PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

"I see people who reply to their own posts. They don't even know they are replying to their own posts".

You got that right!

Oh Damn. :(

 

[eastmanc]

I don't always agree with Simon Jordan, but he's right when he says that the wage bills for the players are unsustainable (and unjustifiable?). This fact and agents' fees are a major factor in clubs' demise.
I'm waiting for certain clubs' bubbles to burst...

I can't state this any stronger but FUCK SIMON JORDAN.

 

[cityontheup]

Surely!

That’s right but don’t call me surely again

 

[not my fault!]

Nope, the papers are not wrong. It is libel when broadcast.

Then the 19 clubs each need to release a statement counter to Pep’s claims. They can’t say his words are libellous without backing up their belief is the entire opposite. We know they want us punished, they know it too so no chance we get Liverpool or Arsenal releasing statements suggesting they feel City should be treated innocent until proven guilty. Ergo it’s not liable as he’s stated fact, it’s for them to prove they believe so etching different to what Pep stated.

 

[argyle]

View attachment 68869

This is a made up quote. The first bit I think he said but the rest is not true.

 

[eastmanc]

I caught Reddy saying that the charges don't relate to breaking FFP rules but PL rules without highlighting which rules have been broken, with a tone that we're guilty because we've been accused.

What rules, has she made this up.

 

[not my fault!]

This is a made up quote. The first bit I think he said but the rest is not true.

I keep seeing this “the first bit is true” but where does said first bit end? After the first sentence or??? While I realise it’s bullshit, it’d be handy to know the exact bits that are true.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Then the 19 clubs each need to release a statement counter to Pep’s claims. They can’t say his words are libellous without backing up their belief is the entire opposite. We know they want us punished, they know it too so no chance we get Liverpool or Arsenal releasing statements suggesting they feel City should be treated innocent until proven guilty. Ergo it’s not liable as he’s stated fact, it’s for them to prove they believe so etching different to what Pep stated.

Not sure the clubs have said anything have they, certainly not with an attributable name attached.

 

[mccity]

Yep that's what I mean

Cause here makes no sense
'Cause or 'cos would have been correct

Dont mean to be pedantic but other fans will just see it as an error and not the point of it

Cause without an apostrophe is perfectly acceptable in informal British English.

It's the same with the word ain't.

 

[Oldtraffordblue1]

This exposes a wider point around sports journalists and their sources. Historically, when it was a profession which operated under an ethical code of sorts, when a journalist quoted an anonymous source, it was reasonable to conclude that it was bona fide. These sources served a genuine purpose, as it meant people with inside knowledge of a given situation could provide a degree of insight without revealing their identity. The sanctity of a journalist not revealing their sources meant people could whistle-blow without the consequences that would flow from that if their identity was disclosed. This meant information got into the press that would otherwise not. It wasn’t perfect, because people with an agenda could exploit it, but the public could read the article and accept that the source was genuine, even if the motives of the source were not.

These days, given the cesspit that sports journalism has descended into in an unedifying chase for clicks, I think most of these quotes we see are completely made up. My default position is that everything these cunts say is rooted in running a particular click-driven narrative and they will do anything, including making quotes up, to support that narrative.

So now, whenever I see an anonymous quote from a sport journalist, I simply assume it’s made up, and discount it, which is the only sensible and logical approach to follow.

I bet their English school reports started with the line "Johnny has a very good imagination but donesn't know how to spell integriti .....,"

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Don’t know if anyone has already posted this but here is an alternative view from, of all places, The Sun.

City owners arguably the most loved in football, jealous rivals should pipe down

IT HAS always been the most tribal of sports. One where the mood of an entire week can be shaped by 90 minutes. Eternally driven by emotion. And over the past few days we have had further proof of …

www.thesun.co.uk

OK it's The Sun but that writer makes a really good point. There were five clubs behind the scrapping of the gate-sharing agreement and the setting up of the PL - Liverpool, united, Spurs, Everton & Arsenal.

All those clubs have owners who are hated, to a greater of lesser degree, by their fans. At least two of those (Liverpool & united) are actively seeking a sale and two others (Spurs & Everton) might be open to one. Arsenal seem to be stable at the moment but their fans have no great love for Kroenke.

Does make you think that maybe this PL case is deflection pure and simple.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Could the Premier League have not just come to us privately and sorted this all out guilty or not?
Dragging it out in public is very suss it's not them behind it all.

They all know what they’re doing. The PL, the other clubs and the media.

It’s all on purpose.

No matter if we are found Not Guilty of most or every single one of the charges, their damage is already done before we have had the chance to state our case.

 

[wolviedinho]

City should write to the league and demand access to the 19 clubs accounts.

Come on then? Let’s get it all out and see who is hiding what!

Glass houses and all that.

 

[cheekybids]

That is fucking brilliant. The way he squirms in his chair when she calls him out is a great watch.

Our PR team could learn a thing or 2 from that presenter, she’s ace.

Brilliant - who is she? That’s how people should be interviewed.

 

[WRicko]

That came later and is a bit of a mystery. We do not know to whom the foreshadowed sale of shares is directed. They say they want to raise over £800m but we do not know its purpose.

It came later than all the allegations and investigation but before the charges.

Khaldoon seems to say that we know stuff about the other clubs. He said it’s a small world.

Perhaps the other clubs know more about this.

There are a lot of American owners in the Premier League now and I bet this investment is coming from an American tech / entertainment / broadcasters or another company like Silverlake. The American owners could well know this. Or at least have a good idea what’s going on

 

[GaudinoMotors]

This exposes a wider point around sports journalists and their sources. Historically, when it was a profession which operated under an ethical code of sorts, when a journalist quoted an anonymous source, it was reasonable to conclude that it was bona fide. These sources served a genuine purpose, as it meant people with inside knowledge of a given situation could provide a degree of insight without revealing their identity. The sanctity of a journalist not revealing their sources meant people could whistle-blow without the consequences that would flow from that if their identity was disclosed. This meant information got into the press that would otherwise not. It wasn’t perfect, because people with an agenda could exploit it, but the public could read the article and accept that the source was genuine, even if the motives of the source were not.

These days, given the cesspit that sports journalism has descended into in an unedifying chase for clicks, I think most of these quotes we see are completely made up. My default position is that everything these cunts say is rooted in running a particular click-driven narrative and they will do anything, including making quotes up, to support that narrative.

So now, whenever I see an anonymous quote from a sport journalist, I simply assume it’s made up, and discount it, which is the only sensible and logical approach to follow.

But it's true what they say about you!

 

[Deleted member 77198]

OK it's The Sun but that writer makes a really good point. There were five clubs behind the scrapping of the gate-sharing agreement and the setting up of the PL - Liverpool, united, Spurs, Everton & Arsenal.

All those clubs have owners who are hated, to a greater of lesser degree, by their fans. At least two of those (Liverpool & united) are actively seeking a sale and two others (Spurs & Everton) might be open to one. Arsenal seem to be stable at the moment but their fans have no great love for Kroenke.

Does make you think that maybe this PL case is deflection pure and simple.

I think the scrapping of the gate receipts came in the early 80s and I think it was United Liverpool and Arsenal who pushed for that.

Those five clubs you mention, during the years where the setting up of the Prem was taking place, originally colluded together and with ITV to have 75% of the new Premier League TV deal shared between the five of them and the other 25% shared between the remaining 17 clubs (there were 22 clubs in the league at the time).

 

[halfcenturyup]

What rules, has she made this up.

The PL's FFP rules are part of the PL's rules, not surprisngly. So if she actually said that, she is an idiot.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

This is a made up quote. The first bit I think he said but the rest is not true.

So who did write it, because that is libellous.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Martin Lipton making stuff up, surely not....

Ha ha, fucking brilliant! I know the game, he knows the game, you know the game. Stop being silly. As good as an admission its bollocks.