PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Blueboy73]

And now their after the British tax payer, cheeky bustard he is, being a non tax paying exile.

If Scruffy Jim manages to scrounge some taxpayers money, it wouldn't be the first time or even the second time that this rancid club have been given a government handout to spend on their Non-Mancunian shit hole.

 

[Blueboy73]

I had to work yesterday but had the commentary on talksport. Keown on comms was a joy to hear, sadness, bitterness, and the utter deflation in his voice as he explained to the listener what a fucking magical team we have. Lovely stuff

Has Planet of the Apes man stopped crying yet?

 

[Bez]

When someone says we are cheats or 115 or the usual baloney on social media, send them this link from Psychology Today along with the statement "I think you need help"

Why It Doesnât Feel Good When Someone Else Succeeds

Which flavor of envy are you experiencing?

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[petrusha]

Personally, I wouldn't forgive them for getting caught. Trust me, there are plenty of ways of getting around stupid rules like the PL has and our directors are smart enough to find a way to inflate revenues, for example, without any chance of getting caught out. That's one of the reasons nothing will come of these charges, imo. The alleged fraudulent activities would be just too stupid and nonsensical and our directors aren't stupid.

On the other hand, if they were overseeing a major fraud that could be uncovered by a few emails in an unprotected environment then that would be a major fuck up and THAT would be my problem.

Going back over two days and more than 20 pages in the thread, but I liked this post when I saw it and think it raises an important but oft-overlooked point. I fully agree with your final sentence, but what most people generally haven't realised is that it would be manifestly straightforward for City to operate successfully, from the club's point of view, within the rules we're accused of breaking.

It's commonly asserted that we have access to the best and most expensive professional advice (not invariably the same thing, but the aphorism that one gets what one pays for is as true here as in any other context). Why is it so hard for people to believe that, having recourse to the services of leading professionals, we were able to find ways to circumvent the rules in question?

Now, you'll get the usual simpletons bleating risibly about the "spirit of the regulations" or other similar nonsense, in the way I believe Shaun Custis has been on Talksport this morning with reference to our recent signing of the American teenager Cavan Sullivan. However, as @Chris in London posted some time back, the "spirit of the [regulations we're accused of having breached] was to give the established G14 teams a competitive advantage at our expense [so] I frankly don't give a fuck".

This all illustrates how invidious the coverage of the entire issue has been. The Football Leaks/Der Spiegel revelations have been almost universally presented as a metaphorical smoking gun when, as many of us said at the time, they represented no such thing. They could be read in that light, but were equally consistent with a business trying to find ways to operate lawfully within the relevant rules notwithstanding that such rules had been deliberately crafted to stymie us.

A coterie of bad-faith liars have sought to drive coverage in that direction. Others, with no understanding of the business side of football, tag along, fearful of the derision that would ensue were they to gainsay the prevailing groupthink. And the result now is that we're habitually confronted by a disheartening parade of imbeciles who witlessly parrot the line about 115 charges, thinking that they're outlining a telling line of reasoning. Pathetic.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Going back over two days and more than 20 pages in the thread, but I liked this post when I saw it and think it raises an important but oft-overlooked point. I fully agree with your final sentence, but what most people generally haven't realised is that it would be manifestly straightforward for City to operate successfully, from the club's point of view, within the rules we're accused of breaking.

It's commonly asserted that we have access to the best and most expensive professional advice (not invariably the same thing, but the aphorism that one gets what one pays for is as true here as in any other context). Why is it so hard for people to believe that, having recourse to the services of leading professionals, we were able to find ways to circumvent the rules in question?

Now, you'll get the usual simpletons bleating risibly about the "spirit of the regulations" or other similar nonsense, in the way I believe Shaun Custis has been on Talksport this morning with reference to our recent signing of the American teenager Cavan Sullivan. However, as @Chris in London posted some time back, the "spirit of the [regulations we're accused of having breached] was to give the established G14 teams a competitive advantage at our expense [so] I frankly don't give a fuck".

This all illustrates how invidious the coverage of the entire issue has been. The Football Leaks/Der Spiegel revelations have been almost universally presented as a metaphorical smoking gun when, as many of us said at the time, they represented no such thing. They could be read in that light, but were equally consistent with a business trying to find ways to operate lawfully within the relevant rules notwithstanding that such rules had been deliberately crafted to stymie us.

A coterie of bad-faith liars have sought to drive coverage in that direction. Others, with no understanding of the business side of football, tag along, fearful of the derision that would ensue were they to gainsay the prevailing groupthink. And the result now is that we're habitually confronted by a disheartening parade of imbeciles who witlessly parrot the line about 115 charges, thinking that they're outlining a telling line of reasoning. Pathetic.

Amen to all that. :)

 

[marco]

If Scruffy Jim manages to scrounge some taxpayers money, it wouldn't be the first time or even the second time that this rancid club have been given a government handout to spend on their Non-Mancunian shit hole.

Scruffy jim wont be getting anything, food banks all over the place,people on the street,homes reposesed,inflation out running wages, its a pipedream, the taxpayer and oposition would go ballistic

 

[Blueboy73]

Scruffy jim wont be getting anything, food banks all over the place,people on the street,homes reposesed,inflation out running wages, its a pipedream, the taxpayer and oposition would go ballistic

I hope you're right and morally it's outrageous to think that an organisation turning over hundreds of millions of pounds a year should get a handout from the taxpayer.
Catweazle the tax dodger has form for scrounging though and both him and the rancid club from Trafford are morally bankrupt so I wouldn't rule anything out.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

I find it really weird that people have "Rag Pals"...Not having a dig, Each to their own.

Maybe I'm just a proper grumpy ****, I couldn't have a "Rag Pal", If I seen someone walking down the street with a Rag on I'd think he's a **** straight away.

When I see rag shirts I think the same, but I’ve a few decent rags in the *family (*wife’s side) and mates. None of them take the piss directly or go on about 115 etc but they’ve largely “gone off football because it’s all about money these days”. I just sit and grin at the fuckers,

 

[Rory Bluelow]

It must be a quirk of geography, because my Secondary School Year (Marple Ridge 1975-80) was predominantly City
My Form alone had 9 blues and only 5 reds

Definitely, where I grew up in Gorton it was easily 80% blue.

 

[Dodge]

Going back over two days and more than 20 pages in the thread, but I liked this post when I saw it and think it raises an important but oft-overlooked point. I fully agree with your final sentence, but what most people generally haven't realised is that it would be manifestly straightforward for City to operate successfully, from the club's point of view, within the rules we're accused of breaking.

It's commonly asserted that we have access to the best and most expensive professional advice (not invariably the same thing, but the aphorism that one gets what one pays for is as true here as in any other context). Why is it so hard for people to believe that, having recourse to the services of leading professionals, we were able to find ways to circumvent the rules in question?

Now, you'll get the usual simpletons bleating risibly about the "spirit of the regulations" or other similar nonsense, in the way I believe Shaun Custis has been on Talksport this morning with reference to our recent signing of the American teenager Cavan Sullivan. However, as @Chris in London posted some time back, the "spirit of the [regulations we're accused of having breached] was to give the established G14 teams a competitive advantage at our expense [so] I frankly don't give a fuck".

This all illustrates how invidious the coverage of the entire issue has been. The Football Leaks/Der Spiegel revelations have been almost universally presented as a metaphorical smoking gun when, as many of us said at the time, they represented no such thing. They could be read in that light, but were equally consistent with a business trying to find ways to operate lawfully within the relevant rules notwithstanding that such rules had been deliberately crafted to stymie us.

A coterie of bad-faith liars have sought to drive coverage in that direction. Others, with no understanding of the business side of football, tag along, fearful of the derision that would ensue were they to gainsay the prevailing groupthink. And the result now is that we're habitually confronted by a disheartening parade of imbeciles who witlessly parrot the line about 115 charges, thinking that they're outlining a telling line of reasoning. Pathetic.

Nailed it.