Media thread 2022/23

[JULES]

Personally never felt it so toxic as it is now. Been called just about everything you could imagine for basically daring to be a city fan this week and refuse to tow the line about city being obviously guilty. It's absolutely wild. People really need to give their heads a wobble.

look where I am, and I`ve been getting it non stop of bloody yanks, they are convinced we are being thrown out of the prem, I`ve even had a bet we wont, guess they all read the new york times.

 

[petrusha]

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.

Calling her thick is fine. Anything that relates to her ability to do her job is perfectly acceptable, and she's a poor Sky correspondent. She has a particularly annoying voice, zero insight or analytical skills and it's hard to imagine she'd have got the job if she hadn't been a Liverpool fan (perhaps unless she'd been a rag).

What's not OK is to combine those observations with sexist or even misogynistic language. By this I mean calling her a woman or woman. These kind of epithets serve only to undermine what's otherwise a very fine point.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Calling her thick is fine. Anything that relates to her ability to do her job is perfectly acceptable, and she's a poor Sky correspondent. She has a particularly annoying voice, zero insight or analytical skills and it's hard to imagine she'd have got the job if she hadn't been a Liverpool fan (perhaps unless she'd been a rag).

What's not OK is to combine those observations with sexist or even misogynistic language. By this I mean calling her a woman or woman. These kind of epithet serve only to undermine what's otherwise a very fine point.

Blokes tend to get called wanker and knobhead - could make a case for misandry I suppose.

 

[BlueRockape]

What if it’s derogatory but also factually true?

It maybe derogatory but it's definitely her

 

[petrusha]

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.

First, thanks for a very gracious response to my earlier message. Since I quoted you immediately before my lengthy post, I could have understood you taking offence somewhat.

Anyway, my position essentially is that I agree with you in terms of finding it almost impossible to believe we've failed to present true and fair accounts for nearly a decade. Where we differ is that you've suggested that the substance of the charges differs from that. I think that it IS what they've charged us with, but unless I've grossly misjudged things at our club, I can't see how they'll be able to meet the required standard of proof in that regard (see my post of yesterday on the other thread).

So perhaps the difference in our positions is really a technicality in the overall scheme of things. My position, as Stefan put it, is that the PL seems to have overreached itself in terms of its accusations against us: there's a fairly formidable standard of proof for allegations of that nature (as discussed in my post on the other thread yesterday). But whether you're right about the nature of the allegations or we are, there are grounds for optimism either way.

Have a good evening, mate! And let's hope for a win against Villa tomorrow.

 

[kaz7]

I m glad Klopp, Arteta and Howe were well above the baiting question and had the class to step aside of an answer. Happy for their Clubs too.

No class, instructed to say nowt like all the rest , the prem is making sure nothing gets in their way and the likes of klopp doesnt gob off at length against us like last time

 

[slbsn]

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.

I don't mean doesn't exist at all, I mean doesn't exist in the terms presented in the accounts. ie there is a contract for the auditors and then there is, in essence, the "real" contract.

Anyway, I don't think these charges are simply about the filing - the reference to "true and fair" makes it clear what the allegation is ie that what has been submitted is not true and fair. And that was the essence of CAS too.

The fact that an error on RP re Etihad wouldn't really affect the true and fair nature of the accounts (technically I think that is probably arguable) BUT would mean a breach of the rules again points to the importance of the mentioning of "true and fair". Again, that the charge is not merely a miscategorisation of RP contracts.

But the biggest indicator is that neither City nor the PL have denied to the media that the charges are the particularly serious ones alleged. And I can assure you many journalists have asked them.

 

[blueinsa]

Calling her thick is fine. Anything that relates to her ability to do her job is perfectly acceptable, and she's a poor Sky correspondent. She has a particularly annoying voice, zero insight or analytical skills and it's hard to imagine she'd have got the job if she hadn't been a Liverpool fan (perhaps unless she'd been a rag).

What's not OK is to combine those observations with sexist or even misogynistic language. By this I mean calling her a woman or woman. These kind of epithets serve only to undermine what's otherwise a very fine point.

No issue with that at all other than to point out language like that is commonplace on here in certain other threads and never gets a mention.

That said, back to the media thread….

 

[Eccles Blue]

Apparently a Sky chat by Guardiola was cancelled this morning.

By us or by them? I hope by us because we should continue to show the lot of them that we are no longer prepared to be the quiet, take all the rubbish, club any more. Take us on and you take on ALL of us, bosses, manager, coaches, players, admin, canteen people, kit washers, and last but by no means least, FANS!

Get lost you stupid, arrogant, self centred load of wallies! We are Manchester City and we fight to the end and we WILL prevail.
:-) :-)

 

[halfcenturyup]

First, thanks for a very gracious response to my earlier message. Since I quoted you immediately before my lengthy post, I could have understood you taking offence somewhat.

Anyway, my position essentially is that I agree with you in terms of finding it almost impossible to believe we've failed to present true and fair accounts for nearly a decade. Where we differ is that you've suggested that the substance of the charges differs from that. I think that it IS what they've charged us with, but unless I've grossly misjudged things at our club, I can't see how they'll be able to meet the required standard of proof in that regard (see my post of yesterday on the other thread).

So perhaps the difference in our positions is really a technicality in the overall scheme of things. My position, as Stefan put it, is that the PL seems to have overreached itself in terms of its accusations against us: there's a fairly formidable standard of proof for allegations of that nature (as discussed in my post on the other thread yesterday). But whether you're right about the nature of the allegations or we are, there are grounds for optimism either way.

Have a good evening, mate! And let's hope for a win against Villa tomorrow.

No problem. My predictions:

3-0 win tomorrow night
3-0 decision in our favour in the PL committee

:)