PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

This exposes a wider point around sports journalists and their sources. Historically, when it was a profession which operated under an ethical code of sorts, when a journalist quoted an anonymous source, it was reasonable to conclude that it was bona fide. These sources served a genuine purpose, as it meant people with inside knowledge of a given situation could provide a degree of insight without revealing their identity. The sanctity of a journalist not revealing their sources meant people could whistle-blow without the consequences that would flow from that if their identity was disclosed. This meant information got into the press that would otherwise not. It wasn’t perfect, because people with an agenda could exploit it, but the public could read the article and accept that the source was genuine, even if the motives of the source were not.

These days, given the cesspit that sports journalism has descended into in an unedifying chase for clicks, I think most of these quotes we see are completely made up. My default position is that everything these cunts say is rooted in running a particular click-driven narrative and they will do anything, including making quotes up, to support that narrative.

So now, whenever I see an anonymous quote from a sport journalist, I simply assume it’s made up, and discount it, which is the only sensible and logical approach to follow.
I bet their English school reports started with the line "Johnny has a very good imagination but donesn't know how to spell integriti .....,"
 
Don’t know if anyone has already posted this but here is an alternative view from, of all places, The Sun.

OK it's The Sun but that writer makes a really good point. There were five clubs behind the scrapping of the gate-sharing agreement and the setting up of the PL - Liverpool, united, Spurs, Everton & Arsenal.

All those clubs have owners who are hated, to a greater of lesser degree, by their fans. At least two of those (Liverpool & united) are actively seeking a sale and two others (Spurs & Everton) might be open to one. Arsenal seem to be stable at the moment but their fans have no great love for Kroenke.

Does make you think that maybe this PL case is deflection pure and simple.
 
Could the Premier League have not just come to us privately and sorted this all out guilty or not?
Dragging it out in public is very suss it's not them behind it all.
They all know what they’re doing. The PL, the other clubs and the media.

It’s all on purpose.

No matter if we are found Not Guilty of most or every single one of the charges, their damage is already done before we have had the chance to state our case.
 
That came later and is a bit of a mystery. We do not know to whom the foreshadowed sale of shares is directed. They say they want to raise over £800m but we do not know its purpose.
It came later than all the allegations and investigation but before the charges.

Khaldoon seems to say that we know stuff about the other clubs. He said it’s a small world.

Perhaps the other clubs know more about this.

There are a lot of American owners in the Premier League now and I bet this investment is coming from an American tech / entertainment / broadcasters or another company like Silverlake. The American owners could well know this. Or at least have a good idea what’s going on
 
This exposes a wider point around sports journalists and their sources. Historically, when it was a profession which operated under an ethical code of sorts, when a journalist quoted an anonymous source, it was reasonable to conclude that it was bona fide. These sources served a genuine purpose, as it meant people with inside knowledge of a given situation could provide a degree of insight without revealing their identity. The sanctity of a journalist not revealing their sources meant people could whistle-blow without the consequences that would flow from that if their identity was disclosed. This meant information got into the press that would otherwise not. It wasn’t perfect, because people with an agenda could exploit it, but the public could read the article and accept that the source was genuine, even if the motives of the source were not.

These days, given the cesspit that sports journalism has descended into in an unedifying chase for clicks, I think most of these quotes we see are completely made up. My default position is that everything these cunts say is rooted in running a particular click-driven narrative and they will do anything, including making quotes up, to support that narrative.

So now, whenever I see an anonymous quote from a sport journalist, I simply assume it’s made up, and discount it, which is the only sensible and logical approach to follow.
But it's true what they say about you!
 
OK it's The Sun but that writer makes a really good point. There were five clubs behind the scrapping of the gate-sharing agreement and the setting up of the PL - Liverpool, united, Spurs, Everton & Arsenal.

All those clubs have owners who are hated, to a greater of lesser degree, by their fans. At least two of those (Liverpool & united) are actively seeking a sale and two others (Spurs & Everton) might be open to one. Arsenal seem to be stable at the moment but their fans have no great love for Kroenke.

Does make you think that maybe this PL case is deflection pure and simple.
I think the scrapping of the gate receipts came in the early 80s and I think it was United Liverpool and Arsenal who pushed for that.

Those five clubs you mention, during the years where the setting up of the Prem was taking place, originally colluded together and with ITV to have 75% of the new Premier League TV deal shared between the five of them and the other 25% shared between the remaining 17 clubs (there were 22 clubs in the league at the time).
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.