Ahh, interesting. I wonder on what basis the Cheaty CEO says that it will drag out for many more years then… (“It’s taken eight years to get here and it’s going to take a lot more time”)
False entitlement
3 Likes
Mm, I’m starting to get a little bit more optimistic now. 
Let’s see how it goes.
I’m sure there was some market research that showed the biggest reasons people overseas watch the premier league are 1) Liverpool 2) Manchester United 3) top of the table clash.
Nobody is tuning in to watch City because they are City. They are just at the top of the league, and whoever replaces them with take that audience.
3 Likes
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a fan base as collectively in denial as City fans, while it can be argued that they’re also victims in all this as it’s not like they wanted their club to act in this manner, to be quite honest I’ve lost any shred of sympathy for them.
Still, we’ve got denial and anger on the go. We’ll see bargaining once the appeals are done and sanctions are being discussed, and acceptance is going to be bloody lovely after all this.
2 Likes
The more things change etc. …
You haven’t met many Rangers fans then?
2 Likes
One of my friends was growing up, I can still remember him talking up Andy Goram as one of the greatest keepers of all time lol
Could you explain what the difference between these two would be, so a thicky like me can understand.
You seem to be saying Coty are left liable for compensation claims from other teams, and then also that there needs to be a pot for compensation claims?
What’s his summary… I can’t be arsed watching him today.
Anyhow those billions who will stop watching won’t, there is an increasing fan of football who follow the players rather than the teams. Especially in the international market that Man City are more fruitful in.
3 Likes
Yes, a pot for unsecured creditors who do not have recourse against City through the PL rules. So things like claims by clubs, companies or individuals not listed as participants in the PL rule book. It needs more detail, obviously, but that would be the principle.
“Participants”, as described under the PL rules, pursue City through the process provided for in the PL rules (as Liverpool, United, Tottenham and Arsenal have already indicated they will do).
1 Like
1 Like
I mean what an absolute cunty thing to say.
Says it all really about them.
I’ll be in the Main Stand. 
1 Like
1 Like
This comes from one those utterly made up quotes, allegedly from the Dortmund SD of the time, the sort that are now ubiquitous on SM. You know, the ones that use language that no person uses, but you know it must be true because they position text of the quote next to an image of the person they are pretending gave the quote.
We know the 51m figure commonly cited is not representative of the cost of doing that deal. We have been talking about it since the day he and Nunez arrived and the press kept using it to position Darwin as the more expensive signing. But that is just because Haaland had made financial sacrifices up to that point to ensure he always had releases clauses that allowed him to go where and when he wanted. But the team who activated that clause was going to have to pay a king’s ransom in wages (reported over half a million a week)
3 Likes
Shouldn’t that Headline read:
Cokehead leaves Man City as one of the games greatest cheat
A lot of people got weighed in on the Haaland deal. Agents, parents, representatives, hairdressers etc. so I’ve always understood £51m was accurate in terms of payment to Dortmund (and their books would clearly show if they’d received more money for him that City claimed they paid), it actually cost a lot more to city to get him in - certainly over £100m, and that’s before paying him 500k + a week.
1 Like
Yeah, I saw the one this is based on last night and there were quite a few holes in it. One being the SD being quoted was at Dortmund at the time of the transfer. It could well be there were dodgy dealings around it, but I’d wait for a good well founded source first.