The mancityfans.net football forum

patrickblue wrote:

Was thinking who's the worst hater in that picture. Apart from the king of cunts himself, for me it's that odious twat keys.

sheblue wrote:

patrickblue wrote:

Was thinking who's the worst hater in that picture. Apart from the king of cunts himself, for me it's that odious twat keys.

Over Jordan?

Unless you meant he was the king. And that term is used in the loosest possible sense

sheblue wrote:

patrickblue wrote:

Was thinking who's the worst hater in that picture. Apart from the king of cunts himself, for me it's that odious twat keys.

I was going to say it's the ever obnoxious Allyson Rudd next to bacon, but I've just realised it's Hucknell.

patrickblue wrote:

sheblue wrote:

patrickblue wrote:

Was thinking who's the worst hater in that picture. Apart from the king of cunts himself, for me it's that odious twat keys.

I was going to say it's the ever obnoxious Allyson Rudd next to bacon, but I've just realised it's Hucknell.

Is it not Phil Mitchell in a wig next to bacon?

underlines the difference between our stitch up and Everton's blatant disregard of the cartel's corrupt rules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BuSoRtZaKQ&t=552s

I’m sure I read when the charges were initially announced that some of the charges weren’t related to FFP - like grass length being wrong.

Or do all 115 charges relate to FFP?

Mase wrote:I’m sure I read when the charges were initially announced that some of the charges weren’t related to FFP - like grass length being wrong.

Or do all 115 charges relate to FFP?

By all accounts the prem themselves don't know they are

Mase wrote:I’m sure I read when the charges were initially announced that some of the charges weren’t related to FFP - like grass length being wrong.

Or do all 115 charges relate to FFP?

Read this on Bluemoon


Why 115 Charges?

There are not 115 wholly different charges. There are essentially three charges:

City overstated their revenue
City understated their expenses
City have failed to comply with various regulatory requirements
The first relates principally to the allegation that the sponsorship from Etihad and Etisalat was in fact disguised equity funding from ADUG

The second relates to the Al Jazira ‘second contract’ for Roberto Mancini and image rights players for (IIRC) Yaya Toure in particular

The third includes a series of allegations that we have not complied with the PL’s FFP rules, UEFAs FFP rules and the PLs requirement that we should co-operate with an ongoing investigation.

It is however alleged that each of these alleged offences is committed across multiple seasons. One separate charge relates to each instance of alleged wrongdoing over each of the 10 seasons or so that the charges cover.

If you want an analogy, imagine you drove from London to Manchester at a steady 100mph and got caught by 12 speeding cameras. Each represents a separate charge, but they are different aspects of the same basic allegation.

carolina-blue wrote:

Mase wrote:I’m sure I read when the charges were initially announced that some of the charges weren’t related to FFP - like grass length being wrong.

Or do all 115 charges relate to FFP?

Read this on Bluemoon


Why 115 Charges?

There are not 115 wholly different charges. There are essentially three charges:

City overstated their revenue
City understated their expenses
City have failed to comply with various regulatory requirements
The first relates principally to the allegation that the sponsorship from Etihad and Etisalat was in fact disguised equity funding from ADUG

The second relates to the Al Jazira ‘second contract’ for Roberto Mancini and image rights players for (IIRC) Yaya Toure in particular

The third includes a series of allegations that we have not complied with the PL’s FFP rules, UEFAs FFP rules and the PLs requirement that we should co-operate with an ongoing investigation.

It is however alleged that each of these alleged offences is committed across multiple seasons. One separate charge relates to each instance of alleged wrongdoing over each of the 10 seasons or so that the charges cover.

If you want an analogy, imagine you drove from London to Manchester at a steady 100mph and got caught by 12 speeding cameras. Each represents a separate charge, but they are different aspects of the same basic allegation.

Cheers mate

Mase wrote:

carolina-blue wrote:

Mase wrote:I’m sure I read when the charges were initially announced that some of the charges weren’t related to FFP - like grass length being wrong.

Or do all 115 charges relate to FFP?

Read this on Bluemoon


Why 115 Charges?

There are not 115 wholly different charges. There are essentially three charges:

City overstated their revenue
City understated their expenses
City have failed to comply with various regulatory requirements
The first relates principally to the allegation that the sponsorship from Etihad and Etisalat was in fact disguised equity funding from ADUG

The second relates to the Al Jazira ‘second contract’ for Roberto Mancini and image rights players for (IIRC) Yaya Toure in particular

The third includes a series of allegations that we have not complied with the PL’s FFP rules, UEFAs FFP rules and the PLs requirement that we should co-operate with an ongoing investigation.

It is however alleged that each of these alleged offences is committed across multiple seasons. One separate charge relates to each instance of alleged wrongdoing over each of the 10 seasons or so that the charges cover.

If you want an analogy, imagine you drove from London to Manchester at a steady 100mph and got caught by 12 speeding cameras. Each represents a separate charge, but they are different aspects of the same basic allegation.

Cheers mate

The stuff about grass length etc came about because on the original premier league statement they only quoted the rule numbers we had broken not the descriptions and they were quoting from an old version of the rule book so the rule numbers we were being accused of weren't aligned.

Shows how shambolic it was and still is and a sign of how it was all rushed out before the announcement of the independent regulator.

Nickyboy wrote:

Mase wrote:

carolina-blue wrote:

Mase wrote:I’m sure I read when the charges were initially announced that some of the charges weren’t related to FFP - like grass length being wrong.

Or do all 115 charges relate to FFP?

Read this on Bluemoon


Why 115 Charges?

There are not 115 wholly different charges. There are essentially three charges:

City overstated their revenue
City understated their expenses
City have failed to comply with various regulatory requirements
The first relates principally to the allegation that the sponsorship from Etihad and Etisalat was in fact disguised equity funding from ADUG

The second relates to the Al Jazira ‘second contract’ for Roberto Mancini and image rights players for (IIRC) Yaya Toure in particular

The third includes a series of allegations that we have not complied with the PL’s FFP rules, UEFAs FFP rules and the PLs requirement that we should co-operate with an ongoing investigation.

It is however alleged that each of these alleged offences is committed across multiple seasons. One separate charge relates to each instance of alleged wrongdoing over each of the 10 seasons or so that the charges cover.

If you want an analogy, imagine you drove from London to Manchester at a steady 100mph and got caught by 12 speeding cameras. Each represents a separate charge, but they are different aspects of the same basic allegation.

Cheers mate

The stuff about grass length etc came about because on the original premier league statement they only quoted the rule numbers we had broken not the descriptions and they were quoting from an old version of the rule book so the rule numbers we were being accused of weren't aligned.

Shows how shambolic it was and still is and a sign of how it was all rushed out before the announcement of the independent regulator.

Brilliant, nice one

Currently trying to defend the Sheikh from cartel vandals in his Wikipedia article - last two entries from its Talk Page below

Have you ever stopped to consider that your presence here on this page is the fruit of sportswashing? Its hard to imagine you would be editing this page if not for the acquisition of your beloved team by the article's subject. Why do people use sportswashing? Because it works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


It didn't though did it? Simply a gratuitous slur on the owner of currently the most successful football club on the planet. The economic rivals of City just substituted the term for 'financial doping' in their interminable 'cheating oil club' narratives. Those US hedge fund owned clubs need an early profit return & can't compete with our long term investment model so they resort to confected reputational damage on steroids - lots of redshirt fan clicks for journos recycling their anti City propaganda, the currency of success in that profession these days.

The UK media lost interest in the sportwashing fiction a long time ago though - moving on to exploit a similarly ridiculous "115 charges" fabrication. Its inevitable rejected outcome in two years time doesn't matter, they just need to feed their fanbases the myth that their failure and City's success is the result of dirty deeds.

Incidentally, the WP sportswashing entry prominently references in its overview the same piece of pathetic trademark proven nonsense from the Guardian in 2019 as linked on here. It complains about our £7m Arabtec sponsorship but no mention anywhere of Fly Emirates continuing deals for ten times the amount with Arsenal FC, the prime mover of the 'cheat' agenda along with Man Utd & Liverpool. [1](These 3 clubs aren't 'foreign-owned' of course, the USA doesn't feature in the criteria for that wiki section despite regularly appearing above the UAE on the Human Rights Watch table of worst offenders.)

Our owners haven't ever bothered to respond to any of these attacks beyond brief statements of total rejection. The fans have got used to them too over the last 13 years but it's a shame WP has now been tainted - as you say the price of its consensus approach but I would add also some uncritical editing. Both my 'beloved' football club and our beloved WP may have their faults but deserve better than some of the content in these entries.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mans ... sy_Section

Everton 10 point deduction reduced to 6 on appeal. Wonder why

Harry Dowd scored wrote:Everton 10 point deduction reduced to 6 on appeal. Wonder why

Is it because they are making it up as they go along? No rhyme or reason for the initial 10 which were a precedent and now, they knock 4 off on appeal. Looks from the outside that they bumped the original 10 up knowing that they would then look lenient on appeal but that they always wanted 6.
Scouse will still go down, they cannot score for toffee(s)

The Appeal body said a points deduction was the only reasonable remedy for a breach of the PSR rules. That is a significant marker for the future. They said any breach necessarily involved a sporting disadvantage and therefore only a points deduction involving a sporting disadvantage was appropriate.

johnny crossan wrote:Currently trying to defend the Sheikh from cartel vandals in his Wikipedia article - last two entries from its Talk Page below

Have you ever stopped to consider that your presence here on this page is the fruit of sportswashing? Its hard to imagine you would be editing this page if not for the acquisition of your beloved team by the article's subject. Why do people use sportswashing? Because it works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


It didn't though did it? Simply a gratuitous slur on the owner of currently the most successful football club on the planet. The economic rivals of City just substituted the term for 'financial doping' in their interminable 'cheating oil club' narratives. Those US hedge fund owned clubs need an early profit return & can't compete with our long term investment model so they resort to confected reputational damage on steroids - lots of redshirt fan clicks for journos recycling their anti City propaganda, the currency of success in that profession these days.

The UK media lost interest in the sportwashing fiction a long time ago though - moving on to exploit a similarly ridiculous "115 charges" fabrication. Its inevitable rejected outcome in two years time doesn't matter, they just need to feed their fanbases the myth that their failure and City's success is the result of dirty deeds.

Incidentally, the WP sportswashing entry prominently references in its overview the same piece of pathetic trademark proven nonsense from the Guardian in 2019 as linked on here. It complains about our £7m Arabtec sponsorship but no mention anywhere of Fly Emirates continuing deals for ten times the amount with Arsenal FC, the prime mover of the 'cheat' agenda along with Man Utd & Liverpool. [1](These 3 clubs aren't 'foreign-owned' of course, the USA doesn't feature in the criteria for that wiki section despite regularly appearing above the UAE on the Human Rights Watch table of worst offenders.)

Our owners haven't ever bothered to respond to any of these attacks beyond brief statements of total rejection. The fans have got used to them too over the last 13 years but it's a shame WP has now been tainted - as you say the price of its consensus approach but I would add also some uncritical editing. Both my 'beloved' football club and our beloved WP may have their faults but deserve better than some of the content in these entries.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mans ... sy_Section

well written, johnny. keep fighting the good fight.

what a fool Simon Stone is. Re Everton , his article on the Beeb website waffles on. He refers to Amortisation as a "Tactic". Numpty. Paying back Capital debt in a planned way is not a "Tactic" . Some may choose 5 , 10 , 30 years to amortize their home. It isn't a "Tactic".

Chelsea chose 8 year contracts. Not normal, but not necessarily a bad thing for a young player who could turn out to be great for them. I can't see such contracts ever being thown out in a Court of Law.

Every club amortises player acquisitions don’t they ?

Belting February for Everton. A record haul of 7 points.

3 draws and a refund