PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[ArdwickAlbert]

From the trollograph….some prick called alan tyers….



‘Pannick on the streets of London’, read the banner at Manchester City; a pretty good joke that repoints a lyric from The Smiths to pay tribute to Lord Pannick, who will be representing the club vs the Premier League as they do battle against allegations that they have breached its financial rules.

Time was when fan banners lauded goalscorers and midfield generals and it’s not hard to see why some people find it a bit ridiculous that football fans are lionising a man whose career path into City’s affections was less “youth team and then a loan move to Girona before breaking into the Carabao Cup squad” and more “Hertford College Oxford, called to the Bar, and then appointed a crossbench peer in the House of Lords”. But we are where we are and given that City's solitary acquisition in the January transfer window was 20-year-old Maximo Perrone for the chump-change sum of eight million quid, you can understand why the faithful are desperate to welcome a new hero.

A hard-tackling but cultured legal mind equally adept on the left or the right, Panno – as he is surely known to the lads in the City dressing room – has had previous spells with the Sunday Times in the Spycatcher case, representing kink-shamed fash scion Max Mosley in the European Court of Human Rights, and more recently an appearance on behalf of Isis banter queen Shamima Begum in the Supreme Court.

There’s a bit of any irony about having a go at fans for taking an interest in events off the pitch. Remember the days when football journaltics talked about football only, now they are geopolitical experts who never reference the game.

 

[KS55]

There’s a bit of any irony about having a go at fans for taking an interest in events off the pitch. Remember the days when football journaltics talked about football only, now they are geopolitical experts who never reference the game.

I don’t know why several posters have criticised that piece. I thought it was quite amusing. Hope we are not getting to the point where we cannot laugh at ourselves, we’ve had enough practice.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

The PL charges will be tried on their merits. All this other conspiracy, Liverpool, VAR, blah blah blah nonsense EVEN IF TRUE, won't make a blind bit of difference. You really think 2 KCs are going to focus on a bit of a recording about a completely unrelated matter that also PROVES nothing?

Believe it if you like but either way it is a sideshow.

Fun sponge.

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

The PL charges will be tried on their merits. All this other conspiracy, Liverpool, VAR, blah blah blah nonsense EVEN IF TRUE, won't make a blind bit of difference. You really think 2 KCs are going to focus on a bit of a recording about a completely unrelated matter that also PROVES nothing?

Believe it if you like but either way it is a sideshow.

How confident are you about the outcome, Stefan? Think we’ll be okay?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Fun sponge.

He's a lawyer. It comes with the territory.

 

[wattle]

The PL charges will be tried on their merits. All this other conspiracy, Liverpool, VAR, blah blah blah nonsense EVEN IF TRUE, won't make a blind bit of difference. You really think 2 KCs are going to focus on a bit of a recording about a completely unrelated matter that also PROVES nothing?

Believe it if you like but either way it is a sideshow.

;)

 

[Manc in London]

We had one. A big gambler who accumulated debts owed to some very dodgy people. City were convinced he was match-fixing and even went to the police. It's absolutely not just lower league players.

A midfielder born elsewhere in Europe and not known for his pace?

There was that throw-in against Forest in a cup match....

 

[Paladin]

Hate to defend Oliver and McCann but its not the way that VAR works. Yes, i guess Oliver could have advised Atwell that it was ridiculous to suggest that Rashford wasnt interfering with play but as a VAR that's beyond his power. What would going to a monitor prove? Rashford was in an offside position and it was clear he never touched the ball The decision was Atwell's, McCann may have told the rag that it was going to be allowed because he was part of the radio communications and he knew that Atwell was only coming to him as a a show
The offside interpretation will be quietly changed to say if a player is in playing distance they are interfering with play

Disagree. Rashford was between Attwell and the ball, and Akanji was between Cann and the ball at various points during the move. Whilst it might have been obvious to TV viewers that Rashford didn't touch the ball, there is no way Attwell and Cann could have said the same with certainty.

The goal decision came far too quick for there to have been any meaningful discussion. This decision cried out for a review, and they could have easily justified that.

All three officials were culpable in my view.

 

[HypnoticBlue]

Still makes me fucking angry, that decision. The bastards.

Actually, Oliver could have told Atwell to review it on the monitor, but I suppose he was wary of Webb's new rule (mid-way through the season, mind) that referees' judgements shouldn't be questioned. What a farce.

So if it's clear and f****** obvious that somebody is 5 yards offside VAR isn't allowed to intervene is it, unless it's against a team in red.
They'd be 11 points behind us now wouldn't they, but then they would be relevant would they, corrupt beyond belief.

 

[hammocity]

Could explain why we are so shit at penalties…………

We had two of the best in Mario and Yaya, Ivan Toney is brilliant now but he’s on a betting charge. Eddie is probably our worst keeper at saving penalties but he’s not too bad overall.