Mase Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said: 2018 is when the investigations started. Keep up. What? The investigation began years before that. You can’t appeal something that you haven’t been charged with Imagine going into court tomorrow “yeah the police might charge me with murder but I’ve not been charged yet but can I appeal just in case” I’m guessing you’re not all there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mase Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: It’s not ‘if I say so’. It’s a fact. Man City are state-owned and funded by oil wealth. NUFC are state-owned. Separation is a load of bollocks, particularly when you’re dealing with dictatorships. Tell yourself whatever fairy tales you need so that those nasty Man Utd fans having a pop don’t get you down. But Man City’s success is entirely down to the oil wealth of a tiny dictatorship, which has in all likelihood spent the last decade operating outside the rules that others have had to follow. Don't forget the #FreePalestine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Mase said: Just spotted this on one of our forums. We’ve been asking for the club to stick up for itself for years. They’ve played the “if we just don’t say anything they’ll leave us alone” card for too long. The nonsense Carragher has been allowed to spout - he should be number one on that list. Closely followed by Simon Jordan. It’s all well and good having opinions but some of these professional pundits have crossed the line a few times. The constant “state owned” line from Carragher - when we’re not owned by one entity let alone state, the underlying racist tones of “oil money” thats thrown about, and still is by Man U fans that mustn’t understand what INEOS do. I for one can’t wait! I don't think the points you're making hold much weight tbh others aren't a good look. Eg Abramovic was "oil money" too and of course Carragher should be allowed to say certain things providing it's legal. Fans having to almost be supporters of their club's legal, HR, and finance teams as well as the team on the pitch is absolutely shite, I would hope that most reasonable football fans, when they put their biases aside, can agree on that. Edited April 26 by Kid Icarus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 2 hours ago, Whitley mag said: https://www.footballinsider247.com/newcastle-united-lead-premier-league-rebel-group-ahead-of-crunch-vote-sources/ If true, there will be 1 club who will do what the top 6 want and prevent it from going through. We need 14 clubs to vote in favour, so that’s everyone outside the top 6. 1 of them will fall in line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 6 minutes ago, Mase said: Don't forget the #FreePalestine You’ve lost me on that one. Are you suggesting that I don’t want to see a free Palestine? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mase Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: I don't think the points you're making hold much weight tbh others aren't a good look. Eg Abramovic was "oil money" too and of course Carragher should be allowed to say certain things providing it's legal. Fans having to almost be supporters of their club's legal, HR, and finance teams as well as the team on the pitch is absolutely shite, I would hope that most reasonable football fans, when they put their biases aside, can agree on that. Hardly anyone referred to Chelsea as “Oil Money”. It’s night and day compared with City. I’ve heard a lot of “Arab money” as well - which couldn’t be more obvious. You guys will understand soon RE: the comments by Carragher and clan. Agree with your second point 100% Edited April 26 by Mase Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 It well never go through on Monday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mase Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: You’ve lost me on that one. Are you suggesting that I don’t want to see a free Palestine? No, hence the “don’t forget…” ”keep up” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 On 25/04/2024 at 18:35, timeEd32 said: It puts a ceiling on what the very top clubs can do. If you're going to have all of the other rules then it makes sense from a sporting perspective, otherwise the gap between the top and bottom will grow forever. It being a 5x multiple is less helpful than if it were 4x or 4.5x, but that's just the power the top clubs have. What do these clubs do with the excess money they generate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 14 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: I don’t think it is racist at all to question state ownership of football clubs - particularly when those states are dictatorships with appalling human rights records This type of trope gets trotted out all the time and it's wrong. The murder and crime rates of Islamic countries compared to 'Western' countries is horrifically stark. What's the measure of human rights? I believe PIF are playing the long game. They are building the foundations off field and are making progress with transfers with an eye to the now and future, whilst staying within the corrupt rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 40 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: What do these clubs do with the excess money they generate? Turn a profit? Invest in infrastructure? Academy? Community? Women’s football? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 8 minutes ago, Convict said: This type of trope gets trotted out all the time and it's wrong. The murder and crime rates of Islamic countries compared to 'Western' countries is horrifically stark. What's the measure of human rights? I believe PIF are playing the long game. They are building the foundations off field and are making progress with transfers with an eye to the now and future, whilst staying within the corrupt rules. I’ve literally zero time for moral relativism. Here’s a test for you; write something hyper critical about the govt on your Facebook feed right now and see what happens. Then go to Saudi Arabia and do the same about the govt there. I mean, you won’t be able to use messenger over there, because obviously that can be used as a means of undermining the govt. But stick something on Facebook calling for a change in govt. Then let me know what it’s like being publically lashed, and remind yourself that had you been a Saudi citizen, the likely punishment would be execution. Then come back and tell your half-baked shite about how everywhere is basically the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 23 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: I’ve literally zero time for moral relativism. Here’s a test for you; write something hyper critical about the govt on your Facebook feed right now and see what happens. Then go to Saudi Arabia and do the same about the govt there. I mean, you won’t be able to use messenger over there, because obviously that can be used as a means of undermining the govt. But stick something on Facebook calling for a change in govt. Then let me know what it’s like being publically lashed, and remind yourself that had you been a Saudi citizen, the likely punishment would be execution. Then come back and tell your half-baked shite about how everywhere is basically the same. I live in the real world. It is a lot safer for my wife and daughter to walk in the streets of Riyadh at night than the sleazy streets of Bondi. All governments are shit. I don't believe that because you can yell at a government that it makes it a better society. I do hope that the exposure of our club helps women's rights in Saudi, and I think over time it will. Edited April 26 by Convict Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikse Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, Scotty66 said: I've noticed Jordan has been very aggressive with his opinion of City being guilty. The way he voices his opinion with a sniggering laugh to those that dare have a different opinion to him is really fucking annoying. He does sometimes make some very good points about various subjects but the way he comes across is an absolute wanker. Just the fact that Man City repeatedly has refused to cooperate tells me all I know. No way PL would press 115 charges against Man City unless they had some strong evidence. They wouldn't have had the balls. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 10 minutes ago, Erikse said: Just the fact that Man City repeatedly has refused to cooperate tells me all I know. No way PL would press 115 charges against Man City unless they had some strong evidence. They wouldn't have had the balls. The Premier League went to court against us to block our takeover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikse Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Stifler said: The Premier League went to court against us to block our takeover. To try to protect clubs like Man City. They knew about the breaches, and let them go with a fine, until someone was pushing for an independent investigation. Isn't that what happened? Edited April 26 by Erikse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 If they got rid of the 70% turnover rule and kept the x5 the lowest income rule I could go along with that. It would do what they claim to want - stops exponential growth and widening of the gap, keeps whoever is willing to pay it within reach of the red clubs. What it wouldn't do is what they really want - preserve their places at the table by holding down ourselves, Villa and any future versions. Seems basically a spend limit and checks on whether clubs can operate through the rest of the season financially solidly is all that's needed but for that again doesn't protect the entitleds, never known to be behind a rule that didn't completely benefit them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 3 minutes ago, Erikse said: To try to protect clubs like Man City. They knew about the breaches, and let them go with a fine, until someone was pushing for an independent investigation. Isn't that what happened? My point is that they were prepared to play bluff and go to court against us despite not having a legal standing. They had to back down when the judge allowed us to use evidence the Premier League did not want to us to use. If they are stupid enough to go to court against us when they had no chance of winning, they could very well be stupid enough to take action against Man City when they have no chance of winning. Masters is certainly arrogant enough to think he’d get away with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 23 minutes ago, Erikse said: Just the fact that Man City repeatedly has refused to cooperate tells me all I know. No way PL would press 115 charges against Man City unless they had some strong evidence. They wouldn't have had the balls. They may have strong evidence but they haven't been found guilty yet. For professionals on TV and radio to insinuate that they ARE guilty is very unprofessional and a dangerous game to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikse Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Scotty66 said: They may have strong evidence but they haven't been found guilty yet. For professionals on TV and radio to insinuate that they ARE guilty is very unprofessional and a dangerous game to play. Hmm haven't heard anyone say that personally. I think the criticism from for example talksport was about things like Man City doing everything they can to slow down and almost sabotage the investigation. Which obviously is highly suspicious, considering that someone who is innocent would usually not want to do these thing, and rather just prove their innocence and get it over with. But again I can't remember hearing them say that they are guilty for certain. Edited April 26 by Erikse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Yeah Simon Jordan and Carragher have been very aggressive about it. Remember Carragher saying something on sky or that American sports channel that he works on and it was very blatant. Usually I couldn't really care less but that made me think wow you shouldn't be saying stuff like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikse Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Scotty66 said: Yeah Simon Jordan and Carragher have been very aggressive about it. Remember Carragher saying something on sky or that American sports channel that he works on and it was very blatant. Usually I couldn't really care less but that made me think wow you shouldn't be saying stuff like that. Haven't checked on Carragher, but I have now looked through different articles on Simon Jordan comments regarding the case. As I said he is criticising how they are handling the investigation etc., and saying that if you are innocent then it should be easy for you to prove it. Which is true. Not a single time does he seem to say that they ARE guilty. He has however said that IF they are guilty, they should be punished very hard. But that's not saying that they are. I'm not a fan of Simon Jordan, but lets not put words into his mouth. Or maybe you could show me an example? Edited April 26 by Erikse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mase said: If found guilty an appeal would go to the High Court, no? Nope, the appeal would be to an appeal panel as set out in the PL's rules. Man City went to the High Court in 2021 to challenge the PL's juristiction to force them to formally disclose documents, and lost. The documents the PL wanted access to were probably documents that the PL already knew existed through the leaked emails, like this one: Most of us are expecting we're going to try to do the same kind of thing, but won't be daft enough to put it in emails and allow them to be hacked. If we were caught red handed I think most would say "fair cop" rather than blindly claiming our club is innocent, I certainly would. Edited April 26 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 Pep has already said if they are found guilty he's off, this summer could see the end of Man City as we know it, relegation would be glorious but who could afford their players with current FFP rules in place ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 9 hours ago, Mase said: Hardly anyone referred to Chelsea as “Oil Money”. It’s night and day compared with City. I’ve heard a lot of “Arab money” as well - which couldn’t be more obvious. You guys will understand soon RE: the comments by Carragher and clan. Agree with your second point 100% Wow is your mind going to be blow when you discover Google and check that 😂 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now