Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
hammocity said:
“Shreeves has been there for 31 years and is entitled to a huge redundancy package”

No he isn’t, he’s entitled to an amount that’s similar to the average working person, it’s capped at £643 per year and a max of £19290. If he’s got a clause in his contract that’s different, also it’s the job that’s made redundant not the person so as they’re asking him to stay on it’s clearly wrong the job will not be available.

Bull shit reporting from ill informed journalists once again.
Click to expand...
The £643 cap applies only to statutory redundancy pay. Many businesses also offer non-contractual non-statutory packages based on salary, age and length of service. If the role is genuinely redundant, and based on what I've seen as an employment tax specialist, he could be looking at a package north of six figures.
 
stonerblue said:
The world is full of shite about City, and most of those obsessed by that seem to spend their days searching for it then posting it in here.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. We've just won the fucking treble! We are a relentless, inevitable winning machine.

Enjoy City. Enjoy your friends and family. Enjoy the deluge of bitter tears. People are going to say and write whatever gets them the attention needed to pay the bills. It's not personal. It's the nature of the modern media beast.

When I was a kid, I remember going into school wearing my purple Umbro training coat the day after we got fucking smashed in the Simon Tracy derby.

I got so much shit that day. Laughed at, spat on, punched.

A few lads writing bollocks about us to further their careers is insignificant in comparison.

Fuck them. Love City.
 
bbd77fd76ef34954c44ad5acfe969932.jpg

Campeones, campeones, ole! ole!, ole!
 
ysmsa said:
A professional "sport journalist" came out with this, it's beyond belief.

"Once Bayern Munich and Real Madrid were knocked out it was a clear path to the champions league final for Man City,” Miguel Delooney

This would look great on a banner, t shirts, banners.

One for the superb 1894 boys?

As if we needed more evidence of this pricks credentials (we didn't).
Click to expand...

Is that the actual quote though? Has anyone got the original article as it appears in it. And not someone's retweet of someone's tweet claiming it.

I just struggle to believe it, to the point I almost suspect it has been altered. The guy has an agenda, but he can't possibly be that incompetent.
 
Coatigan said:
Is that the actual quote though? Has anyone got the original article as it appears in it. And not someone's retweet of someone's tweet claiming it.

I just struggle to believe it, to the point I almost suspect it has been altered. The guy has an agenda, but he can't possibly be that incompetent.
Click to expand...

It's slightly paraphrased, but pretty much that. The link was provided here earlier.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
It's slightly paraphrased, but pretty much that. The link was provided here earlier.
Click to expand...

The link was to a tweet, by someone else mocking it. If it is paraphrased, then that's not it is it, he hasn't actually said sonething that daft, and it possibly makes sense.
 
Coatigan said:
Can't get that to link. But I'll take your word for it, is that actually what he said, word for word?
Click to expand...

In response to a suggestion that the year's CL was a bit easier to win this year:

"the last 15 years it feels like the field of potential winners of the CL has got smaller and this year felt like the smallest ever. In fact it did come down to the fact that once Liverpool were knocked out, and once Bayern were knocked out admittedly by City, once Madrid were knocked out, it was kind of was a clear path, and even the final was [bit of praise that Inter played their best, but that it was City playing themselves to some extent]."

It's a bit gabbled, and I don't think he said "a clear path to the final", but essentially the only alternative meaning is that the final opposition could have been stronger.

He did of course feel obliged to claim that it's City's owners doing in part that the field is smaller.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
In response to a suggestion that the year's CL was a bit easier to win this year:

"the last 15 years it feels like the field of potential winners of the CL has got smaller and this year felt like the smallest ever. In fact it did come down to the fact that once Liverpool were knocked out, and once Bayern were knocked out admittedly by City, once Madrid were knocked out, it was kind of was a clear path, and even the final was [bit of praise that Inter played their best, but that it was City playing themselves to some extent]."

It's a bit gabbled, and I don't think he said "a clear path to the final", but essentially the only alternative meaning is that the final opposition could have been stronger.

He did of course feel obliged to claim that it's City's owners doing in part that the field is smaller.
Click to expand...

Thank you for doing that, I appreciate it.

While I don't agree with his point, as I thought, his language is not actually incoherent or incompetent. The tweet and the initial post quoting it are disingenuous, and the laughs at it are unfortunately misplaced.

He's still a twat, mind.
 
Roy Munson said:
Totally agree. We've just won the fucking treble! We are a relentless, inevitable winning machine.

Enjoy City. Enjoy your friends and family. Enjoy the deluge of bitter tears. People are going to say and write whatever gets them the attention needed to pay the bills. It's not personal. It's the nature of the modern media beast.

When I was a kid, I remember going into school wearing my purple Umbro training coat the day after we got fucking smashed in the Simon Tracy derby.

I got so much shit that day. Laughed at, spat on, punched.

A few lads writing bollocks about us to further their careers is insignificant in comparison.

Fuck them. Love City.
Click to expand...
Oh man, that was made worse by the fact i'd proper give it them over the 5-1, got it back in spades!
 
Coatigan said:
Thank you for doing that, I appreciate it.

While I don't agree with his point, as I thought, his language is not actually incoherent or incompetent. The tweet and the initial post quoting it are disingenuous, and the laughs at it are unfortunately misplaced.

He's still a twat, mind.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that the wording of the paraphrase didn't quite match, but he did say that the final was a clear path once those teams were beaten - can a final be anything more than a clear path? Who would he have expected to be there, I wonder.

I heard it as dismissing that City beat Bayern and Real, which is fairly mad, inconvenient details and all that.
If he'd just said that the other half of the KO phases were not that strong, that would be more arguable. It was - Milan, Inter, Napoli, Benfica, Porto, Brugge, Eintracht, Spurs is fairly non-descript in most years.

Shoehorning Liverpool in was just desperate.
 
Coatigan said:
Thank you for doing that, I appreciate it.

While I don't agree with his point, as I thought, his language is not actually incoherent or incompetent. The tweet and the initial post quoting it are disingenuous, and the laughs at it are unfortunately misplaced.

He's still a twat, mind.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

There might be a point about it becoming harder to win it if you're not one of the super clubs (but frankly in the last 30 years, only Porto one it from outside the top 10-15 richest clubs in the World), so I'm not convinced it's a strong argument.

But ultimately he did say that City there was (kind of) a clear path to winning the CL, once Bayern, Madrid and Liverpool were knocked out. The suggestion was that there was no-one left in the CL that could challenge City - but the reason for that was the draw that put us up against the two toughest teams in the previous rounds.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I'd agree that the wording of the paraphrase didn't quite match, but he did say that the final was a clear path once those teams were beaten - can a final be anything more than a clear path? Who would he have expected to be there, I wonder.

I heard it as dismissing that City beat Bayern and Real, which is fairly mad, inconvenient details and all that.
If he'd just said that the other half of the KO phases were not that strong, that would be more arguable. It was - Milan, Inter, Napoli, Benfica, Porto, Brugge, Eintracht, Spurs is fairly non-descript in most years.

Shoehorning Liverpool in was just desperate.
Click to expand...
As they've been in three of the last five finals, it's probably fair to say that even Liverpool in a rough patch are tough Cup opponents.

I also get the impression from a lot of his writing that he's a fan of Liverpool, even if they're not his "first team".
 
The Clansman said:
The £643 cap applies only to statutory redundancy pay. Many businesses also offer non-contractual non-statutory packages based on salary, age and length of service. If the role is genuinely redundant, and based on what I've seen as an employment tax specialist, he could be looking at a package north of six figures.
Click to expand...
I did say a clause in his contract could make it different, however I’ll let you off Victor or Jack or possibly Isa, two pints prick :-).
 
bluenova said:
I disagree.

There might be a point about it becoming harder to win it if you're not one of the super clubs (but frankly in the last 30 years, only Porto one it from outside the top 10-15 richest clubs in the World), so I'm not convinced it's a strong argument.

But ultimately he did say that City there was (kind of) a clear path to winning the CL, once Bayern, Madrid and Liverpool were knocked out. The suggestion was that there was no-one left in the CL that could challenge City - but the reason for that was the draw that put us up against the two toughest teams in the previous rounds.
Click to expand...

You might have misunderstood me.

His point is absolute mince. We can both agree on that.

The 'paraphrased' i.e changed quote made no sense and looked incompetent. But that's not what was said. What he said might be a perverse take, but it isn't actually daft language wise.
 
bluenova said:
As they've been in three of the last five finals, it's probably fair to say that even Liverpool in a rough patch are tough Cup opponents.

I also get the impression from a lot of his writing that he's a fan of Liverpool, even if they're not his "first team".
Click to expand...

Maybe, but last season they got battered at home by Real, a team he appeared to give City little credit for beating.
They're mostly a problem for City because of how rarely we win at Anfield!

Thinking about it, if the quote used had been "a clear run to the title" it would have been a fairer reflection.
 
Coatigan said:
You might have misunderstood me.

His point is absolute mince. We can both agree on that.

The 'paraphrased' i.e changed quote made no sense and looked incompetent. But that's not what was said. What he said might be a perverse take, but it isn't actually daft language wise.
Click to expand...
I think it was the suggestion that laughing at him was misplaced. I think his point was laughable enough to be parodied in the way it was :)
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Maybe, but last season they got battered at home by Real, a team he appeared to give City little credit for beating.
They're mostly a problem for City because of how rarely we win at Anfield!

Thinking about it, if the quote used had been "a clear run to the title" it would have been a fairer reflection.
Click to expand...
That was a ridiculous match, but at 2-0 they could easily have won, but Madrid are one of the only teams in the world who can do that.

After all, we conceded 3 in 5 minutes against Madrid in a game where we were well on top last season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top