PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[old get]

Life's too short to devote time to reading something that I know before I start will be an uninformed heap of badly argued shit. Reading Delaney on the business/legal aspects of football is a more futile exercise than would be poring over a 10,000-word analysis by Richard Madeley of Immanuel Kant's critique of the ontological argument.

What a surprise. Miguel (de Cerrvantes) plays Don Quixote again, riding out to tilt at collapsing windmills in the short sighted belief that they are worthy opponents . And whenever he goes forth he will have his trusted aide Sancho Panja and his clapped out old nag Rocinantes Harris

 

[donkinho]

Quite.. but I would suggest a few fellow Blues might gain insights by engaging with Kant's 'Ontological Argument' (and indeed Hegel's later stance on these matters), especially with regard to the position taken by Kant on the 'Barm vs Muffin Argument' (I gather he was firmly a 'Muffin Man')

"Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination, and Marx is claiming it was offside."

Marx would probably be overruled by Howard Webb in the VAR booth...................

 

[aguero93:20]

"Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination, and Marx is claiming it was offside."

Marx would probably be overruled by Howard Webb in the VAR booth...................

Depends. Are they playing the rags?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Quite.. but I would suggest a few fellow Blues might gain insights by engaging with Kant's 'Ontological Argument' (and indeed Hegel's later stance on these matters), especially with regard to the position taken by Kant on the 'Barm vs Muffin Argument' (I gather he was firmly a 'Muffin Man')

He really was a visionary. His Critiques of Pure Reason, Practical Reason and Judgment form the basis of the current off-side laws iirc.

 

[wolviedinho]

I see Miggles has released one of his greatest hits rehash of his work on our CAS hearing, explaining why it was all wrong and that we will get a ban when the PL are finished with us. So tedious. Not going to link to it but it’s in the independent…

Brilliant. Did he use words like “could be banned?” Or “ if found guilty?” Zzzzzzzzzzzz boring, we won’t be found guilty of any serious offence Imo.

The more I digest these charges the clearer my thinking becomes. It would damage the league beyond repair. The more serious charges cannot be proved. Some small fines and the rep in decline.

 

[old blue]

Richard Madeley the renowned 19th century philosopher?

Did he go to school with Rees Smug?

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Quite.. but I would suggest a few fellow Blues might gain insights by engaging with Kant's 'Ontological Argument' (and indeed Hegel's later stance on these matters), especially with regard to the position taken by Kant on the 'Barm vs Muffin Argument' (I gather he was firmly a 'Muffin Man')

Aaah!
But can you have one without the other or are they one and the same.
I find these the existential, metaphysical, phenomenological, philosophical, supernatural, and transcendental questions thst need answering.
Frank Zappa said it best when he said;
"Some people... some people like cupcakes exclusively, while myself, I say
There is naught nor ought there be nothing so exalted on the face of god's grey
Earth as that prince of foods... the muffin!"

 

[manimanc]

Could we have a whip-round to buy Utd? Give the Glazers £10bn in recognition of their services to football. Then run the club into the ground but slowly, a slow lingering demise over the next 15 years would be nice.

I wouldn't give them mardarses the steam off my piss.

 

[J.G.Blue.]

One of those Cockerney chaps from that there London was just reading this thread and told me there are some right Kants on here :-)

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

One of those Cockerney chaps from that there London was just reading this thread and told me there are some right Kants on here :-)

I propose we refer to our previous clearance of charges as the CASegorical imperative.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Told our disclosure stuff will fill a decent sized skip.

That should keep people busy.

Is that the disclosure stuff that means we’re burying the investigation in paperwork or the disclosure stuff that means we’re not cooperating?…..

 

[wolviedinho]

Is that the disclosure stuff that means we’re burying the investigation in paperwork or the disclosure stuff that means we’re not cooperating?…..

Both I hope -:)

Why should we be helpful when they have unleashed bi partisan made up bullshit to aid our competition and damage the club?

Keep the skips coming, drag it out and fight over every sentence and interpretation of said sentence. They wanted a war well guess what? You have fucking got one now!

Not Guilty on any charge.

 

[halfcenturyup]

One of those Cockerney chaps from that there London was just reading this thread and told me there are some right Kants on here :-)

Yeah - 'Im an' who else?

 

[Maly]

An ignorant Tory…. There’s a thing.

I never knew you spelt politician like that ;)

 

[Chris in London]

Richard Madeley the renowned 20th century philanderer?

Fixed

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

I'm no expert on Kant, but for what it's worth here are my thoughts on his failings...

I think Kant’s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge, eg hacked emails. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

I'm no expert on Kant, but for what it's worth here are my thoughts on his failings...

I think Kant’s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge, eg hacked emails. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.

 

[BrianW]

Every fool and his wife seem to deem themselves competent to judge City's case.

They aren't. They haven't even seen the evidence or the defence yet. And if both were put before us tomorrow, not one person in ten thousand would have the qualifications and experience to work their way through it and come to a just conclusion,

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I see Miggles has released one of his greatest hits rehash of his work on our CAS hearing, explaining why it was all wrong and that we will get a ban when the PL are finished with us. So tedious. Not going to link to it but it’s in the independent…

He’s still plugging the old “City picked 2 of the 3 CAS judges” shtick, I see……

 

[madloaf]

I'm no expert on Kant, but for what it's worth here are my thoughts on his failings...

I think Kant’s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge, eg hacked emails. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.

I'd also like to add my thoughts to this.