PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

LeonardoDaVnci said:
The high priest of journalistic hypocrisy Ronay has chipped in. Looks like he's been tipped off, the PL cartel have been absolutely pasted. Its full of all the usual slurs, legal innuendo, devoid of balance, objectivity or any critical thinling just the usual politics of the playground bollocks, "its not fair"....

www.theguardian.com

A year on, Manchester City’s legal experts have the Premier League in a corner | Barney Ronay

The charges tribunal is still to report on rule breaches, but does the league really want to discredit its eight-time champions anyway?
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
This little ****, like the rest of them when this dropped, was wanking himself silly with talk of relegation, titles stripped and banishment to the 7th division. All of a sudden, he can’t be arsed with it anymore.

This bit is his last attempt at a last dig.

“Even if they are substantively punished, which increasingly just feels unlikely given the timeframe and the brilliance of City’s legal team”.

Not because we were innocent, but because it took too long and we had the cheek to hire some lawyers - both of which I’m pretty sure everyone knew would happen before this litigation was launched.

Can’t be much longer now, surely?.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
This part especially caught my eye.

Why gratuitously write about those tactics and then expressly state twice that there’s no evidence to suggest City have deployed them, other than to imply that’s exactly what City have been doing?

It’s akin to writing about married men having gay affairs in an article about Keir Starmer but then saying (twice) that there’s no evidence he’s had any gay affairs.

Ronay never ceases to amuse me that he clearly believes his short, unsuccessful stint in a commercial law firm gives him any sort of authority to pontificate about complex legal matters and associated tactics. If he was any good at those things he’d still be there now, instead of prostituting himself by deploying his tedious and pompous writing style to garner a few extra clicks in order to earn what I expect is less than 10% of most of his erstwhile cohort.
Click to expand...

I thought he was going for a clever use of subtle sarcasm. But, frankly, 200 words of complete waffle into it I was suffering myself from the realisation of wasted time he seems to be indicating the PL are feeling. I think?
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
The high priest of journalistic hypocrisy Ronay has chipped in. Looks like he's been tipped off, the PL cartel have been absolutely pasted. Its full of all the usual slurs, legal innuendo, devoid of balance, objectivity or any critical thinling just the usual politics of the playground bollocks, "its not fair"....

www.theguardian.com

A year on, Manchester City’s legal experts have the Premier League in a corner | Barney Ronay

The charges tribunal is still to report on rule breaches, but does the league really want to discredit its eight-time champions anyway?
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
I do wonder who is the intended audience for this woeful dirge
 
halfcenturyup said:
I thought he was going for a clever use of subtle sarcasm. But, frankly, 200 words of complete waffle into it I was suffering myself from the realisation of wasted time he seems to be indicating the PL are feeling. I think?
Click to expand...
It must be genius level sarcasm because I’m fucked if I can spot it. And even if it is it doesn’t detract from the point that in the absence of any evidence that City have deployed those tactics, reference to them in that article is both gratuitous and malicious.

As @bobbyowenquiff pointed out, as respondents to this action the club had no choice but to defend their position and deal with the allegations. His talk of city ‘countering’ the PL ‘so aggressively’ conspicuously (and consciously no doubt) fails to acknowledge this. The club is fucking defending itself. Any well-resourced commercial organisation facing an existential threat is going to deploy all the resources it can to resist such an attack. This is undeniable.

The number of charges is not something of the club’s choosing either, and such a charge sheet necessarily and logically requires longer to address than otherwise. Again this is undeniable.

Perhaps the most telling reveal of his intellectual dishonesty, however, is where on the one hand he lauds City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’ in whose ‘brilliance’ he revels in respect of the 115, and yet on the other he questions the purpose of the same lawyer’s strategic approach to the APT settlement. Imperious in one dispute, and simultaneously clueless in the other. Fitting his interpretation around the conclusion he wants to arrive at, as people advancing a dishonest argument are prone to do.

And nowhere in there does he in any substantive way criticise the PL or suggest that there is even a possibility that these proceedings could have been flawed from the outset, rather than being rendered so by City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’.

As the last few paragraphs descended into pseudo-gibberish I expect he was feeling little but frustration and overwhelming disappointment that his previous strident predictions of doom for the club were wholly misconceived and rather than acknowledge that, instead he went on an incoherent rant about the inequity of the overarching power of billionaires in a league that is replete with them.

The bloke‘s a **** and nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It must be genius level sarcasm because I’m fucked if I can spot it. And even if it is it doesn’t detract from the point that in the absence of any evidence that City have deployed those tactics, reference to them in that article is both gratuitous and malicious.

As @bobbyowenquiff pointed out, as respondents to this action the club had no choice but to defend their position and deal with the allegations. His talk of city ‘countering’ the PL ‘so aggressively’ conspicuously (and consciously no doubt) fails to acknowledge this. The club is fucking defending itself. Any well-resourced commercial organisation facing an existential threat is going to deploy all the resources it can to resist such an attack. This is undeniable.

The number of charges is not something of the club’s choosing either, and such a charge sheet necessarily and logically requires longer to address than otherwise. Again this is undeniable.

Perhaps the most telling reveal of his intellectual dishonesty, however, is where on the one hand he lauds City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’ in whose ‘brilliance’ he revels in respect of the 115, and yet on the other he questions the purpose of the same lawyer’s strategic approach to the APT settlement. Imperious in one dispute, and simultaneously clueless in the other. Fitting his interpretation around the conclusion he wants to arrive at, as people advancing a dishonest argument are prone to do.

And nowhere in there does he in any substantive way criticise the PL or suggest that there is even a possibility that these proceedings could have been flawed from the outset, rather than being rendered so by City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’.

As the last few paragraphs descended into pseudo-gibberish I expect he was feeling little but frustration and overwhelming disappointment that his previous strident predictions of doom for the club were wholly misconceived and rather than acknowledge that, instead he went on an incoherent rant about the inequity of the overarching power of billionaires in a league that is replete with them.

The bloke‘s a **** and nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.
Click to expand...

:) Tbf, it takes a genius to spot genius level sarcasm.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It must be genius level sarcasm because I’m fucked if I can spot it. And even if it is it doesn’t detract from the point that in the absence of any evidence that City have deployed those tactics, reference to them in that article is both gratuitous and malicious.

As @bobbyowenquiff pointed out, as respondents to this action the club had no choice but to defend their position and deal with the allegations. His talk of city ‘countering’ the PL ‘so aggressively’ conspicuously (and consciously no doubt) fails to acknowledge this. The club is fucking defending itself. Any well-resourced commercial organisation facing an existential threat is going to deploy all the resources it can to resist such an attack. This is undeniable.

The number of charges is not something of the club’s choosing either, and such a charge sheet necessarily and logically requires longer to address than otherwise. Again this is undeniable.

Perhaps the most telling reveal of his intellectual dishonesty, however, is where on the one hand he lauds City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’ in whose ‘brilliance’ he revels in respect of the 115, and yet on the other he questions the purpose of the same lawyer’s strategic approach to the APT settlement. Imperious in one dispute, and simultaneously clueless in the other. Fitting his interpretation around the conclusion he wants to arrive at, as people advancing a dishonest argument are prone to do.

And nowhere in there does he in any substantive way criticise the PL or suggest that there is even a possibility that these proceedings could have been flawed from the outset, rather than being rendered so by City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’.

As the last few paragraphs descended into pseudo-gibberish I expect he was feeling little but frustration and overwhelming disappointment that his previous strident predictions of doom for the club were wholly misconceived and rather than acknowledge that, instead he went on an incoherent rant about the inequity of the overarching power of billionaires in a league that is replete with them.

The bloke‘s a **** and nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.
Click to expand...
A fantastically written piece there Gordon,that last sentence made me chuckle,cheers pal;)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It must be genius level sarcasm because I’m fucked if I can spot it. And even if it is it doesn’t detract from the point that in the absence of any evidence that City have deployed those tactics, reference to them in that article is both gratuitous and malicious.

As @bobbyowenquiff pointed out, as respondents to this action the club had no choice but to defend their position and deal with the allegations. His talk of city ‘countering’ the PL ‘so aggressively’ conspicuously (and consciously no doubt) fails to acknowledge this. The club is fucking defending itself. Any well-resourced commercial organisation facing an existential threat is going to deploy all the resources it can to resist such an attack. This is undeniable.

The number of charges is not something of the club’s choosing either, and such a charge sheet necessarily and logically requires longer to address than otherwise. Again this is undeniable.

Perhaps the most telling reveal of his intellectual dishonesty, however, is where on the one hand he lauds City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’ in whose ‘brilliance’ he revels in respect of the 115, and yet on the other he questions the purpose of the same lawyer’s strategic approach to the APT settlement. Imperious in one dispute, and simultaneously clueless in the other. Fitting his interpretation around the conclusion he wants to arrive at, as people advancing a dishonest argument are prone to do.

And nowhere in there does he in any substantive way criticise the PL or suggest that there is even a possibility that these proceedings could have been flawed from the outset, rather than being rendered so by City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’.

As the last few paragraphs descended into pseudo-gibberish I expect he was feeling little but frustration and overwhelming disappointment that his previous strident predictions of doom for the club were wholly misconceived and rather than acknowledge that, instead he went on an incoherent rant about the inequity of the overarching power of billionaires in a league that is replete with them.

The bloke‘s a **** and nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.
Click to expand...
Top post. Gold*
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It must be genius level sarcasm because I’m fucked if I can spot it. And even if it is it doesn’t detract from the point that in the absence of any evidence that City have deployed those tactics, reference to them in that article is both gratuitous and malicious.

As @bobbyowenquiff pointed out, as respondents to this action the club had no choice but to defend their position and deal with the allegations. His talk of city ‘countering’ the PL ‘so aggressively’ conspicuously (and consciously no doubt) fails to acknowledge this. The club is fucking defending itself. Any well-resourced commercial organisation facing an existential threat is going to deploy all the resources it can to resist such an attack. This is undeniable.

The number of charges is not something of the club’s choosing either, and such a charge sheet necessarily and logically requires longer to address than otherwise. Again this is undeniable.

Perhaps the most telling reveal of his intellectual dishonesty, however, is where on the one hand he lauds City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’ in whose ‘brilliance’ he revels in respect of the 115, and yet on the other he questions the purpose of the same lawyer’s strategic approach to the APT settlement. Imperious in one dispute, and simultaneously clueless in the other. Fitting his interpretation around the conclusion he wants to arrive at, as people advancing a dishonest argument are prone to do.

And nowhere in there does he in any substantive way criticise the PL or suggest that there is even a possibility that these proceedings could have been flawed from the outset, rather than being rendered so by City’s ‘world class squad of legal experts’.

As the last few paragraphs descended into pseudo-gibberish I expect he was feeling little but frustration and overwhelming disappointment that his previous strident predictions of doom for the club were wholly misconceived and rather than acknowledge that, instead he went on an incoherent rant about the inequity of the overarching power of billionaires in a league that is replete with them.

The bloke‘s a **** and nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.
Click to expand...


So in summary "The bloke‘s a ****"!
 
halfcenturyup said:
I thought he was going for a clever use of subtle sarcasm. But, frankly, 200 words of complete waffle into it I was suffering myself from the realisation of wasted time he seems to be indicating the PL are feeling. I think?
Click to expand...

Clever is a stretch ;)

It reads like an annoying sibling sticking their hands in front of your face saying "didn't touch you, didn't touch you - you can't tell mum, you're not allowed to get annoyed".
 
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