journolud
Well-Known Member
Agree it is a bit off topic but you threw what is effectively a meaningless phrase in or at least without context and now don’t want to explain your use of it. Your prerogative
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
I believe our "weak" media team probably came to the conclusion that by acting it would only make it worse. You can never have the last word if you are outnumbered. Boring but probably the right decision. I hope they just wait for the right moment though, when all this is over and they have facts that are proven.Correct..
The aim was to damage our image in the media and if some of the shit sticks then it was a bonus.
It all started with the Sky Sunday Supplement attack on Mancini and Yaya, Manchester City should have taken action and taken them to court and stopped it dead in the tracks.
Our weak media team did nothing and from that moment on it was a free-for-all, So many witch hunts and claims of cheating, We were even cleared by CAS of any wrongdoings and they still called us cheats,
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
Then they came to the wrong conclusion. Some resistance, last word or not, is better than a complete free hit.I believe our "weak" media team probably came to the conclusion that by acting it would only make it worse. You can never have the last word if you are outnumbered. Boring but probably the right decision. I hope they just wait for the right moment though, when all this is over and they have facts that are proven.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,566
Now I am really confused. E.54 is not referenced in the charges press release aside from within the breach of the entire PSR sections from 2015/16 to 2017/18 but not 13/14 or 14/15. In fact, if there was a distinct alleged breach of FMV why is there no charge on a breach of E.53 from 2013/14 or the equivalent E.54 from 2014/15. That could easily have been added to the charges in bullet 1 or in bullet 4. It is notable that it is not there.View attachment 142076
My official answer is I have parked this because our exchange is confusing people and taking attention away from our much more important agreement on the most serious allegations.
My unofficial answer would be that I'm not here to justify what the PL has referred to the disciplinary process as allegations or not (but if I were to try I would suggest E53 and E54 weren't referred for 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively for the same reason no other FFP breaches were referred for those seasons: the first three year assessment period ended with the 2015/16 season. I suppose it's hard to assess a breach of FFP rules until the first assessment period is over).
I am simply saying the investigation, imo, looked at the related party nature of the sponsorships, that they were presumably
not satisfied with the outcome and so they included the issue in the referred allegations in two places: the first tranche (as one of the areas in which the annual accounts were incomplete or inaccurate) and the FFP tranche (as a breach of E53/54 for certain seasons). It may be wrong, of course, but I'm not sure why it's such a controversial opinion.
Agree it's frustrating. Just believe and hope there is some competence behind their strategy.Then they came to the wrong conclusion. Some resistance, last word or not, is better than a complete free hit.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I recall you have been saying this since the charges were brought, and nothing in the public domain has yet developed to undermine this statement in any way.The process is the punishment.
Bodicoteblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 5,919
Don’t know if you’ve ever heard of ‘rope a dope’.Agree it's frustrating. Just believe and hope there is some competence behind their strategy.
A simple boxing tactic made famous by Muhammad Ali which consisted almost entirely of lying on the ropes and letting your opponent punch himself out then springing into action when they have nothing left to defend themselves and knocking them out.
Incredibly simple and effective.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Only if you can absorb the punches!Don’t know if you’ve ever heard of ‘rope a dope’.
A simple boxing tactic made famous by Muhammad Ali which consisted almost entirely of lying on the ropes and letting your opponent punch himself out then springing into action when they have nothing left to defend themselves and knocking them out.
Incredibly simple and effective.
Bodicoteblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 5,919
You have any doubt??Only if you can absorb the punches!
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Was a more general comment, mate.You have any doubt??
Yes I think we can absorb the punches, I just worry that we won’t, as you phrased it, spring into action as stridently and purposefully as I would like if this goes comprehensively our way. Think the club are, overall, too diffident with their comms, and I fear this MO won’t materially change if we are vindicated.
More than happy to be wrong on that though.