PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

BongoBlue said:
From our "friends" at RTE today - apologies if already posted:

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2023/1127/1418668-manchester-city-fans-sportswashing/

Well I guess BM is famous now: we are linked in this article. Apparently for this "study", they wanted to see how the average City fan was able to justify our stance about our (brilliant) ownership. Warning, there are links to Delooney and David Conn in here also.
Click to expand...
Surely yesterday's F1 in Abu Dhabi has been commented on by messieurs Delooney and Nostrils Harris, I expect they was tweeting like no tomorrow at the sportswashing going on in F1?

No? Nothing? Oh what a fuckin surprise.
 
BongoBlue said:
From our "friends" at RTE today - apologies if already posted:

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2023/1127/1418668-manchester-city-fans-sportswashing/

Well I guess BM is famous now: we are linked in this article. Apparently for this "study", they wanted to see how the average City fan was able to justify our stance about our (brilliant) ownership. Warning, there are links to Delooney and David Conn in here also.
Click to expand...
We are able to justify it principally because there isn’t a shred of fucking evidence in the public domain supporting the club’s guilt. Nothing. Nada. Fuck all. That’s much easier to justify than a presumption of guilt based on the same paucity of supporting evidence. The former is the legal default position in such circumstances. That is the justification and the position can always be revisited based on the evidential position changing.

The real question is, how can anyone justify a presumption of guilt when there isn’t any evidence to lead them to that conclusion?

It really isn’t rocket science.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
We are able to justify it principally because there isn’t a shred of fucking evidence in the public domain supporting the club’s guilt. Nothing. Nada. Fuck all. That’s much easier to justify than a presumption of guilt based on the same paucity of supporting evidence. The former is the legal default position in such circumstances. That is the justification and the position can always be revisited based on the evidential position changing.

The real question is, how can anyone justify a presumption of guilt when there isn’t any evidence to lead them to that conclusion?

It really isn’t rocket science.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Unfortunately, except for a very select few of so-called "journalists", we are guilty as charged. Because that is what their baying customers want to hear.

Can't wait to see their reaction when we are cleared.
 
cheekybids said:
It’s also interesting that they were going to fudge the figures & let them off £40m……
Click to expand...
I think this phrase sums up the pile of shite that the article is "Instances of Man City fans harassing journalists (both online and in person) who have dared to criticise their club's ownership attest to the potential of sportswashing as a weapon with the power to distort media coverage and, thus, avoid accountability. "

Should actually read "Man City fans presenting facts to challenge the lies and myths put forward by 'journalists" who publish articles full of baseless lies without a shred of evidence presented"

"Sheffield Hallam University" christ that study has less value and more bias than a 10 year old United supporters
school project.
 
Jam Tomorrow said:
Wow tbh I always thought the £20m breach was bullshit as they had posted mega losses, they also seemed to get away with a COVID write off far in excess of similar sized clubs like Villa and Newcastle. The original figures I see to recall were akin to a £200m breach.

the notion they would spend £40m on a stadium before planning permission had even been granted seems like bullshit as well.

looks like the ten point deduction was lenient after all. Also shows the Everton only got one charge compared with City’s 115 is bollox, I would guess they could easily have had more charges than us if the cartel stooges wanted to go after them.
Click to expand...
This why 115 instead of picking one strong case and bring forward ? has been bothering me since day one. It’s about quantity and smear campaign. 115 charges are for rest of fans beside city who have no interest or knowledge about these fucking 115 bitches .This is premeditated attack however you slice it.
Soriano is the most qualified and experienced boss you can find out there and to say you have been shit for 115 times is plain and simple personal attack on him and his integrity.
 
Chi-town blues said:
This why 115 instead of picking one strong case and bring forward ? has been bothering me since day one. It’s about quantity and smear campaign. 115 charges are for rest of fans beside city who have no interest or knowledge about these fucking 115 bitches .This is premeditated attack however you slice it.
Soriano is the most qualified and experienced boss you can find out there and to say you have been shit for 115 times is plain and simple personal attack on him and his integrity.
Click to expand...
In reality there are only 5 charges that have been sub-divided into 115 mini charges to make it look as bad as possible and get the frothing brain dead dippers/rags/tarquins worked up. There are 30 separate mini charges for lack of co-operation alone.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
We are able to justify it principally because there isn’t a shred of fucking evidence in the public domain supporting the club’s guilt. Nothing. Nada. Fuck all. That’s much easier to justify than a presumption of guilt based on the same paucity of supporting evidence. The former is the legal default position in such circumstances. That is the justification and the position can always be revisited based on the evidential position changing.

The real question is, how can anyone justify a presumption of guilt when there isn’t any evidence to lead them to that conclusion?

It really isn’t rocket science.
Click to expand...
This is the UEFA case 2.0. I don't recall any journo failing to pile on City with an presumption of guilt or considering for a minute that City might have a case or might be innocent. They all ended up with egg on their face then and let's all hope for similar outcome with the PL charges.
 
laserblue said:
In reality there are only 5 charges that have been sub-divided into 115 mini charges to make it look as bad as possible and get the frothing brain dead dippers/rags/tarquins worked up. There are 30 separate mini charges for lack of co-operation alone.
Click to expand...

It totals up to more than 115 too, I’ve no idea where that number actually came from.
 
Dannyblue52 said:
The interesting aspect of this case is on what basis does the commission determine that Everton gained an advantage when spending more. Who can say that they got more points when the spend was only 20 m over 3 years. Spend does not guarantee more points in a season. Rightly a fine is inappropriate. Surely a total ban on transfer signing for say 2- 3 years would be more appropriate. This would really impact on their performances on the field.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting point, to me as a lyman it's not a sound argument because we are dealing with so many variables, some teams might spend very little and avoid relegation and some may (and have) spent a lot and been relegated, the more you think about it, it's not a sound argument if it was PSG would have won the champions league year upon year
 
BedsBlue68 said:
I think this phrase sums up the pile of shite that the article is "Instances of Man City fans harassing journalists (both online and in person) who have dared to criticise their club's ownership attest to the potential of sportswashing as a weapon with the power to distort media coverage and, thus, avoid accountability. "

Should actually read "Man City fans presenting facts to challenge the lies and myths put forward by 'journalists" who publish articles full of baseless lies without a shred of evidence presented"

"Sheffield Hallam University" christ that study has less value and more bias than a 10 year old United supporters
school project.
Click to expand...
"dared to criticise" WTAF!!
Was unaware we live in a dictatorship...do they think the Sheikh has people trying to put fucking Novichok on their door handles?
These cunts aided and abetted every single step of the way by red top club's propaganda machines in cahoots with their media shill surrogates
My heart really fucking bleeds for them....

RTE....Red Top Empathisers
 
Blue Mist said:
Dear Mr Burnham,
I accept you are a season ticket holder at Everton and are upset about the way your club has been treated. However, let me remind you, in case you have forgotten, what geographical area you are in charge of. Manchester City F.C. is in Manchester, the name is a big clue. The owners have put millions into your City and changed a chemical waste land into a vibrant area and yet they are, to use local terminology, getting the shit kicked out of them by the Premier League. Is it at all possible that for once you could represent people and businesses in Manchester. Just once isn't a lot to ask and then you can go back to moaning about how badly your own club is being fucked over.

Yours Blue Mist.

P.S. Why didn't you run for the Mayor of Liverpool job because you do fuck all for us.
Click to expand...
Fight fire with fire.
 
supercity88 said:
If you were an owner of a club settled into the PL you'd have voted for it on the basis it would help ensure new money didn't bring rivals in that could lead you to have to spend more to compete. You could also ensure you didn't have to spend too much money from your own pocket on new players and give fans the "FFP doesn't allow us" excuse. Owners like consistent profits coming in, and FFP was great to keep the established clubs in the league and stifle others.
Click to expand...
Sad but true.
 
Chi-town blues said:
This why 115 instead of picking one strong case and bring forward ? has been bothering me since day one. It’s about quantity and smear campaign. 115 charges are for rest of fans beside city who have no interest or knowledge about these fucking 115 bitches .This is premeditated attack however you slice it.
Soriano is the most qualified and experienced boss you can find out there and to say you have been shit for 115 times is plain and simple personal attack on him and his integrity.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

115 is a ridiculous number and when we beat these charges the media will never let it go. HOW DID CITY GET AWAY WITH 115 CHARGES!

If it had been one charge and it was dealt with, nobody would care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top