Absolutely this.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
feedmpenzaandhewillscore
Well-Known Member
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.
Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
I doubt their Paris experience was anymore shit than our Turkish delight. UEFA have formally apologised to those cunts and us, well tumbleweed again.
But there's no double standards regarding our club and our fans dont worry.
But there's no double standards regarding our club and our fans dont worry.
train man
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 912
- Location
- down 'ere from oop there
- Team supported
- only football team to come from Manchester
We heard "Guilty!", and after CAS, "well, technically, and obviously, still Guilty!"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 don't know what of, but those successful Blue Bastards must be GUILTY..!!!"
Bit like us to and from the Ataturk then!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.
Proper blueCan I just say?
I Did
LeonardoDaVnci
Well-Known Member
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....
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:
manimanc
Well-Known Member
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.
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.