Just reply to them 'yep that's the beauty of being owned by an oil state. We can buy anyone.'
It winds the fuckers up no end.
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
It winds the fuckers up no end.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,945
Getting lots of memes showing piles of cash with the hilarious title "How City will be found not guilty of all charges"
Are they losing the confidence they gained at the Jamie Carragher school of mindless optimism?
LeonardoDaVnci
Well-Known Member
So how the feck can the Etihad Airways sponsorship be invalid in some seasons, but by magic, become valid in other seasons. As pointed out thousands of times, to this very day, we still have the Ethihad Campus, the Etihad Stadium and the Etihad kit sponsor etc etc. Also we know Etihad Airways have entered into multiple sponsorship deals in multiple sports across the globe. There has never been any suggestion of impropriety anywhere else in the world. So, only in some years in England, and when sponsoring mens football, not womens, do Ethihad Airways become co-conspirators and engage in illegitimise sponsorships. This idea that we will be clobbered by some charges in some years but escape them in others is bollocks. In this thread we've seen multiple professionals delve into the PL Handbooks, our annual accounts, the CAS rulings, the Der Spiegal articles ad infinitum. Unless the PL have something completely new it's ALL or NOTHING about these 5 issues
1 Etihad Airways sponsorship
2 Etisalat sponsorship
3 Fordham Image rights
4 Mancini consultancy contract
5:Non cooperation
The fact that the PL were able to nefariously conjour up 130 charges from 5 issues has also been dissected, sliced and diced to death.
1 Etihad Airways sponsorship
2 Etisalat sponsorship
3 Fordham Image rights
4 Mancini consultancy contract
5:Non cooperation
The fact that the PL were able to nefariously conjour up 130 charges from 5 issues has also been dissected, sliced and diced to death.
Last edited:
A miserably, bitter, old **** that should have retired a decade ago.Just remind me who Ian Darke is? Seriously.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,945
So how the feck can the Etihad Airways sponsorship be invalid in some seasons, but by magic, become valid in other seasons. As pointed out thousands of times, to this very day, we still have the Ethihad Campus, the Etihad Stadium and the Etihad kit sponsor etc etc. Also we know Etihad Airways have entered into multiple sponsorship deals in multiple sports across the globe. There has never been any suggestion of impropriety anywhere else in the world. So, only in some years in England, and when sponsoring mens football, not womens, do Ethihad Airways become co-conspirators and engage in illegitimise sponsorships. This idea that we will be clobbered by some charges in some years but escape them in others is bollocks. In this thread we've seen multiple professionals delve into the PL Handbooks, our annual accounts, the CAS rulings, the Der Spiegal articles ad infinitum. Unless the PL have something completely new it's ALL or NOTHING about these 5 issues
1 Etihad Airways sponsorship
2 Etisalat sponsorship
3 Fordham Image rights
4 Mancini consultancy contract
5:Non cooperation
The fact that the PL were able to nefariously conjour up 130 charges from 5 issues has also been dissected, sliced and diced to death.
Are they alleging some years and not others for Etihad? I had assumed they were making the allegations for all years through 2018?
As for your list, I would just change:
Etisalat sponsorship to Etisalat and other Abu Dhabi sponsorships, and
Fordham image rights to Fordham/Toure image rights.
And I would add the two consequential allegations:
Not complying with PL FFP, and
Not complying with UEFA requirements, although maybe not, because, as I say, they are a consequence of failing the substantive allegations, which isn't likely to happen.
The PL also makes reference to related parties in their list of referred allegations. I am not sure what that means. Are they opening up the whole issue of ownership and related parties again? I would be surprised, but you never know.
Bluesince1979
Well-Known Member
My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.Getting lots of memes showing piles of cash with the hilarious title "How City will be found not guilty of all charges"
This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.
He just said “money talks”
:))
Perfect example. I was discussing the case with a Liverpool fan. His take was that if we are found guilty, it's right; if we are found innocent, it's because of clever and expensive lawyers.My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.
This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.
He just said “money talks”
:))
It started with the usual 'time-barred' stuff.
I showed the CAS media release, he didn't believe it.
It tribalism backed by envy and stupidity. His anger was unnatural.
Last edited:
Bluesince1979
Well-Known Member
Thats why the damage is done and if the aim was repetitional damage then its been a huge success because we are either guilty or bribing our way out of it in the eyes of the great unwashedPerfect example. I was discussing the case with a Liverpool fan. His take was that if we are found guilty, it's right; if we are found innocent, it's because of clever and expensive lawyers.
He doesn't have any evidence of either. If the PL win the case it is obviously not because of their lawyers. It tribalism backed by envy and stupidity.
Not really. It is very much a judgement call and could all come down to interpretation of the rules and accounting practices.Dont get this way of thinking.
Its not win/lose. Its not a judgement call or an opinion that will be given. Its absolute truth, in either scenario. And frankly thats enough for me.
If the decision goes for city, it will be absolute justice finally, exoneration, clubs name clean, open season to go after anyone we want.
If the decision is against city, frankly the club has lied and covered it up for years, including to us fans. Its then down to each individual to decide whether they care about that or not.
I trust the club not to be guilty of what would be potentially the largest corporate fraud in sports history. So im relaxed about it and expect a positive outcome.
If not, will deal with it then.
Ultimately its truth that we get and it will be a relief either way and we can all move on with our lives.
eversince 76
Well-Known Member
Money talks?My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.
This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.
He just said “money talks”
:))
It doesn’t. Not for United anyways.
But hey, the media is able to switch peoples mind. It’s how they set up the way people think about our club as soon as the takeover by Arabs was a fact. It’s called propaganda.
Remember it’s an USA following media.
Oh … agenda … no that’s not possible is it?