PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dial M 4 Mercer]

As someone that, probably once a week, pops onto Rawk, I will try and help.

I suggest that you have to try and understand the reasons why I (and others) would do this and those reasons will likely be different to the ones that immediately come to your mind. It is nothing to do with expecting to read commonsense - or to present a challenge - it is more to do with (in my case) drinking in their pain and bewilderment - a level of delightful recompense for years gone by.

I would say that, as a headline, I do it because it is part of the whole scope of delight that I get from being a CITY fan in 2012-24, and I get a lot of (perhaps perverse) pleasure from soaking up how the (oh so) entitled and deluded wankers are suffering as they fail to cope with how CITY have shattered all their fucking pompous views of what is rightfully the standard 'order of things'

Just by way of some background to explaining - I consider myself to be a well-grounded blue - match-goer of 55 years. I think that I have been present at the vast majority of the old and new typical CITY moments from (my personal best typical CITY example) Stoke 2 - City 5 and before that Tueart's goal, that twat Pleat, and onwards to Gillingham, 93/20, to Nevizade St.

But I do count the pleasure that I find in reading their extreme denial to be also a key part of my enjoyment of being a CITY fan. Like oh so many on here, I have had decades of the rags and scousers pouring out their arrogance and condescension. I am thoroughly enjoying it and the only thing that might 'crown' it, is that, once we are cleared of the manufactured bollocks, the club go on the offensive against all those in the media and elsewhere that have besmirched our name and sought to belittle our achievements.

If that happened and it totally burst the narrative that we have 'cheated' and removes any hiding place for the cunts who deceive themselves, I would camp out on rawk and redcafe for a fucking month

As someone that, probably once a week, pops onto Rawk, I will try and help.

I suggest that you have to try and understand the reasons why I (and others) would do this and those reasons will likely be different to the ones that immediately come to your mind. It is nothing to do with expecting to read commonsense - or to present a challenge - it is more to do with (in my case) drinking in their pain and bewilderment - a level of delightful recompense for years gone by.

I would say that, as a headline, I do it because it is part of the whole scope of delight that I get from being a CITY fan in 2012-24, and I get a lot of (perhaps perverse) pleasure from soaking up how the (oh so) entitled and deluded wankers are suffering as they fail to cope with how CITY have shattered all their fucking pompous views of what is rightfully the standard 'order of things'

Just by way of some background to explaining - I consider myself to be a well-grounded blue - match-goer of 55 years. I think that I have been present at the vast majority of the old and new typical CITY moments from (my personal best typical CITY example) Stoke 2 - City 5 and before that Tueart's goal, that twat Pleat, and onwards to Gillingham, 93/20, to Nevizade St.

But I do count the pleasure that I find in reading their extreme denial to be also a key part of my enjoyment of being a CITY fan. Like oh so many on here, I have had decades of the rags and scousers pouring out their arrogance and condescension. I am thoroughly enjoying it and the only thing that might 'crown' it, is that, once we are cleared of the manufactured bollocks, the club go on the offensive against all those in the media and elsewhere that have besmirched our name and sought to belittle our achievements.

If that happened and it totally burst the narrative that we have 'cheated' and removes any hiding place for the cunts who deceive themselves, I would camp out on rawk and redcafe for a fucking month

Reading Red cafe or RAWK re the 115 charges is akin to reading the Telegraph, Mail and Express if you are trying to ascertain the performance of a Labour government.

 

[Oldham Exile]

Reading Red cafe or RAWK re the 115 charges is akin to reading the Telegraph, Mail and Express if you are trying to ascertain the performance of a Labour government.

That's why you should do it only for perverse entertainment - not seeking commonsense, dialogue or to have your knowledge or opinions informed

Starting with a viewpoint that the denizens are all know nothing fuckwits that wander around up each others arses is a helpful starting point to avoid the risk of infection

 

[halfcenturyup]

Starting with a viewpoint that the denizens are all know nothing fuckwits that wander around up each others arses is a helpful starting point to avoid the risk of infection

Works on here too :)

 

[Oldham Exile]

Works on here too :)

You may say that .....................

 

[Rory Bluelow]

He corrected himself later on after someone told him that was Saudi Arabia. His response....

"My bad, got them confused , so they are the ones with slaves dieing to make their WC stadiums. Not much more of a civilised form of corruption to be fair."

Looks more and more like a wind-up

 

[Centurions]

Looks more and more like a wind-up

3,500 posts I think, they've done well to survive that long if indeed not a rag. They actually use the term "rag" in another post too, although nobody pulled them up about it.

 

[Mancini’s Pastilles]

6 and half thousand pages? Are we relegated yet or what?

 

[Coatigan]

He published his objections in a newspaper article after CAS iirc, at least he got a junior in his law firm to do it making it clear it wasn't his opinion. But clearly it was. I could try to dig it out if I was arsed.

Reading that, as I understood that. he didn't actually think we were 'guilty', as accused, of circumnavigating the FFP rules. He chose to not see us as innocent because he agreed with the non-cooperation charge, and he saw that in itself as breaching the FFP rules by withholding evidence. A crazy take.

 

[mancboy]

Reading that, as I understood that. he didn't actually think we were 'guilty', as accused, of circumnavigating the FFP rules. He chose to not see us as innocent because he agreed with the non-cooperation charge, and he saw that in itself as breaching the FFP rules by withholding evidence. A crazy take.

that is the legal equivalent of finding someone guilty for murder even tho they had a cast iron alibi because they went no comment in the interview.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Reading that, as I understood that. he didn't actually think we were 'guilty', as accused, of circumnavigating the FFP rules. He chose to not see us as innocent because he agreed with the non-cooperation charge, and he saw that in itself as breaching the FFP rules by withholding evidence. A crazy take.

I'll be honest. I didn't read it and couldn't be arsed registering for it. Can you archive it for me?

If it's too much, don't bother. I just don't like registering for things I know I am not going to use. Or do you think it's worth doing?