PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Can you imagine the amount of column inches dedicated to the outrage if Liverpool had been charged by UEFA for something, banned from Europe for two years, and then had to go to an independent appeals process who reversed the decision, confirmed that they had not cooked the books but still fined them mega-ding for non-cooperation.

The outrage about bloody UEFA attacking a British institution would be off the scale. David Conn would be deep-diving into the evidence, Zeigler and Panja writing uninformed "its not fair" articles, UEFA officials buses bricked etc etc..

And what did we hear.... tumbleweed....
Absolutely this.
 
Can you imagine the amount of column inches dedicated to the outrage if Liverpool had been charged by UEFA for something, banned from Europe for two years, and then had to go to an independent appeals process who reversed the decision, confirmed that they had not cooked the books but still fined them mega-ding for non-cooperation.

The outrage about bloody UEFA attacking a British institution would be off the scale. David Conn would be deep-diving into the evidence, Zeigler and Panja writing uninformed "its not fair" articles, UEFA officials buses bricked etc etc..

And what did we hear.... tumbleweed....

Their double standards on the champions league final in 2022, no issues with Real Madrid supporters accessing the ground but Liverpool and their history of causing chaos jumping turnstiles. Could you imagine the vitriol if it would have been City supporters delaying the start of a major final? Or Pep telling supporters to turn up without tickets?
 
Their double standards on the champions league final in 2022, no issues with Real Madrid supporters accessing the ground but Liverpool and their history of causing chaos jumping turnstiles. Could you imagine the vitriol if it would have been City supporters delaying the start of a major final? Or Pep telling supporters to turn up without tickets?

I'd agree that the reporting deliberately ignored any hint of responsibility on the side of Liverpool fans.

However, the different routes to the ground were the main reason why Madrid fans didn't have issues. Liverpool's route was crazy, with numerous bottle necks.
 
Can you imagine the amount of column inches dedicated to the outrage if Liverpool had been charged by UEFA for something, banned from Europe for two years, and then had to go to an independent appeals process who reversed the decision, confirmed that they had not cooked the books but still fined them mega-ding for non-cooperation.

The outrage about bloody UEFA attacking a British institution would be off the scale. David Conn would be deep-diving into the evidence, Zeigler and Panja writing uninformed "its not fair" articles, UEFA officials buses bricked etc etc..

And what did we hear.... tumbleweed....
We heard "Guilty!", and after CAS, "well, technically, and obviously, still Guilty!"
"We don't know what of, but those successful Blue Bastards must be GUILTY..!!!"
 
I'd agree that the reporting deliberately ignored any hint of responsibility on the side of Liverpool fans.

However, the different routes to the ground were the main reason why Madrid fans didn't have issues. Liverpool's route was crazy, with numerous bottle necks.
Bit like us to and from the Ataturk then!
 
Due to unrelenting red cartel pressure, the PL are engaged in multiple lines of attack against the Etihad Airways sponsorship. The highly dubious, potentially obsolete APT rules we're used to refuse a 20% markup in a sponsorship renewal. We don't know if any additional services were to be provided by the club. This issue is being contesed in the 'other' legal case.
The Etihad 115 historical charges seem to be based entirely on the alleged content of criminally obtained emails that were proven to be doctored at CAS2020. I don't wish to underestimate the seriousness of the non Etihad charges, but to hazard a guess Etihad represents 80% of the weight of the charges in terms possible sanctions.
Let's take a glance at Etihad Airways other sponsorships that for some reason are welcomed the world over by numerous governing bodies without one iota of controversy or suspicion, we can only wonder why ?

Manchester City Women
Melbourne City FC
New York City FC
Melbourne Formula 1
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
Chennai Super Kings
Washington Wizards
Washington Capitals
Washington Mystics
Australian Football League (AFL)
Etihad Stadium Melbourne
Abu Dhabi HSBC Golf Championship
ATP World Tennis Tour
UCI World Cycling Tour

Could it be the only time sponsorship by Etihad Airways is problematic is when they sponsor a mens team in direct competition with the rags, the dipps and the tarqs... know what I mean like, laaaa....
 
Last edited:
And as sure as eggs are eggs @kevlardog doesn't respond to a direct question.
In all my years on here you tend to spot the behaviour of wums. They are negative, don't really respond to questions put to them, don't bring anything to the conversation and have low post counts despite being members for a while.
This geezer ticks all the boxes.
 

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.