cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,886
People need to remember Journalists are not qualified in law!
Or finance……
Or football ……
People need to remember Journalists are not qualified in law!
Yeah, but where is your passion?They have successfully done that.
But we keep winning.
Keep been better than that lot.
Which is all I ever dreamt of.
And we will continue to build out brand and keep improving.
Keep bring lads through and also selling them for massive profits.
So all in all we will come out on top..fuck the Premier league.
Fuck the fa.
Fuck uefa.
Fuck the curupt cartel.
Fuck sky.
Talksport.
All the media and bellends on you fucking tube.
City till I die
City will have extended the East and CB stands before they've fixed the roof. Unless Chelsea Jim gets Trafford Council to fix it.Correct mate, they didn't realise how serious our owners are. The Shiek has transformed East Manchester and his family invests billions in the uk infrastructure every year!
Jim Ratcliffe, lives in Monaco and appeases united fans because he has had had some pictures made of a new stadium!
Our new stand and hotel will be built before they even appoint an Arcitect!
Trafford Council….do they have roofers?City will have extended the East and CB stands before they've fixed the roof. Unless Chelsea Jim gets Trafford Council to fix it.
People need to remember Journalists are not qualified in law!
Or journalism in most casesOr finance……
Or football ……
It's the most likely outcome imho, maybe with some small sanction on the disclosure of Toure image rights (we don't really have enough information to come to a conclusion on that one). But we have no visibility on the non-cooperation allegations. We do know it will be different to UEFA non-cooperation, though, so it's not a gimme for the PL. Have to wait and see on that one.
I think it's possible, as regards non-cooperation, that the outcome of the challenge to the new APT rules might be interesting even though, on the face of it, the two aren't connected . A couple of our allegations, that they are "unlawful" and/or "discriminatory", are, to my mind, illustrative of "bad faith" on the part of the PL towards our club. Given the PL's emphasis on "good faith" in the charges and it's own rules about clubs acting in good faith towards each other, any finding in our favour that suggests "bad faith" on the part of the PL may go some way towards evidencing why we don't trust the investigatory process.
Our business model is functioning perfectly well. Record turnover, record investment, record profits.A good point and one that we could make our own case against Masters and his mates.
This whole affair must be having a negative effect on us as a business model. Advertising and sponsorship deals are very much a part of the game because the EPL is a big draw to TV audiences. For example, how many here had ever heard of Etihad before we became big audience grabbers? Nowadays everyone has heard of Etihad and knows it is a luxury airline.
But as long as our name is being dragged through the mud, then companies who otherwise would want to link themselves to City may reluctantly hold back for fear of losing respect by linking themselves to our club. By not backing us as they once might have done then we would possibly be denied access to millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of pounds.
I have no idea if this has happened but if it has then there HAS to be a counter claim for losses which arose following the 115 charges, should innocence be proven.
Sauce for the goose......