Man City vs Ajax Official Match Thread

perhaps there were some loopholes

---------------------

Brilliant. That's sarcasm by the way.

"some brief internet research proves that they were...restrictions placed..."

Hmm, not quite what you said earlier is it ole?

And I am the one who is getting insulted because I question the comments that you make? (Yes I know ole, you didn't insult me - that comment wasn't directed at you)

I would however suggest to the likes of you and Hafi that you actually go away and comprehensively learn about this particular subject before making ridiculous claims in an online discussion.

Some "loopholes" indeed. What loopholes exactly?

There were no "loopholes" ole. That is just your poor attempt at a retort because you do not have the confidence to say that you simply got it wrong. Or as other people would put it - spin.

it's no such thing. all i've done is provide links which actually proved my earlier comment to be correct. if you read it again, you'll find that all i did was (again, correctly) point out that england, northern ireland, wales and scotland were all treated as separate countries by uefa, something which is backed up by two separate websites. i think you need to clam down.

And all I've done is provide stats which prove your understanding of the rule incorrect.

We are talking about the 3-foreigner rule ole. That is, no more than 3 foreigners could play in a team before 1995-96 in European competition. You stated that Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland were separate countries by UEFA, and in stating this were quite clearly stating that players from those nationalities were therefore regarded as foreign if they played for an English team (which United are).

I then, in reply, pointed out that long before the 3 foreigner rule came into play, United had fielded more than 3 players from countries other than England. You responded by saying this was a loophole.

You need to do a bit more research, and actually learn more about what you claim to know about what you are talking about. Because quite frankly you haven't a clue. Facts have proven that.

Your problem. Have some humility and admit it, or just continue to make a fool of yourself. Your choice.

Me calming down or not (despite your attempt to deflect (yet again) as though your misunderstanding is somehow my fault), has nothing to do with it.

why, i cannot imagine, but i have done a bit more research into this. from what i now understand, the original ruling was 'four foreigners', before it was changed to to three plus two 'assimilated' players a couple of years later. (in a way this is in fact a loophole). this meant that giggs, mcclair and possibly irwin fell under the category of 'assimilated'. so, i'll happily admit to being wrong about giggs being ineligible for the porto game in 96-97.

furthermore, players signed before 1988 were exempt for the first season - this would answer your earlier query about why five 'foreign players' took the field for united against torpedo moscow in 92-93, and again, could also be deemed as a 'loophole'.

i could again choose to be petty and point out that you incorrectly claimed in one of your comments that 92-93 was "four years before the three foreigner rule was introduced" when in actual fact it was that season when it was introduced, but unlike you i'm not here to point score.

"i'm not here to point score"

That's what Mancini says before a Champions League game.

I don't want to come across as harsh ole, but it's clear you simply do not understand this rule. The obvious fact that you are researching this as you go along, after being corrected by myself on several occasions is testament to that.

I'm not being petty, or point scoring in saying that. You are being far too sensitive in even thinking that is the case.

I'm just pointing out, and quite blatently in fact, that you just don't understand what you claim to be the case.

i researched the topic to clarify a couple of things, nothing more nothing less. you certainly haven't corrected me at any point, quite the opposite in fact with me having to inform you that you were wrong about when the ruling first came in to place.

keep telling yourself, and everyone else, otherwise though if it helps you. whatever. we're done here and i'm definitely done attempting to debate with you.

Bitchy

i researched the topic to clarify a couple of things, nothing more nothing less. you certainly haven't corrected me at any point, quite the opposite in fact

---------------------

To anyone reading this thread, your denials will come across as hilarious.

And just like that, you're done debating with me. A comment that pretty much sums it up. You made a comment, I corrected you, you refuted my correction despite the facts showing otherwise, and now you run away like a child.

Trust me, with your attitude to debate, I won't lose any sleep that you are now "definitely done attempting to debate with me".

So off you trot, go and watch United on TV instead of spending time debating with someone you don't want to on a message board. It's a no brainer really. But it does begs the question, why even bother coming back and replying to me in order to tell me that you no longer have any intent to come back and debate with me?

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator