The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 10,857
- Team supported
- City
Knobheads.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
manimanc
Well-Known Member
Surely yesterday's F1 in Abu Dhabi has been commented on by messieurs Delooney and Nostrils Harris, I expect they was tweeting like no tomorrow at the sportswashing going on in F1?From our "friends" at RTE today - apologies if already posted:
https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2023/1127/1418668-manchester-city-fans-sportswashing/
Well I guess BM is famous now: we are linked in this article. Apparently for this "study", they wanted to see how the average City fan was able to justify our stance about our (brilliant) ownership. Warning, there are links to Delooney and David Conn in here also.
No? Nothing? Oh what a fuckin surprise.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
We are able to justify it principally because there isn’t a shred of fucking evidence in the public domain supporting the club’s guilt. Nothing. Nada. Fuck all. That’s much easier to justify than a presumption of guilt based on the same paucity of supporting evidence. The former is the legal default position in such circumstances. That is the justification and the position can always be revisited based on the evidential position changing.From our "friends" at RTE today - apologies if already posted:
https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2023/1127/1418668-manchester-city-fans-sportswashing/
Well I guess BM is famous now: we are linked in this article. Apparently for this "study", they wanted to see how the average City fan was able to justify our stance about our (brilliant) ownership. Warning, there are links to Delooney and David Conn in here also.
The real question is, how can anyone justify a presumption of guilt when there isn’t any evidence to lead them to that conclusion?
It really isn’t rocket science.
BongoBlue
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Unfortunately, except for a very select few of so-called "journalists", we are guilty as charged. Because that is what their baying customers want to hear.We are able to justify it principally because there isn’t a shred of fucking evidence in the public domain supporting the club’s guilt. Nothing. Nada. Fuck all. That’s much easier to justify than a presumption of guilt based on the same paucity of supporting evidence. The former is the legal default position in such circumstances. That is the justification and the position can always be revisited based on the evidential position changing.
The real question is, how can anyone justify a presumption of guilt when there isn’t any evidence to lead them to that conclusion?
It really isn’t rocket science.
Can't wait to see their reaction when we are cleared.
RTE...Feckin eejitsFrom our "friends" at RTE today - apologies if already posted:
https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2023/1127/1418668-manchester-city-fans-sportswashing/
Well I guess BM is famous now: we are linked in this article. Apparently for this "study", they wanted to see how the average City fan was able to justify our stance about our (brilliant) ownership. Warning, there are links to Delooney and David Conn in here also.
BedsBlue68
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 314
I think this phrase sums up the pile of shite that the article is "Instances of Man City fans harassing journalists (both online and in person) who have dared to criticise their club's ownership attest to the potential of sportswashing as a weapon with the power to distort media coverage and, thus, avoid accountability. "It’s also interesting that they were going to fudge the figures & let them off £40m……
Should actually read "Man City fans presenting facts to challenge the lies and myths put forward by 'journalists" who publish articles full of baseless lies without a shred of evidence presented"
"Sheffield Hallam University" christ that study has less value and more bias than a 10 year old United supporters
school project.
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
chip paperExactly. Unfortunately, except for a very select few of so-called "journalists", we are guilty as charged. Because that is what their baying customers want to hear.
Can't wait to see their reaction when we are cleared.
just start a new witch hunt
Chi-town blues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2012
- Messages
- 31,363
This why 115 instead of picking one strong case and bring forward ? has been bothering me since day one. It’s about quantity and smear campaign. 115 charges are for rest of fans beside city who have no interest or knowledge about these fucking 115 bitches .This is premeditated attack however you slice it.Wow tbh I always thought the £20m breach was bullshit as they had posted mega losses, they also seemed to get away with a COVID write off far in excess of similar sized clubs like Villa and Newcastle. The original figures I see to recall were akin to a £200m breach.
the notion they would spend £40m on a stadium before planning permission had even been granted seems like bullshit as well.
looks like the ten point deduction was lenient after all. Also shows the Everton only got one charge compared with City’s 115 is bollox, I would guess they could easily have had more charges than us if the cartel stooges wanted to go after them.
Soriano is the most qualified and experienced boss you can find out there and to say you have been shit for 115 times is plain and simple personal attack on him and his integrity.
laserblue
Well-Known Member
In reality there are only 5 charges that have been sub-divided into 115 mini charges to make it look as bad as possible and get the frothing brain dead dippers/rags/tarquins worked up. There are 30 separate mini charges for lack of co-operation alone.This why 115 instead of picking one strong case and bring forward ? has been bothering me since day one. It’s about quantity and smear campaign. 115 charges are for rest of fans beside city who have no interest or knowledge about these fucking 115 bitches .This is premeditated attack however you slice it.
Soriano is the most qualified and experienced boss you can find out there and to say you have been shit for 115 times is plain and simple personal attack on him and his integrity.
laserblue
Well-Known Member
This is the UEFA case 2.0. I don't recall any journo failing to pile on City with an presumption of guilt or considering for a minute that City might have a case or might be innocent. They all ended up with egg on their face then and let's all hope for similar outcome with the PL charges.We are able to justify it principally because there isn’t a shred of fucking evidence in the public domain supporting the club’s guilt. Nothing. Nada. Fuck all. That’s much easier to justify than a presumption of guilt based on the same paucity of supporting evidence. The former is the legal default position in such circumstances. That is the justification and the position can always be revisited based on the evidential position changing.
The real question is, how can anyone justify a presumption of guilt when there isn’t any evidence to lead them to that conclusion?
It really isn’t rocket science.