Salty reactions from other fans and the media

WestGorton said:
Credit to Sheffield United; Sheffield Wednesday and who would have thought it Leeds United. Pretty much behind City.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Leeds are about 15 years behind us on the rollercoaster. And they have a rich owner who's spent a lot. How did Wolves come out? I've seen some of their fans supporting us, but I don't know about the club itself.
 
Bluekiwi said:
That must have been an interloper - scousers don't know how to spell words like that.
Click to expand...
Ask them do they know the definition of death, murder, destruction, racism, vandalism, money laundering, stanley park stadium and the biggest of them all acceptance of blame.
Get to the shops buy plenty of candles, they will be needed next season you scouse scum!
 
Keeper! said:
Ask them do they know the definition of death, murder, destruction, racism, vandalism, money laundering, stanley park stadium and the biggest of them all acceptance of blame.
Get to the shops buy plenty of candles, they will be needed next season you scouse scum!
Click to expand...
You forgot to add elder abuse.
 
GAZZA said:
Should call it 'The F**k EUFA' Stadium so they hear it on every match report.
Click to expand...

I hope someone up in the booth at the Stadium has the balls to slip in a 10 minute long CD, or streamed recording of booing, about 5 seconds after the teams walk out for the Real game.
 
Keeper! said:
Ask them do they know the definition of death, murder, destruction, racism, vandalism, money laundering, stanley park stadium and the biggest of them all acceptance of blame.
Get to the shops buy plenty of candles, they will be needed next season you scouse scum!
Click to expand...
There is at least one word they know the definition of, even if they cannot spell it, ------ dippa
 
Regarding the media reaction, even though most don't deserve fairness/would never offer it to City fans in the reverse:

If we are being fair, isn't some of the reaction human nature? Nobody likes being on the wrong side of something, of course their eyes scanned the CAS verdict statement, for something, anything to cling on to. "Ah time-barred, that's it"

I have been asking myself, had this gone the other way, if I'd have been able to hold my hands up, just based on the initial brief statement. Not likely at all, I'd be asking for proof, details, immediately.

The real test is if the details in the coming days, do spell out that there was no technicality to it. That City did not do what they were accused of, for the central element of the case.

Will they then be big enough to say: You know what I can see they didn't do it, I had been convinced UEFA had something but they never did. No clinging on to a smaller irrelevant issue to save face.

I think if UEFA had hard evidence that the money did come from Sheikh Mansour/ADUG, eventually City fans would start looking at the club. Maybe move onto to FFP being a scam, rules that only the elite really wanted etc.

These journalist haven't lost much themselves in this, not the way City fans would have felt had it been upheld. So that should be a much easier task. Perhaps we should wait for the details to emerge and judge them on the reaction to that.
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
Regarding the media reaction, even though most don't deserve fairness/would never offer it to City fans in the reverse:

If we are being fair, isn't some of the reaction human nature? Nobody likes being on the wrong side of something, of course their eyes scanned the CAS verdict statement, for something, anything to cling on to. "Ah time-barred, that's it"

I have been asking myself if I'd have been able to hold my hands up, just based on the initial brief statement. Not likely at all, I'd be asking for proof, details, immediately.

The real test is if the details in the coming days, do spell out that there was no technicality to it. That City did not do what they were accused of, for the central element of the case.

Will they then be big enough to say: You know what I can see they didn't do it, I had been convinced UEFA had something but they never did. No clinging on to a smaller irrelevant issue to save face.

I think if UEFA had hard evidence that the money did come from Sheikh Mansour/ADUG, eventually City fans would start looking at the club. Maybe move onto to FFP being scam, rules that only the elite really wanted etc.

These journalist haven't lost much themselves in this, not the way City fans would have felt had it been upheld. So that should be a much easier task. Perhaps we should wait for the details to emerge and judge them on the reaction to that.
Click to expand...
Why did they take the 'wrong side of something' in the first place?
 
GAZZA said:
Why did they take the 'wrong side of something' in the first place?
Click to expand...
People rarely think they are on the wrong side of something, sometimes they just pick a side and have to stick with it. Unless they are proven wrong.

Some(we know who they are) will never hold their hands up but others should probably be given the chance to admit they were wrong, is what I was saying.
 
M18CTID said:
Deleted embedded tweet
Click to expand...

Only saw this post on Tuesday morning and it wouldn't display as the relevant Twitter account is apparently now suspended. Out of interest, what was it?

M18CTID said:
Has that bitter scouse **** Tony Evans popped up yet? I might ask him how his trusted UEFA source could get something so fucking wrong
Click to expand...

Yes, he's popped up, and very entertainingly so - it's absolutely faithful to his trademark mix of comical bias and a laughable lack of understanding of the issues.

If anyone can bear to click on that execrable site with all the embedded videos and horrible adverts, the link is here: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...-uefa-champions-league-news-ffp-a9615846.html - for those who don't want to visit it, I've copied some edited highlights into my post below.

Most of [the questions surrounding UEFA after the CAS verdict] could be answered by publishing the original verdict of the Investigatory Chamber, the independent group who came to the conclusion that City deserved to charged with violating fiscal rules.
Petrusha comment - Bring it on!​

Right from the start, City said that the statute of limitations for any transgressions had passed. Cas agreed that “most of the alleged breaches … were either not established or time-barred.” A huge part of City’s defence took the lines of “it’s too late to do anything about it,” arguing that the five-year cap on taking action had been exceeded. Cas agreed. Why did Uefa not spot this? ... There is anger in Uefa circles and a belief that City got “off on a technicality.”
Petrusha comment - There's an obvious reason that UEFA chose to throw mud at City in the form of time-barred charges despite knowing that they'd never stick, and that's because they weren't confident about the charges that weren't time-barred, so they tried to smear the club with insinuations of systematic wrongdoing over a protracted period. I think we'll find out if/when the reasons for the award are published that the time-barred allegations were equally as problematic in evidential terms as those that were considered not proven. Maybe I'm wrong, but we'll see. For sure, Evans can't assert the contrary with any credibility at this stage, yet assert it he does.

City understood the gravity of the situation from the start and have fought their corner hard. ... Uefa, by contrast, seemed remarkably sanguine about events. The club changed the thrust of their defence at Cas, something that had to be agreed by both sides. Uefa allowed it.
There was some disquiet that the governing body did not object to the presence of Andrew McDougall, a Paris-based QC, on the arbitration panel. McDougall’s firm, White & Case, are listed on The Legal 500 website as having Etihad Airways and a number of Abu Dhabi government-owned businesses as key clients. Uefa was right not to kick up a fuss because McDougall’s integrity is beyond question, but while City used every weapon available to them, Nyon seemed to be playing fair.
Petrusha comment - I love the false narrative of plucky UEFA as bastions of probity, scrupulous in ensuring fairness in their conduct notwithstanding the ruthlessness of big, bad City. What a crock of shit! Oh, and if you don't want to question McDougall's integrity, why mention his firm's clients at all?

Cas’s verdict hardly exonerates City. The Football Leaks website released thousands of hacked emails two years ago that were published by Der Spiegel, the German magazine. These illegally-obtained documents were inadmissible in the proceedings but the details hang around the club like a bad smell. One internal communication regarding finances remarks “we can do what we want.” The sense that City operated on the margins of the rules has not been brushed aside by the ruling.
Petrusha comment - Illegally obtained emails aren't usually inadmissible before the CAS (there are several precedents for that) and other sources report that they WERE accepted in this case so that assertion. The rest of this is akin to wailing: "Wah, wah, wah, it's not fair."​
 
petrusha said:
Only saw this post on Tuesday morning and it wouldn't display as the relevant Twitter account is apparently now suspended. Out of interest, what was it?



Yes, he's popped up, and very entertainingly so - it's absolutely faithful to his trademark mix of comical bias and a laughable lack of understanding of the issues.

If anyone can bear to click on that execrable site with all the embedded videos and horrible adverts, the link is here: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...-uefa-champions-league-news-ffp-a9615846.html - for those who don't want to visit it, I've copied some edited highlights into my post below.

Most of [the questions surrounding UEFA after the CAS verdict] could be answered by publishing the original verdict of the Investigatory Chamber, the independent group who came to the conclusion that City deserved to charged with violating fiscal rules.
Petrusha comment - Bring it on!​

Right from the start, City said that the statute of limitations for any transgressions had passed. Cas agreed that “most of the alleged breaches … were either not established or time-barred.” A huge part of City’s defence took the lines of “it’s too late to do anything about it,” arguing that the five-year cap on taking action had been exceeded. Cas agreed. Why did Uefa not spot this? ... There is anger in Uefa circles and a belief that City got “off on a technicality.”
Petrusha comment - There's an obvious reason that UEFA chose to throw mud at City in the form of time-barred charges despite knowing that they'd never stick, and that's because they weren't confident about the charges that weren't time-barred, so they tried to smear the club with insinuations of systematic wrongdoing over a protracted period. I think we'll find out if/when the reasons for the award are published that the time-barred allegations were equally as problematic in evidential terms as those that were considered not proven. Maybe I'm wrong, but we'll see. For sure, Evans can't assert the contrary with any credibility at this stage, yet assert it he does.

City understood the gravity of the situation from the start and have fought their corner hard. ... Uefa, by contrast, seemed remarkably sanguine about events. The club changed the thrust of their defence at Cas, something that had to be agreed by both sides. Uefa allowed it.
There was some disquiet that the governing body did not object to the presence of Andrew McDougall, a Paris-based QC, on the arbitration panel. McDougall’s firm, White & Case, are listed on The Legal 500 website as having Etihad Airways and a number of Abu Dhabi government-owned businesses as key clients. Uefa was right not to kick up a fuss because McDougall’s integrity is beyond question, but while City used every weapon available to them, Nyon seemed to be playing fair.
Petrusha comment - I love the false narrative of plucky UEFA as bastions of probity, scrupulous in ensuring fairness in their conduct notwithstanding the ruthlessness of big, bad City. What a crock of shit! Oh, and if you don't want to question McDougall's integrity, why mention his firm's clients at all?

Cas’s verdict hardly exonerates City. The Football Leaks website released thousands of hacked emails two years ago that were published by Der Spiegel, the German magazine. These illegally-obtained documents were inadmissible in the proceedings but the details hang around the club like a bad smell. One internal communication regarding finances remarks “we can do what we want.” The sense that City operated on the margins of the rules has not been brushed aside by the ruling.
Petrusha comment - Illegally obtained emails aren't usually inadmissible before the CAS (there are several precedents for that) and other sources report that they WERE accepted in this case so that assertion. The rest of this is akin to wailing: "Wah, wah, wah, it's not fair."​
Click to expand...
Nice one
Was paricularly struck with "I.C. the independent group"

Ahh that would be the one hand picked by Gill, Parry et al....
 
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