He was going for us whilst she was still alive so it’s not an excuse he should be afforded. I have sympathy for him like I would for anybody who loses a loved one but it’s not a valid reason for his actions since then.
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
Chi-town blues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2012
- Messages
- 31,363
Whats his username here ?In a previous (more civil) email exchange he'd given me his contact details unprompted, which seemed a bit strange, but out of courtesy I gave him mine.
BlueRockape
Well-Known Member
Fukin nut jobSince Nick Harris seemingly has no qualms about posting private messages, here’s an unsolicited text message that he sent me in the early hours a while ago. It’s not normal behaviour for a journalist. I genuinely think he needs help.
View attachment 108551
Gaylord du Bois
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 29,259
- Location
- Great Umbrage.
- Team supported
- Glory Hunting Blue. Was Chelsea.
Bland Tosspot.Whats his username here ?
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,372
Another point that I didn't include, in my already lengthy post(here's another), was his disingenuous argument against any notion that FFP had anything to do with cartel clubs like United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
He started off by saying "well the original concept was proposed in 2007 and I know the guy"(probably doesn't know him either, spotting a pattern with that fraud). His aim was clear there, to show FFP was around before the City takeover in 2008 and make the argument seem unreasonable. I couldn't find anything in the public domain about official discussions on FFP from 2007 personally. Also, the argument was never just about City. Ever since Chelsea in 2003, those cartel clubs were fearing new investment from rich owners, into clubs other than the established elite because they could lose out on revenue in the long term and fall down the ladder. Which was something that used to be a part of the natural cycles of football for a long time.
It's still disingenuous, without pointing that out anyway. Since most people know the original aim of FFP, had nothing to do with the Wenger phrase "financial doping". What Stefan was referencing, was the FFP regulations that UEFA competition and later the PL(2013) actually ended up with.
It's not unreasonable,to argue that a cartel of elite clubs, lobbied for certain financial rules, that clearly suited them over everyone else, to be included in UEFA's FFP regulations. It's not some alien concept that rules and regulations are often added by an organisation/governing body, as a result of members raising their concerns, complaints and wishes. The media played a role, in making owner investment into football clubs seem like the worst enemy in football. Which would have been a help to create pressure on UEFA to consider those complaints and proposals. Net spend used to be a big focal point in the press too but that stopped around the time it became clear, United had rapidly decreasing amounts of room to talk about that. Such a coincidence, or: "it's a miracle", as Nick would say.
Lastly, from a City perspective, the relevant timeline would be this anyway:
Sheikh Mansour becomes the new owner of City via his private investments firm ADUG in September 2008.
UEFA approved the concept of FFP in September 2009, almost exactly a year later and I assume work on creating and agreeing on the actual rule set started after that point. A 2009 UEFA review, was used in the reasoning for this decision, which showed 20% out of 655 European clubs were believed to be in financial peril. Additionally, Deloit's report in 2009 indicated that total debt among the 20 Premier League clubs at the end of the 2008/09 season was £3.3 billion. But the PL didn't introduce their version until 2013.
UEFA then presented the concept and it's finalised set of FFP regulations at European Parliament in June 2010.
UEFA's FFP was introduced from the start of the 2011/12 season.
Those regulations were updated multiple times after that point too: 2012, 2015, 2018, possibly more, until FFP was eventually replaced with FSR in June 2022. Which has already been updated on July 2023 with a new 'edition'.
So there was plenty of time for those cartel clubs to conspire and think of ways to hamper City specifically(and any future clubs like them) and lobby for their proposals to be included. Possibly with threats of the ESL thrown in for good measure. Nick doesn't seem concerned with that much at all or the main culprits in the PL for the ESL concept ever being considered.
The next time Nick tries this disingenuous "City fans are paranoid and delusional" narrative, someone should ask him if we imagined the creation of the G-14 too. He didn't seem to want to accept there had been any collusion from a group of elite clubs at all, which is quite a ridiculous stance, from a self professed expert.
He started off by saying "well the original concept was proposed in 2007 and I know the guy"(probably doesn't know him either, spotting a pattern with that fraud). His aim was clear there, to show FFP was around before the City takeover in 2008 and make the argument seem unreasonable. I couldn't find anything in the public domain about official discussions on FFP from 2007 personally. Also, the argument was never just about City. Ever since Chelsea in 2003, those cartel clubs were fearing new investment from rich owners, into clubs other than the established elite because they could lose out on revenue in the long term and fall down the ladder. Which was something that used to be a part of the natural cycles of football for a long time.
It's still disingenuous, without pointing that out anyway. Since most people know the original aim of FFP, had nothing to do with the Wenger phrase "financial doping". What Stefan was referencing, was the FFP regulations that UEFA competition and later the PL(2013) actually ended up with.
It's not unreasonable,to argue that a cartel of elite clubs, lobbied for certain financial rules, that clearly suited them over everyone else, to be included in UEFA's FFP regulations. It's not some alien concept that rules and regulations are often added by an organisation/governing body, as a result of members raising their concerns, complaints and wishes. The media played a role, in making owner investment into football clubs seem like the worst enemy in football. Which would have been a help to create pressure on UEFA to consider those complaints and proposals. Net spend used to be a big focal point in the press too but that stopped around the time it became clear, United had rapidly decreasing amounts of room to talk about that. Such a coincidence, or: "it's a miracle", as Nick would say.
Lastly, from a City perspective, the relevant timeline would be this anyway:
Sheikh Mansour becomes the new owner of City via his private investments firm ADUG in September 2008.
UEFA approved the concept of FFP in September 2009, almost exactly a year later and I assume work on creating and agreeing on the actual rule set started after that point. A 2009 UEFA review, was used in the reasoning for this decision, which showed 20% out of 655 European clubs were believed to be in financial peril. Additionally, Deloit's report in 2009 indicated that total debt among the 20 Premier League clubs at the end of the 2008/09 season was £3.3 billion. But the PL didn't introduce their version until 2013.
UEFA then presented the concept and it's finalised set of FFP regulations at European Parliament in June 2010.
UEFA's FFP was introduced from the start of the 2011/12 season.
Those regulations were updated multiple times after that point too: 2012, 2015, 2018, possibly more, until FFP was eventually replaced with FSR in June 2022. Which has already been updated on July 2023 with a new 'edition'.
So there was plenty of time for those cartel clubs to conspire and think of ways to hamper City specifically(and any future clubs like them) and lobby for their proposals to be included. Possibly with threats of the ESL thrown in for good measure. Nick doesn't seem concerned with that much at all or the main culprits in the PL for the ESL concept ever being considered.
The next time Nick tries this disingenuous "City fans are paranoid and delusional" narrative, someone should ask him if we imagined the creation of the G-14 too. He didn't seem to want to accept there had been any collusion from a group of elite clubs at all, which is quite a ridiculous stance, from a self professed expert.
Last edited:
Invisible Man's Bandage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 3,140
- Team supported
- Manchester City
So not Grindr then?In a previous (more civil) email exchange he'd given me his contact details unprompted, which seemed a bit strange, but out of courtesy I gave him mine.
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 17,592
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Since Nick Harris seemingly has no qualms about posting private messages, here’s an unsolicited text message that he sent me in the early hours a while ago. It’s not normal behaviour for a journalist. I genuinely think he needs help.
View attachment 108551
I dont even understand it what he is saying
Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
If anyone is struggling to understand our charges you could get tickets for this madness
I'm sure that will be an intelligent discussion of historical facts and balanced opinions resulting in a fair assessment of everything currently related to our case.
Or on the other hand it could be an angry mob of torch & pitchfork wielding, mislead, partisan, buffoons lapping up Harris' bitter delusions and hearsay bullshit as "fact". It'll be like a discussion of "Margaret Thatchers greatest policies" held at a Port Talbot Labour Club.
Road show Next Stops:
The Empire - Liverpool - sponsored by RAWK
The Bishop Blaize - Trafford sponsored by Stretford Paddock
Last edited: