I do t think Boris is saying that tbf
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They wonet stop payin players 2 saralies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have not been paying players in Sara Lees. Yaya kicked off because he didn't get one, much less two.
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They wonet stop payin players 2 saralies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have not been paying players in Sara Lees. Yaya kicked off because he didn't get one, much less two.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chortle
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 hours, 37 minutes ago
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How could the other clubs pick up the tab in a case between City and the PL? What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who do you think funds the PL?
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
I’d be genuinely interested to read any links you may have that aren’t behind a paywall
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you'd believe what's written in the Sun online, for free, over the Athletic because you have to pay to read the Athleticmore Boris logic.
It kinda implies you think the Athletic may be open to influence from those willing to pay for it...ironically exactly how states like Qatar behave with their unlimited resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are as thick as a navvies thumb.
You're saying that everything you have to pay to read is true and anything you read for free is bullsheeet.
Fekin clown
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They wonet stop payin players 2 saralies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have not been paying players in Sara Lees. Yaya kicked off because he didn't get one, much less two.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The quote
It could certainly be argued in court that restricting the club’s income from sponsorships might lead to a rise in ticket prices to make up the difference, but the court of public opinion could easily decide that City would put prices up anyway, as they had been doing for other reasons for years before these APT rules were brought in.
Where the actual fek does it say that was in a statement made by City you dimwitted moron?
The youth acadamy makes money.
CITC is financially independent
The Womens Team is a totally diferent entity
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Respect to you for responding to Mamba's low effort fishing expedition
His genuine surprise that the hearing will be behind closed doors tells you everything he knows about this case. All his knowledge can be hand written on the back of a postage stamp.
It's amusing that the few City fans on here have become these weirdly characterised, entrenched types that don't really appear to exist in any meaningful numbers on any other online community let alone in real life.
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 8 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Respect to you for responding to Mamba's low effort fishing expedition
His genuine surprise that the hearing will be behind closed doors tells you everything he knows about this case. All his knowledge can be hand written on the back of a postage stamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a City fan to begin with, and I wasn't surprised, I was disappointed as I wanted to watch it. And this bullsheet was dispelled anyway because all their hearings are behind closed doors anyway. It was just City fans trying to make out like this one was specifically behind closed doors because they're victims, everything is unfair and people are just jealous.
You're a City fan that thinks the PL will have to prove things "beyond a reasonable doubt". The burden of proof is discussed on every article on here and you still don't know you're ass from your elbow. I've forgotten more about this and everything else than you'll ever know in your entire life.
I am a City fan and like most others, I wanted the hearing to be held in public.
Even City wanted the hearing to be held in public.
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 8 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Respect to you for responding to Mamba's low effort fishing expedition
His genuine surprise that the hearing will be behind closed doors tells you everything he knows about this case. All his knowledge can be hand written on the back of a postage stamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a City fan to begin with, and I wasn't surprised, I was disappointed as I wanted to watch it. And this bullsheet was dispelled anyway because all their hearings are behind closed doors anyway. It was just City fans trying to make out like this one was specifically behind closed doors because they're victims, everything is unfair and people are just jealous.
You're a City fan that thinks the PL will have to prove things "beyond a reasonable doubt". The burden of proof is discussed on every article on here and you still don't know you're ass from your elbow. I've forgotten more about this and everything else than you'll ever know in your entire life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cool story bro.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 34 minutes ago
I am a City fan and like most others, I wanted the hearing to be held in public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me too, but as it turns out their rules say all such hearings will be held in private.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only criminal trials are heard to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. This is being heard on balance of probability with the burden of proof falling on the PL
" “Rule W.45 says the burden is on the Premier League to prove the complaint and ‘the standard of proof shall be on a balance of probabilities.’
Then again you said yesterday City are only facing 12 charges related to finances and day he rest are for failing to cooperate
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only criminal trials are heard to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. This is being heard on balance of probability with the burden of proof falling on the PL
" “Rule W.45 says the burden is on the Premier League to prove the complaint and ‘the standard of proof shall be on a balance of probabilities.’
Then again you said yesterday City are only facing 12 charges related to finances and day he rest are for failing to cooperate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign in if you want to comment
City...and the charges!
Page 2 of 2
posted on 13/9/24
I do t think Boris is saying that tbf
posted on 13/9/24
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They wonet stop payin players 2 saralies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have not been paying players in Sara Lees. Yaya kicked off because he didn't get one, much less two.
posted on 13/9/24
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They wonet stop payin players 2 saralies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have not been paying players in Sara Lees. Yaya kicked off because he didn't get one, much less two.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chortle
posted on 13/9/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 hours, 37 minutes ago
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How could the other clubs pick up the tab in a case between City and the PL? What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who do you think funds the PL?
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
I’d be genuinely interested to read any links you may have that aren’t behind a paywall
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you'd believe what's written in the Sun online, for free, over the Athletic because you have to pay to read the Athleticmore Boris logic.
It kinda implies you think the Athletic may be open to influence from those willing to pay for it...ironically exactly how states like Qatar behave with their unlimited resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are as thick as a navvies thumb.
You're saying that everything you have to pay to read is true and anything you read for free is bullsheeet.
Fekin clown
posted on 13/9/24
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They wonet stop payin players 2 saralies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have not been paying players in Sara Lees. Yaya kicked off because he didn't get one, much less two.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The quote
It could certainly be argued in court that restricting the club’s income from sponsorships might lead to a rise in ticket prices to make up the difference, but the court of public opinion could easily decide that City would put prices up anyway, as they had been doing for other reasons for years before these APT rules were brought in.
Where the actual fek does it say that was in a statement made by City you dimwitted moron?
The youth acadamy makes money.
CITC is financially independent
The Womens Team is a totally diferent entity
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Respect to you for responding to Mamba's low effort fishing expedition
His genuine surprise that the hearing will be behind closed doors tells you everything he knows about this case. All his knowledge can be hand written on the back of a postage stamp.
posted on 13/9/24
It's amusing that the few City fans on here have become these weirdly characterised, entrenched types that don't really appear to exist in any meaningful numbers on any other online community let alone in real life.
posted on 14/9/24
Bizarre gripe.
posted on 14/9/24
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 8 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Respect to you for responding to Mamba's low effort fishing expedition
His genuine surprise that the hearing will be behind closed doors tells you everything he knows about this case. All his knowledge can be hand written on the back of a postage stamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a City fan to begin with, and I wasn't surprised, I was disappointed as I wanted to watch it. And this bullsheet was dispelled anyway because all their hearings are behind closed doors anyway. It was just City fans trying to make out like this one was specifically behind closed doors because they're victims, everything is unfair and people are just jealous.
You're a City fan that thinks the PL will have to prove things "beyond a reasonable doubt". The burden of proof is discussed on every article on here and you still don't know you're ass from your elbow. I've forgotten more about this and everything else than you'll ever know in your entire life.
posted on 14/9/24
I am a City fan and like most others, I wanted the hearing to be held in public.
posted on 14/9/24
Even City wanted the hearing to be held in public.
posted on 14/9/24
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 8 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Respect to you for responding to Mamba's low effort fishing expedition
His genuine surprise that the hearing will be behind closed doors tells you everything he knows about this case. All his knowledge can be hand written on the back of a postage stamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a City fan to begin with, and I wasn't surprised, I was disappointed as I wanted to watch it. And this bullsheet was dispelled anyway because all their hearings are behind closed doors anyway. It was just City fans trying to make out like this one was specifically behind closed doors because they're victims, everything is unfair and people are just jealous.
You're a City fan that thinks the PL will have to prove things "beyond a reasonable doubt". The burden of proof is discussed on every article on here and you still don't know you're ass from your elbow. I've forgotten more about this and everything else than you'll ever know in your entire life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cool story bro.
posted on 14/9/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 34 minutes ago
I am a City fan and like most others, I wanted the hearing to be held in public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me too, but as it turns out their rules say all such hearings will be held in private.
posted on 14/9/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only criminal trials are heard to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. This is being heard on balance of probability with the burden of proof falling on the PL
" “Rule W.45 says the burden is on the Premier League to prove the complaint and ‘the standard of proof shall be on a balance of probabilities.’
Then again you said yesterday City are only facing 12 charges related to finances and day he rest are for failing to cooperate
posted on 14/9/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only criminal trials are heard to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. This is being heard on balance of probability with the burden of proof falling on the PL
" “Rule W.45 says the burden is on the Premier League to prove the complaint and ‘the standard of proof shall be on a balance of probabilities.’
Then again you said yesterday City are only facing 12 charges related to finances and day he rest are for failing to cooperate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2 of 2