PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Is it only me who refuses to participate on X/Twitter because it's full of wankstains? Sick to death about people posting the views of mouthy X/Twitter wankstains on here?

Can we have a morons forum where X/Twitter is allowed, and one for the normal people where it's not allowed?

Rant over.

X/Twitter cunts.
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
Is it only me who refuses to participate on X/Twitter because it's full of wankstains? Sick to death about people posting the views of mouthy X/Twitter wankstains on here?

Can we have a morons forum where X/Twitter is allowed, and one for the normal people where it's not allowed?

Rant over.

X/Twitter cunts.
Click to expand...
I’ve said it many times, x is a cesspit. I got rid a long time ago
 
I actually don't mind the twitter posts on here. It's useful to know what arguments are being concocted so you can destroy them.

I stopped reading that Magic Hat post because the bullshit started so early(skim read the rest). That person always makes bold claims in the strongest terms possible, but never backs it up. It literally feels like smoke and mirrors when you're reading it, because it is.

Oh wait... Magic Hat? Is it a parody account and we're all being clarkied?

"Look at my hands there's nothing in my hands... Everything I say is 100% real and not just want I want you to believe and spread all over the internet because I have a vendetta against City"

He's claiming CAS agreed the emails were real(really? wow) and unambiguous. That last part is bullshit because City provided the context which der Spiegel and UEFA got wrong.

He goes on to say that CAS made a 'finding of fact that the emails stated the planned intention to subvert FFP'. It's worded wierdly, probably because it's more magic hat smoke and mirrors. The "finding of fact" is the setup to make you believe CAS agreed the emails proved there was a planned intention to subvert FFP. He doesn't show you a quote from CAS(which should be a minimum requirement) where they said this, instead expecting you to take what he says at face value.

The next section gets worse. He moans "CAS was a farce" but must think the 'Independent' CFCB of UEFA's investigation and arbitration was totally legit and that decision should have stood? Next he's claiming UEFA messed up by only using a fraction of the emails available(bullshit again) and that's why the PL case will be different. I disagree, none of the emails released since seem to strengthen the case on the main allegation. The other stuff is either a new allegation that UEFA didn't attempt(probably because it was seen as a none starter) or no more believable than it was before. At any rate, he doesn't seem to undertand the emails alone would never meet the required standard of proof. They were only ever a reason to investigate to find actual evidence of what they think has occured, based on their interpretation of what was said in them. Yes there definitely are multiple interpretations, the correct context is key and only City truly knows it.

Then he's claiming CAS didn't apply the correct standard of proof, which is bullshit again. Since they were the ones that essentially pointed out UEFA failed to prove any of their claims to the standard required(swiss civil law, comfortable satisfaction) for the allegations that weren't time-barred. Or based on a trumped up non-cooperation charge which City didn't really deny, they claimed they had good reason and I agree with them. UEFA did not apply due process, never looked likely after UEFA leaked information before it even got to arbitration. They breached trust, broke their own confidentiality agreement, and most likely ignored a 200page document of evidence in City's defence(not interested in the truth, only making the charges stick by any means necessary).

I'm not a law or finance expert but from what I do know about CAS and the emails in question, I can spot his bullshit a mile off. Come to think of it, it does remind me of a certain twitter journalist.

The question is:

Is he really that pitifully informed/delusional/incompetant for something he spends so much time and effort convincing everyone he's an expert on?

Or

Is it more that he thinks most people are idiots and will believe anything he tells them, if he sells it hard enough?
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
I actually don't mind the twitter posts on here. It's useful to know what arguments are being concocted so you can destroy them.

I stopped reading that Magic Hat post because the bullshit started so early(skim read the rest). That person always makes bold claims in the strongest terms possible, but never backs it up. It literally feels like smoke and mirrors when you're reading it, because it is.

Oh wait... Magic Hat? Is it a parody account and we're all being clarkied?

"Look at my hands there's nothing in my hands... Everything I say is 100% real and not just want I want you to believe and spread all over the internet because I have a vendetta against City"

He's claiming CAS agreed the emails were real(really? wow) and unambiguous. That last part is bullshit because City provided the context which der Spiegel and UEFA got wrong.

He goes on to say that CAS made a 'finding of fact that the emails stated the planned intention to subvert FFP'. It's worded wierdly, probably because it's more magic hat smoke and mirrors. The "finding of fact" is the setup to make you believe CAS agreed the emails proved there was a planned intention to subvert FFP. He doesn't show you a quote from CAS(which should be a minimum requirement) where they said this, instead expecting you to take what he says at face value.

The next section gets worse. He moans "CAS was a farce" but must think the 'Independent' CFCB of UEFA's investigation and arbitration was totally legit and that decision should have stood? Next he's claiming UEFA messed up by only using a fraction of the emails available(bullshit again) and that's why the PL case will be different. I disagree, none of the emails released since seem to strengthen the case on the main allegation. The other stuff is either a new allegation that UEFA didn't attempt(probably because it was seen as a none starter) or no more believable than it was before. At any rate, he doesn't seem to undertand the emails alone would never meet the required standard of proof. They were only ever a reason to investigate to find actual evidence of what they think has occured, based on their interpretation of what was said in them. Yes there definitely are multiple interpretations, the correct context is key and only City truly knows it.

Then he's claiming CAS didn't apply the correct standard of proof, which is bullshit again. Since they were the ones that essentially pointed out UEFA failed to prove any of their claims to the standard required(swiss civil law, comfortable satisfaction) for the allegations that weren't time-barred. Or based on a trumped up non-cooperation charge which City didn't really deny, they claimed they had good reason and I agree with them. UEFA did not apply due process, never looked likely after UEFA leaked information before it even got to arbitration. They breached trust, broke their own confidentiality agreement, and most likely ignored a 200page document of evidence in City's defence(not interested in the truth, only making the charges stick by any means necessary).

I'm not a law or finance expert but from what I do know about CAS and the emails in question, I can spot his bullshit a mile off. Come to think of it, it does remind me of a certain twitter journalist.

The question is:

Is he really that pitifully informed/delusional/incompetant for something he spends so much time and effort convincing everyone he's an expert on?

Or

Is it more that he thinks most people are idiots and will believe anything he tells them, if he sells it hard enough?
Click to expand...

Agree with you on keeping up to date with what is on Twitter, even if it may negatively affect the more sensitive souls on here.

But it's a conundrum isn't it? These guys (and you know who I mean) are clearly intelligent. They can write well, but can't seem to get it right. Just right enough to convince people less intelligent than they are that what they want to believe is the truth. It's pretty obvious they have found a way to generate income from this nonsense and I doubt they believe any of it themselves.

I will be so relieved when FFP/PSR is finished in its controversial form and all these "experts" disappear never to be seen again.
 
Last edited:
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.