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.
Good.Apparently a Sky chat by Guardiola was cancelled this morning.
not minimum - just even.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.
It’s not been ‘our’ paper since Paul Hince left :(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.
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 not and she is 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.
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.
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.
Seems the BBC have a long line of cunts. If the Chinese or Iranians can ban the BBC City should follow suit.Yes he was there. Obviously he pulled rank over Simon Stone who is normally there for the BBC.
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.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.
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.
Blokes tend to get called wanker and knobhead - could make a case for misandry I suppose.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 bitch or woman. These kind of epithet serve only to undermine what's otherwise a very fine point.
It maybe derogatory but it's definitely herWhat if it’s derogatory but also factually true?
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.
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 timeI 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.
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.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.
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 bitch or woman. These kind of epithets serve only to undermine what's otherwise a very fine point.
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!Apparently a Sky chat by Guardiola was cancelled this morning.
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.