Media thread 2022/23

[halfcenturyup]

There seems to be an almost hysterical fury that City and fans are not rolling over and accepting the narrative that we are guilty. A narrative that has been years in the making. This narrative cannot be failed or seem to fail. Too many clubs, opposition fans and media have invested too much to let that happen.

Pep putting down a marker yesterday and giving the fans someone to rally behind was an important moment. Fans such as yourself arguing our case is also important, especially as you have to remain calm and unemotional in the face of hostility. It can’t be easy and full respect for doing it.

It's true that there are going to be a lot of distraught fans of other clubs when this is over. I get the impression from the silence from the managers yesterday and a relative calming down in the press that someone has had a word. My guess is the PL, and why? To stop these ridiculous arguments that we are being expelled, deducted points or whatever. They have to manage expectations.

 

[Boo or Boo-urns]

Apparently a Sky chat by Guardiola was cancelled this morning.

Good.

We shouldn't be offering up any of our players for "cuddly" TV interviews to build the PL brand, whilst getting a kicking from them.

Minimum media engagement from now on.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Good.

We shouldn't be offering up any our players for "cuddly" TV interviews to build up the PL brand, whilst getting a kicking from them.

Mimimum media engagement from now on.

not minimum - just even.

Reddy's silly air quotes may have done for the interview - I would expect them to start at one for one, and then say "your move".
What will be interesting is post-match tomorrow.

 

[Maly]

Mate just text me saying;

“And also just seen the paper review on sky sports news and was shocked by the shit that came out of the mouth of the MUEN reporter that was on there- “even on the last day of the season as utd were losing to Crystal Palace their fans were jubilant that city had stopped liverpool from winning the title as that would be far more unpalatable to them than city winning as it’s felt that city’s success is tainted because it’s all come since the Abu Dhabi takeover anyway”

Our own fucking paper.

It’s not been ‘our’ paper since Paul Hince left :(

 

[blueinsa]

Why is it OK to call Delaney et al thick but not Reddy? Genuine misogyny I understand and agree with your action but not being very selective about who you can call thick.

It’s also fine on other sub forums to lay into certain females.

Misogyny is not ok but calling a woman thick isn’t misogynistic imo.

 

[plattlanebenches]

It’s also fine on other sub forums to lay into certain females.

Misogyny is not ok but calling a woman thick isn’t misogynistic imo.

It’s not and she is thick.

 

[wolviedinho]

Wio said the player will be worried they won’t get paid lol.

Has he not been paying attention. We pay through made up accounts. What a twat.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The PL won’t succeed in the case you detail above. I’ve long argued as you do above.

That’s not the allegation though - the allegation must be that the contract either doesn’t exist as has been presented or is a fiction and/or those sponsors are related parties but that everyone (PL, UEFA, BDO, UEFAs experts, CAS, various third parties that have carried out DD) has been misled via a concealment of the facts. And that would, obviously, make the accounts false. IF, which must be unlikely, it was proved.

And dishonest concealment is definitely in the mix a) as it was at CAS and b) because otherwise you couldn’t raise causes of action over 6 years ago because the PL DOES have a limitation period - English law.

Yes, it's interesting isn't it?

Makes legal sense when put that way hypothetically, but I am not sure that it makes any sense in any conceivable reality. And that is why I can't imagine in a hundred years the allegation from the PL actually is that the contract, for example, doesn't exist. I mean, how can they expect to show that a contract on paper that's been signed and fulfilled both ways on an annual basis doesn't exist?

It seems more likely to me that they haven't received the evidence that they asked for and so they have just ticked off all the rule breaches affected by that non-compliance. Same for Mancini, ADTA, Aabar, Etisalat and anything else new they have picked up: image rights and maybe the IP sales? Which is why the breaches are grouped in that manner with the over-arching breaches as a consequence of not filing "financial information" (annual accounts plus supplementary information required by the PL) that complies with "all applicable legal and regulatory requirements". PL rules, a regulatory requirement, not complied with, rather than annual accounts falsified.

Btw, I may be wrong, but not recognising Etihad as a related party, even if it were, which it isn't, wouldn't affect the "true and fair" nature of the annual accounts either, imo. It's just a couple of note disclosures, even if relevantly important ones in that particular case. My opinion may be bollocks, of course.

As you both have said, though, until we see the actual allegations, rather than a list of breaches we will never know.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s also fine on other sub forums to lay into certain females.

Misogyny is not ok but calling a woman thick isn’t misogynistic imo.

She is blond so it's ..... what is it called these days? ..... a lazy trope.

Isn't that how it goes?

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Yes he was there. Obviously he pulled rank over Simon Stone who is normally there for the BBC.

Seems the BBC have a long line of cunts. If the Chinese or Iranians can ban the BBC City should follow suit.