UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[PrestwichBlue2]

Mate it's the BBC.
Biggest
Bellends
Corporation.

Expect nothing but sarcasm and cheap shots from them ****s.

The albeeb sports department takes its narrative from the rag PR machine. Yesterday they were claiming that Greenwood was the second coming of christ the redeemer himself.

 

[Blue_eyes]

Lets try to lighten the stress with some topical songs.....I"ll start with a positive one(at least the first couple of lines).

 

[HolisticJim]

They will say very little if the conclusion is favourable because we have to move on. But if we lose the case, I expect us to mount a legal challenge against the entire self-serving, monopoly seeking bullshit that is FFPR. We may be banned. But we can still take UEFA out and cost them a fortune in legal fees by doing so.

I’m getting ahead of myself and I shouldn’t.
I’m just praying

 

[whipper]

Getting the counter-argument out there before the media storm begins. Nobody's going to stick up for us except us.

A counter would be lost in a sea of aggression from the media if we lost.

 

[@BluePhil8]

The BBC report, as usual is riddled with inaccuracies and unfair. It states that UEFA's case against City is based on "thousands of leaked emails." That's not true as Der Spiegel only published a very small number and there has been no suggestion there are any more.
The BBC report also states that City have been accused of "inflating sponsor deals above their true value" That's not true either. Although the misleading phrase "overstated " is mentioned by UEFA the allegations are nothing to do with the value of the deals. They are about where the sponsor money came from. Of course we haven't seen all the evidence but neither has the BBC so how can they report this as fact.

But how can we expect a tiny non tax payer funded organisation like the BBC to have enough staffing, time or resources to Google ‘Man City UEFA charges’?

That would surely take 2 minutes, which sadly the Biased Bullshitting Cünts don’t have.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

And how would they expect to do that?

I'd prefer not to engage with you on this.

 

[stonerblue]

Horrible ****s. It’s happened to us

FYI, once you replace your patio doors go for a PatLock https://www.patlock.co.uk/

in the meantime.

 

[stonerblue]

I don't wish to be the harbinger of bad news, but I've just walked past the Etihad, and Gazza is sat outside with his fishing rod and a box of fried chicken.

No cider?

 

[Pam]

T

In a world of wrong, this stands head and shoulders above all the rest.

Reputation matters a great deal to our owners, unless of course you believe that ADUG have invested all this money out of a deep seated love for Manchester, perhaps a member of the family once got lucky on Grey Mare Lane?

Of course the laws are wrong, of that there is little doubt but nobody asked City to join the club, we took our seat at the table and now we're kicking it over, hardly surprising then that this has irked a few people.

A one year ban, should such a thing even be possible would be a disaster for City, the owners will lose face and who knows how they will react, this is a family that aren't used to losing.

That makes zero sense! They've invested far too much into the club to quit now. They aren't going to be making shitty business decisions because of a stitch up. The fight for restored reputation will go on and next time it will be the whole FFPR racket itself that will be on trial. The owners are big on reputation alright but that works in our favour. You don't rescue reputation by giving up and slinking away.

 

[Pam]

We'll hopefully we will never have to find out.

I think that would be absolutely amazing.

Do you?

God, yes!