PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

uweuweuwe said:
I think it helped that the Headteacher (Mr Dempsey when I was a pupil) worked on the turnstiles at maine road. on a side note one of the priest at christ the king in the 80s was a fr Walsh who was a big blue and hated the the rags with a passion.
Click to expand...
Mr Dempsey was headteacher while I was there, until I got into the juniors. Father Denhenny (sp?) was the priest.
 
mancboy said:
And thank you for entirely proving my point, well done
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20250623_174451_Samsung Internet.jpg
Now, there are many parallels to be drawn from religion vs aethiest in this thread.
The premier league are claiming that we are guilty of something.
We say "prove it" and 5000 x 20 posts later here we are talking about corned beef and religion.
If you remove the legalities and rulings, it is exactly the same.
Religion claims to be something. Sceptics ask for proof of this claim. But no proof comes. Because it is unprovable, as well as highly improbable.
BTW, the only reason there will be a provable outcome in City's case is because there is evidence.
Religion claiming to be in authority because of something that makes them 'feel funny inside' is just not going to cut it.

So, if I may.... it is not the bleeding same.
Cheers.
Anyone who agrees with me can put cash in the collection box on the way out. I can also dunk your kid's head in a sink for an extra tenner.

Also calling @Boris Yeltsin to the thread (although, I'm sure he doesn't need electronic thingymebobs for this, the 'big man' will just tap him on the shoulder and send him my way).
 
burning blue soul said:
View attachment 160879
Now, there are many parallels to be drawn from religion vs aethiest in this thread.
The premier league are claiming that we are guilty of something.
We say "prove it" and 5000 x 20 posts later here we are talking about corned beef and religion.
If you remove the legalities and rulings, it is exactly the same.
Religion claims to be something. Sceptics ask for proof of this claim. But no proof comes. Because it is unprovable, as well as highly improbable.
BTW, the only reason there will be a provable outcome in City's case is because there is evidence.
Religion claiming to be in authority because of something that makes them 'feel funny inside' is just not going to cut it.

So, if I may.... it is not the bleeding same.
Cheers.
Anyone who agrees with me can put cash in the collection box on the way out. I can also dunk your kid's head in a sink for an extra tenner.

Also calling @Boris Yeltsin to the thread (although, I'm sure he doesn't need electronic thingymebobs for this, the 'big man' will just tap him on the shoulder and send him my way).
Click to expand...

The Pope and an atheist are having a discussion...

and it slowly gets more and more heated until eventually the Pope can't take it anymore and he says to the atheist - "You are like a man who is blindfolded, in a dark room who is looking for a black cat that isn't there."

The atheist laughs and says - "With all due respect, we sound awfully similar. You are like a man who is blindfolded, in a dark room who is looking for a black cat that isn't there but the difference is you've found it.

(Dave Allen)
 
burning blue soul said:
View attachment 160879
Now, there are many parallels to be drawn from religion vs aethiest in this thread.
The premier league are claiming that we are guilty of something.
We say "prove it" and 5000 x 20 posts later here we are talking about corned beef and religion.
If you remove the legalities and rulings, it is exactly the same.
Religion claims to be something. Sceptics ask for proof of this claim. But no proof comes. Because it is unprovable, as well as highly improbable.
BTW, the only reason there will be a provable outcome in City's case is because there is evidence.
Religion claiming to be in authority because of something that makes them 'feel funny inside' is just not going to cut it.

So, if I may.... it is not the bleeding same.
Cheers.
Anyone who agrees with me can put cash in the collection box on the way out. I can also dunk your kid's head in a sink for an extra tenner.

Also calling @Boris Yeltsin to the thread (although, I'm sure he doesn't need electronic thingymebobs for this, the 'big man' will just tap him on the shoulder and send him my way).
Click to expand...
U literally keep proving my point, u say people talk bout religion and sceptics ask for proof but religious people cant provide it because it is unproveable by the exact same token a sceptic could be asked to prove their assertion that all religion was false and once again couldnt prove it because once again it is unproveable, both arguments are exactly the same just different perceptions and viewpoints but good try.

With regards to ur balance of probabilities it is the same probability either way that their is something in it or nothing at all depending on ur viewpoint and perception and both are unproveable.

Once again thanks for entirely making my point for me, well done.
 
mancboy said:
U literally keep proving my point, u say people talk bout religion and sceptics ask for proof but religious people cant provide it because it is unproveable by the exact same token a sceptic could be asked to prove their assertion that all religion was false and once again couldnt prove it because once again it is unproveable, both arguments are exactly the same just different perceptions and viewpoints but good try.

With regards to ur balance of probabilities it is the same probability either way that their is something in it or nothing at all depending on ur viewpoint and perception and both are unproveable.

Once again thanks for entirely making my point for me, well done.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of evidence-based science, then?
 
mancboy said:
U literally keep proving my point, u say people talk bout religion and sceptics ask for proof but religious people cant provide it because it is unproveable by the exact same token a sceptic could be asked to prove their assertion that all religion was false and once again couldnt prove it because once again it is unproveable, both arguments are exactly the same just different perceptions and viewpoints but good try.

With regards to ur balance of probabilities it is the same probability either way that their is something in it or nothing at all depending on ur viewpoint and perception and both are unproveable.

Once again thanks for entirely making my point for me, well done.
Click to expand...
If there was a God this thread would get back on track.
 
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