PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

johnevans said:
I gather from yesterday's Court submissions on behalf of the Daily Mail by defence lawyers in the 'Prince Harry et al vs Associated Newspapers hacking etc trial' that:

(a) the plaintiffs are 'out of time' with their case
(b) their case is based upon 'leaked documents'

That's the Daily Mail's defence. Right there.

The Daily Mail that has pilloried City in its sports pages for more than a decade. And the Mail is offering this defence without batting an eyelid. Again, there it is. Right there.

Oh my stars.. the f**king irony..
Click to expand...
Difference being they don't give a shit about the assumption of guilt that seems to go with that plea just want to avoid a massive payout.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes
Click to expand...

Still catching up.

What a post this is. Every fan of every club should be made to read it.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes
Click to expand...
Excellent post
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Premier League tightens ownership rules to stop human rights abusers running a club

The Premier League tightens its ownership rules to ensure anyone found to have committed human rights abuses cannot run a club.
www.bbc.co.uk

I wonder what this means for the future of football.
And are the shareholders (Who unanimously voted for it) the PL the clubs?

They dont mention City btw. v strange
Click to expand...
“Found to have committed” probably means it’ll have no effect on football at all unless Putin or the North Korean guy buys a club. I’d have thought it would take the pressure off City and the human rights issues. The good Sheikh won’t be barred so will be explicitly accepted by the footballing authorities instead of his right to own the club being questionable
 
The perfect fumble said:
True...But...

City know the truth, you shouldn't overlook that. If this is all a crock of shit and City know it, it's immaterial what "evidence" the PL has, because the club knows it's all politically motivated nonsense. Soriano knows the PL doesn't have a smoking gun, and how does he know this? Because no gun exists! Coz if there was we wouldn't be contesting these charges we'd be plea bargaining.



City made reference to reputational damage when UEFA started their merry go round, but when the PL charges landed City issued this short sharp statement....

"Manchester City Football Club is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with. The club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent Commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position.

"As such we look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all."

The key word here is "impartially" meaning?....Free from political interference.

Soriano has being doing the rounds telling everyone it's all bollocks, of course he would, wouldn't he? Not necessarily, crisis management is more subtle than that and we're not seeing it here, it doesn't even look like defiance, it looks more like contempt. Soriano is so bullish because whatever the PL has he knows it's not the "evidence", and why is he so confident? Because he knows there's no evidence to be had, and how does he know that? Because there is no crime.

I repeat, we wouldn't be here now if the PL had its "evidence", there'd be no independent panel if they had a winning hand, if they had it they'd play it, and we'd be out on our arse licking our wounds after a good kicking.




Precedent is no guide here, because this is unprecedented. A four year investigation and yet it has to go to an independent panel? An independent panel after four years? I repeat four years! All those years and Soriano isn't doing a perp walk! And why? Because right now the PL clearly doesn't have what it needs to bring home the guilty verdict it wants, otherwise it would. So I wouldn't live in fear that they'll spring a gotcha moment in these hearings, because if they could, they'd have done so already.

And let's not forget the timing of the charges, conveniently released just ahead of the white paper on the independent regulator. Nor should we forget that rushed incomprehensible charge sheet, issued with no pre-warning for City. A charge sheet consisting of little more than a confusing list of references, that had to be amended the afternoon of the morning it was issued! Then amended again two days later, and why did it look so rushed? After four years of painstaking meticulous investigation? It looked rushed because it was rushed, and why was it rushed?.....political expediency.

This has all the hallmarks of an organisation buckling under pressure from big beast bullies. If the PL have what you're suggesting they have, irrefutable dirt on the PL Champions no less! Then you wouldn't have this dogs dinner, not for a case this high profile, not after four years.

This investigation was dead and buried, it stinks coz it's rotten, dug up in a hurry by the PL under instruction from Yanky owners and our old friend Daniel Levy, there's no other plausible explanation.
Click to expand...

My man.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes
Click to expand...

My man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.