European cartel clubs who are trying to destroy City.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
Not unfair at all. Between the verdict of the investigatory chamber and that of the judicial chamber, Martin made no attempt to say City did not break the rules and yet and yet......The answers were all there:
Clue 1.
The club had already made its statement that "Our audited accounts are a matter of public record. " (Thats our defence right there, you dummies)
Clue 2
The emails were evidence only of conversations, not of actions.
Samuel did not speak to the club or get decent legal advice on the question of evidence. Uefa knew they were on thin ice, as they kept leaking that "We have other evidence, contained in documents provided by City themselves." This, of course, was a bare faced lie.
Samuel made no attempt to test this, because he was convinced we had broken the rules.
He was sound on the nonsense of ffp, but he really did miss a major opportunity here.
Check out the relevant thread on here for what ppl thought at the time. There was plenty of stuff from lawyers and accountants that Samuel should have checked out.
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to disagree.

How could he say we did not break the rules? We didn't know on here for sure. We hoped and had great faith in the detail unearthed and pieced together by the likes of PB and projectriver BUT we couldn't say for sure. Projectriver had us at a 70-80% chance of winning the appeal.

How do you know he didn't speak to the club?
How do you know he WAS CONVINCED we had broken the rules? Point me to something if that was the case.

We didn't know what the FULL case and weight of arguments against us was until the 93 page judgement was published.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top