LondonBlue

If we're found guilty we're doomed. doomed i say. If we're found not guilty then we cheated and bribed out way out of it. Either way we lose. The intention all along me thinks.

You have to ask how the Premier League didn't predict that outcome.

funniest one i've seen is that tv companies may sue the premier league if man city lose the 115. apparently the premier league should have notified the tv companies of their intention to sue city as it would affect the value of the broadcasting rights. aside from that being bollocks, it would be a hilarious turn of events.

strange that he's never entertained the idea that we might be innocent. the city link is obviously biased ( doesn't mean its not correct ) but given the press seems pretty unanimous in it's condemnation of City we need the balance. how many have you have actually read an article in defense of man city? i'd be curious as to if you see any blatant holes in the city link.

it won't make that big a difference. i don't think. sponsorship would still have to be sensible, it's just the PL can't poo poo certain sponsors.

i hear you. but it makes sense when you look at some of the contracts. eg. Nissan have a central sponsorship deal with CFG so all the CFG clubs presumably get a cut Nissan and CFG

My take is that had City lost hands down, it would have been leaked straight away. I suspect that City have been at least partially successful. One possibility is that City have won and the delay is that the compensation part of the hearing is ongoing. I think City claim the PL rules blocked a sponsorship deal to the tune of £50m and want some sort of recompense. Another possibility is that City have lost and they're pissing themselves laughing.

loved Bellamy when he was at City. you never quite knew what you'd get from him.

Nick Harris gets a hard on thinking of Man City getting done. It's like a personal vendetta. Like Magic Tw#t, he seems completely oblivious to the possibility that City might not have disguised owner investment as sponsorship. Not so much that they might be innocent but that there might be no crime. To counter Nick Harris https://mancitystuff.co.uk/the-flawed-case-against-manchester-city/ a good summary page with links to in-depth reasoning. My perspective... As far as i'm aware, and very roughly, all City's sponsorship deals are handled by ADUG on their behalf. All sponsor payments are sent to ADUG (or CFG or whatever their name is). ADUG invest money from this pot on City's behalf. As you would with any pot of money. City request money from their central pot as they need it. ( i think that is where the emails come in, but honestly i haven't a clue ) Leaving City to focus on football matters. The Leicester case has at least shown that the argument of" the Premier League wouldn't charge you if they didn't think they had a good chance of winning" to be flawed. oh and a decent start to the season by you guys, 7 from 9.

Walker hasn't played any football yet this season. On those grounds, he shouldn't be in the squad anyway.

oh, and i think the compensation claim by City is due to lost revenue due to APT rules stopping a sponsorship deal to the tune of about £50m. not sure, but i'm prepared to go with that.

lol, i'm no expert i'm just a fan. my views on City will be similar to your views on United ( gives self a pat on the back for using United in the correct context on a Newcastle forum ) as such ziegler should know more facts than me, although he may have different emotions. a agree that the 2 cases between City and the PL are unrelated. the feeling on bluemoon is that we may have done okay in the APT case. some success. but it was never the huge deal that the press made out. we objected to the legality of a fairly new APT rule tweak. In essence, we felt that the Premier League shouldn't be deciding what's a fair sponsor deal. But i don't think City would object to a truly independent body deciding. we all know that the red cartel has strong influence on the Premier League and thats the reason the woman before Masters left, interference. but that's rumour. City didn't just invent the phrase Tyranny of the majority. It describes a scenario where the majority enforces its will on the minority, often to the detriment of minority rights and interests. While democracy aims to balance the will of the majority with the protection of individual and minority rights, tyranny of the majority refers to the failure of this balance, leading to majoritarian overreach and potential injustice. In politics, the tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. So the PL, acting on behalf of majority of PL clubs, would like to stop oil clubs investing freely, to the detriment of the few. City and United (another pat on the back) think the above might be bias bollocks but i'm a football fan on a football forum so don't really care.

what's his, um, "fertility" got to do with the price of milk?

not sure how useful those stats are. man city barely feature but we press hard when we don't have the ball. the problem those stats have is that we have the ball most of the time. now if the stats restricted themselves to when the opponent has the ball or the first 30 seconds after possession is lost i might be more interested. from a city point of view that is.

A fair few but people often overlook his assists. He's often a flick or 2 before the assist too. He has quality but it needs to be used right. I think Pep might have drilled his flair out of him a bit in favour of possession play.