bluemoon32
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 22,680
- Team supported
- City
Ban us already, just do it and we can all move on and talk about something more important....football
I looked at doing this but they seem to say they handle compaints for TV and radio but not "what people write or post on the internet"?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/what-is-ofcom
I informed the BBC it was factually incorrect 7 hours ago but they have still not corrected it. I don't think it's a coincidence no reporter put a name to the article?
Pep must know this is why City fans are at odds with UEFA. At least one of the reasons anyway.
We want to win the CL but we don't believe we are being given a fair chance.
God UEFA are in a mess over this.
Nick McGeehan here, folks, claiming that the 'CAS ... says [MCFC] approach "artificial and misleading" and "legally wrong"' when that text appears in para 51 of the CAS judgment clearly qualified by the staement that "The submissions of UEFA ... may be summarised as follows".
So, in representing UEFA's submissions as the impartial view of the CAS, is he simply mistaken, or being disingenuous, or being intellectually dishonest? I know what I think.
Just been to have a look and it looks the same as it did last night. Looked at football> all clubs> Manchester City
We wont be banned if they had enough evidence they would have done it months back. UEFA are looking at ways of saving face and trying to come out of this with some sort of vindication to investigate us again. The plonker they chose to chair the investigation fucked up big time going public on some yank news paper about his findings and what he was going to recommend as a punishing to us ! As soon as the mole for Despiegel was jailed for fraudulent hacking into we sites the case fell apart and that knob of a chairman lost all credibility!Ban us already, just do it and we can all move on and talk about something more important....football
Nick McGeehan here, folks, claiming that the 'CAS ... says [MCFC] approach "artificial and misleading" and "legally wrong"' when that text appears in para 51 of the CAS judgment clearly qualified by the staement that "The submissions of UEFA ... may be summarised as follows".
So, in representing UEFA's submissions as the impartial view of the CAS, is he simply mistaken, or being disingenuous, or being intellectually dishonest? I know what I think.
Don't be silly, that would involve Vicky actually doing some work, never going to happen.