why me? Blue Manchester
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 707
Quite simply,,,,jealous bastards the lot of them ffs
I am genuine but I won't be sticking around (not that any of you will care). This doesn't seem the place for me as a non City fan. Far too much hostility.
I don't really agree that's what inflated means. If tesco offered 60m a year and etihad matched it, then they have paid what they thought represented fair value. It doesn't matter if they could afford it. We will never know with the shirt and stadium sponsor is really worth, which is a bit of a shame, because the owners obviously want it to be etihad.Inflated means larger than it should be. If Etihad literally don't have the money to give us 60m and we're getting it from elsewhere channeled through them then it is inflated.
It's also seemingly legal based on UEFA's rules if they've agreed on the value, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
It can be described as inflated accurately regardless of whether we're innocent or not.
Personally I think it might be time to change the Etihad sponsorship on the shirt at least. It's a tarnished name, and getting a legit 3rd party like Nissan would go a decent way to making the commercial revenue more legit.
From what I had seen in the media, talked about in pubs etc without ever having heard the City side, is that you were dining out on Mansour's "Oil money".Don't leave
I want to know what your thoughts are as a neutral supporter of a lower league team
You're the fan who's being fed the information through the press/media
In your first post you used the phrase "financially doping" What is your understanding of that phrase and how long do you think it's been going on for with regard to Manchester City?
Is it just me that kinda likes being hated by everyone whilst hoovering up the trophies with the best manager in the world?
Is it just me that kinda likes being hated by everyone whilst hoovering up the trophies with the best manager in the world?
It looks like City are saying that UEFA are not competent to look at the evidence. So, if this is not going to CAS, which you are saying, where will it end up. There has to be some kind of ‘court’ that will look at all the evidence and rule on it. But who will it be? ECJ?