PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[jimharri]

Thread derailed

Agreed. Let's try to stick to the issue at hand, not on field issues.

 

[No One Understands]

You know what. After that united farce of a goal, and the year of the liverpool title win (another farce refereeing wise) I am hoping that they will find us guilty of all the fucking infractions and then some. I am tired of all the innuendo, and the fact that we want the moral high ground while our reputation takes a battering makes me unhappy. I do hope we are playing dirty because sure as hell everyone else is playing super dirty. Whether it's Madrid players feigning injury in a semi final, a geriatric loon accusing us of financial doping when you invest in your business, or farcical refereeing decisions or Fergie time. I've bloody had it. I hope we are dirty, because everyone else is just filthy, and I'm sick and tired of watching it in the open while people ignore it.
Khelafi from PSG is on the executive council while they made a super mockery of FFP. Chelsea spend north of half a billion in 6 months because rules are adjusted when convenient. Manure in ridiculous debt, underperforming for a decade while we have been the standard bearers for that time and no one can believe we can get a penny more in sponsorship. What fucking delusion.
Find us guilty you scumbags. City will still be here. Our owners will still be here. And most importantly we the fans will still be here.

FIND US GUILTY ALREADY. I DARE YOU YOU CUNTS, AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS HOUSE OF CARDS.

There, rant over. I think I will go and have a lie down. Maybe even take a break from footie.

There you go Jim. You wanted back on topic.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Sometimes it’s hard to tell if people want reality, delusion or fantasy. Rightly or wrongly, I assume a thread specifically on these charges more inclined to reality.

Life would be boring without a little of each. As would this thread, imo.

 

[Gordyola]

Touching the ball is irrelevant. Attwell was supposed to apply the criteria for an opponent interfering with play as stated in the laws. As you can see Rashford was clearly interfering with play because he breached at least three of the guidelines listed; namely preventing an opponent from playing the ball; obstructing an opponent's line of vision; making an obvious action which impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball. Rashford ran towards the ball, shielded it, and obstructed Akanji and Ederson's vision.

Law 11 - Offside

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

The decision by Attwell wasn't a mistake. It was a suspicious decision. Remember the linesman called it correctly but was overruled by Attwell. He didn't even check the video. The rules are clear.

You’ve missed the point of my post, of course he was offside, of course he was interfering with play and it should have been ruled out
I was trying to explain the role of VAR and the dodgy tw*t Atwell
VAR only looks at the offside just like the Lino it’s the ref who determines interference
He made an interpretation that is entirely possible and PiGMOL supported him, until Webb came out a few weeks ago and said it wouldn’t be allowed again
Do I think that there is an agenda? Sure do

This the section that Atwell chose to interpret wrongly

• interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

 

[lazerblue]

We should be charged for playing Bernardo at left back, that's fuckin criminal!

 

[Dodge]

Just to add to this, the story has piqued the interests of some journalists and from what I can gather the club haven't exactly rubbished it as yet. I'm still sceptical, but will be interesting to see if anything comes out in the coming weeks.

@Ric I received a PM from a certain Northern correspondent from the Daily Mail yesterday, who expressed an interest in covering the story.

 

[waspish]

@Ric I received a PM from a certain Northern correspondent from the Daily Mail yesterday, who expressed an interest in covering the story.

Bottom dwellers the daily mail

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

@Ric I received a PM from a certain Northern correspondent from the Daily Mail yesterday, who expressed an interest in covering the story.

Hope Mr Keegan came up with an inventive username!

 

[Dodge]

Hope Mr Keegan came up with an inventive username!

Good effort, but it was actually Jack Gaughan and his username is pretty lame tbh.

 

[ray21]

@Ric I received a PM from a certain Northern correspondent from the Daily Mail yesterday, who expressed an interest in covering the story.

So we have journalist spying in on Bluemoon tell em nowt.