so this agenda thing.

Status
Not open for further replies.
guess what?
sky sports news have just said that the rags have just released a statement saying they never put any bids in for reus or muller...
this after reus and muller both said that they`ve turned down/snubbed/rejected any offer fom the rags...
doesn`t surprise me that sky are protecting their little darlings.
 
manimanc said:
guess what?
sky sports news have just said that the rags have just released a statement saying they never put any bids in for reus or muller...
this after reus and muller both said that they`ve turned down/snubbed/rejected any offer fom the rags...
doesn`t surprise me that sky are protecting their little darlings.

How does reporting the release of a statement constitute 'protecting'?
 
citizen_maine said:
manimanc said:
guess what?
sky sports news have just said that the rags have just released a statement saying they never put any bids in for reus or muller...
this after reus and muller both said that they`ve turned down/snubbed/rejected any offer fom the rags...
doesn`t surprise me that sky are protecting their little darlings.

How does reporting the release of a statement constitute 'protecting'?
It's the 'way' they report it. If it was our statement they'd be "MCFC allegedly claim not to have made a bid (but we know they're telling fibs).
 
MaxCityBlue said:
citizen_maine said:
manimanc said:
guess what?
sky sports news have just said that the rags have just released a statement saying they never put any bids in for reus or muller...
this after reus and muller both said that they`ve turned down/snubbed/rejected any offer fom the rags...
doesn`t surprise me that sky are protecting their little darlings.

How does reporting the release of a statement constitute 'protecting'?
It's the 'way' they report it. If it was our statement they'd be "MCFC allegedly claim not to have made a bid (but we know they're telling fibs).


Have a lie down
 
MaxCityBlue said:
citizen_maine said:
manimanc said:
guess what?
sky sports news have just said that the rags have just released a statement saying they never put any bids in for reus or muller...
this after reus and muller both said that they`ve turned down/snubbed/rejected any offer fom the rags...
doesn`t surprise me that sky are protecting their little darlings.

How does reporting the release of a statement constitute 'protecting'?
It's the 'way' they report it. If it was our statement they'd be "MCFC c**ts allegedly claim not to have made a bid (but we know the bastards are telling fibs).

Fixed
 
citykev28 said:
Blue Is the Opposite of Blue said:
citykev28 said:
If I banned you from going to any shops selling food for 2 months, would you prefer for the ban to be immediate or to take effect in a month's time?
That analogy doesn't really work, does it? Barcelona won't die without players.

But I'm sure anyone banned from buying anything for a period of time would much prefer to have a chance to prepare. Can you not see that?
Absolutely, and it's exactly why they appealed.

But it isn't a sign of corruption.
 
Blue Is the Opposite of Blue said:
citykev28 said:
Blue Is the Opposite of Blue said:
That analogy doesn't really work, does it? Barcelona won't die without players.

But I'm sure anyone banned from buying anything for a period of time would much prefer to have a chance to prepare. Can you not see that?
Absolutely, and it's exactly why they appealed.

But it isn't a sign of corruption.
It depend on your view of how the world works and what constitutes corruption.
 
Is this thread still going?

Wow. There are folks who believe there ISN'T an anti CITY agenda?
I guess they must also believe in Creationism AND Father Christmas AND The Tooth Fairy AND Ghosts AND UFO's AND that Elvis is still alive selling Chip Barms in Reddish.

Honestly there is more evidence that the above exist than there isn't an Anti City agenda.

They must love the Python's "Argument Sketch" as they seem to practice it every day on here.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Blue Is the Opposite of Blue said:
citykev28 said:
But I'm sure anyone banned from buying anything for a period of time would much prefer to have a chance to prepare. Can you not see that?
Absolutely, and it's exactly why they appealed.

But it isn't a sign of corruption.
It depend on your view of how the world works and what constitutes corruption.
Well, it's corruption of the system from Barca but I don't think UEFA have directed it, if you get me?
 
manimanc said:
guess what?
sky sports news have just said that the rags have just released a statement saying they never put any bids in for reus or muller...
this after reus and muller both said that they`ve turned down/snubbed/rejected any offer fom the rags...
doesn`t surprise me that sky are protecting their little darlings.
If that report is true it suggests both players were tapped-up by our noisome neighbours. Where is UEFA when it's needed?
 
I see Verminous Vickery and indeed the hack pack in general are silent about the omission of Paulinho from the Brazil squad
if Fern had been one of the 13 casualities I'll wager it would have been breaking news on SSN.
 
Blue Is the Opposite of Blue said:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Blue Is the Opposite of Blue said:
Absolutely, and it's exactly why they appealed.

But it isn't a sign of corruption.
It depend on your view of how the world works and what constitutes corruption.
Well, it's corruption of the system from Barca but I don't think UEFA have directed it, if you get me?
I agree with you up to a point.

I don't think there's a conscious, collective arrangement in place either between UEFA and Barcelona, or alternatively any such understanding within the walls of UEFA alone.

Despite the fertile imaginings of some, this isn't how corruption most frequently manifests itself in the high-stakes world of big business. Instead, Barcelona will have 'bought' influence with UEFA through a complex conflation of carrot and stick comprising many, many elements.

In the carrot camp will be the long-standing relationships, reinforced at UEFA get togethers such as the CL draw next week, where Barcelona officials will be at great pains to remind UEFA dignitaries of their commercial value to European football and their place in the footballing food-chain: 'remember what we bring to the table'.

In the stick camp will be veiled, nebulous threats about 'protecting their position' and calculated comments about 'no-one wanting a long legal battle'.

Both these pincer movements will remind UEFA that this isn't Leeds or Portsmouth they're dealing with and the sanctions need to reflect that.

Anyone who thinks UEFA won't genuflect, to some extent, to that posturing, albeit subconsciously, doesn't understand how the world of commerce operates, where compromise is always accommodated if it's in both parties' commercial interests, as is the case here.

Is that corruption? Well, it isn't fair and it isn't equitable, and such an arrangement is as a consequence of the financial might of the beneficiary (Barca) being consciously and successfully exercised to further their own commercial ends.

Sounds like corruption to me.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Blue Is the Opposite of Blue said:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It depend on your view of how the world works and what constitutes corruption.
Well, it's corruption of the system from Barca but I don't think UEFA have directed it, if you get me?
I agree with you up to a point.

I don't think there's a conscious, collective arrangement in place either between UEFA and Barcelona, or alternatively any such understanding within the walls of UEFA alone.

Despite the fertile imaginings of some, this isn't how corruption most frequently manifests itself in the high-stakes world of big business. Instead, Barcelona will have 'bought' influence with UEFA through a complex conflation of carrot and stick comprising many, many elements.

In the carrot camp will be the long-standing relationships, reinforced at UEFA get togethers such as the CL draw next week, where Barcelona officials will be at great pains to remind UEFA dignitaries of their commercial value to European football and their place in the footballing food-chain: 'remember what we bring to the table'.

In the stick camp will be veiled, nebulous threats about 'protecting their position' and calculated comments about 'no-one wanting a long legal battle'.

Both these pincer movements will remind UEFA that this isn't Leeds or Portsmouth they're dealing with and the sanctions need to reflect that.

Anyone who thinks UEFA won't genuflect, to some extent, to that posturing, albeit subconsciously, doesn't understand how the world of commerce operates, where compromise is always accommodated if it's in both parties' commercial interests, as is the case here.

Is that corruption? Well, it isn't fair and it isn't equitable, and such an arrangement is as a consequence of the financial might of the beneficiary being consciously and successfully exercised to further their own commercial ends.

Sounds like corruption to me.
it's really not so complicated - our next attack is just a phone call away
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Blue Is the Opposite of Blue said:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It depend on your view of how the world works and what constitutes corruption.
Well, it's corruption of the system from Barca but I don't think UEFA have directed it, if you get me?
I agree with you up to a point.

I don't think there's a conscious, collective arrangement in place either between UEFA and Barcelona, or alternatively any such understanding within the walls of UEFA alone.

Despite the fertile imaginings of some, this isn't how corruption most frequently manifests itself in the high-stakes world of big business. Instead, Barcelona will have 'bought' influence with UEFA through a complex conflation of carrot and stick comprising many, many elements.

In the carrot camp will be the long-standing relationships, reinforced at UEFA get togethers such as the CL draw next week, where Barcelona officials will be at great pains to remind UEFA dignitaries of their commercial value to European football and their place in the footballing food-chain: 'remember what we bring to the table'.

In the stick camp will be veiled, nebulous threats about 'protecting their position' and calculated comments about 'no-one wanting a long legal battle'.

Both these pincer movements will remind UEFA that this isn't Leeds or Portsmouth they're dealing with and the sanctions need to reflect that.

Anyone who thinks UEFA won't genuflect, to some extent, to that posturing, albeit subconsciously, doesn't understand how the world of commerce operates, where compromise is always accommodated if it's in both parties' commercial interests, as is the case here.

Is that corruption? Well, it isn't fair and it isn't equitable, and such an arrangement is as a consequence of the financial might of the beneficiary (Barca) being consciously and successfully exercised to further their own commercial ends.

Sounds like corruption to me.
Nice story bro, but the sanctions are FIFA's, not UEFA's
 
squirtyflower said:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Blue Is the Opposite of Blue said:
Well, it's corruption of the system from Barca but I don't think UEFA have directed it, if you get me?
I agree with you up to a point.

I don't think there's a conscious, collective arrangement in place either between UEFA and Barcelona, or alternatively any such understanding within the walls of UEFA alone.

Despite the fertile imaginings of some, this isn't how corruption most frequently manifests itself in the high-stakes world of big business. Instead, Barcelona will have 'bought' influence with UEFA through a complex conflation of carrot and stick comprising many, many elements.

In the carrot camp will be the long-standing relationships, reinforced at UEFA get togethers such as the CL draw next week, where Barcelona officials will be at great pains to remind UEFA dignitaries of their commercial value to European football and their place in the footballing food-chain: 'remember what we bring to the table'.

In the stick camp will be veiled, nebulous threats about 'protecting their position' and calculated comments about 'no-one wanting a long legal battle'.

Both these pincer movements will remind UEFA that this isn't Leeds or Portsmouth they're dealing with and the sanctions need to reflect that.

Anyone who thinks UEFA won't genuflect, to some extent, to that posturing, albeit subconsciously, doesn't understand how the world of commerce operates, where compromise is always accommodated if it's in both parties' commercial interests, as is the case here.

Is that corruption? Well, it isn't fair and it isn't equitable, and such an arrangement is as a consequence of the financial might of the beneficiary (Barca) being consciously and successfully exercised to further their own commercial ends.

Sounds like corruption to me.
Nice story bro, but the sanctions are FIFA's, not UEFA's
Yeah, whatever. I've had a long day and I'm pissed.

My point remains, albeit with Barca having less direct influence on FIFA than they would UEFA. They still move in a circle of influence which buys them an ear with the game's decision makers that no other club side in the world could exceed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top