I think he was making some sort of link between 115 charges being brought on City and them potentially not doing things entirely legally.So what did the letter actually demand he stop doing?
You're not wrong, if you snipe City then everyone moves one space up. The issue is that the benefits of that one bump up are marginal to all but maybe 3 teams (the one who now wins the PL, the one who now gets into the CL, and the one who avoids relegation). Let's throw in 1-2 additional teams who are now genuine title challengers. For the others there's little benefit, and little to hate City for.I think what you're saying is true but here is the thing that i think Premier League fans at least should be aware of: If City had been punished years ago with a massive points deduction or even expulsion from the league, your club would move up the table by one in any of those previous seasons. Now one place doesn't sound much if you're a midtable side like Fulham this season for example, but to relegation-threatened teams or European chasing teams that's a huge amount of revenue and prestige that you might miss out because the league has no urgency/ethics in punishing a team that have flagrantly cheated for years on end and have not on one single occasion fallen out of the top 4 since they first 'achieved' that. It's a bit weird to me that other fans don't have more of a discussion about it.
To use some examples, you have Leicester City (who admittedly have had some dodgy financial issues themselves btw) narrowly miss out on top 4 by the tightest of margins in two seasons and you have Spurs who probably will end up in 5th place but would be a champions league team if City had had their points deduction this season. City and their ridiculous financial doping have effectively 'locked in' one of those champions league/European places at the expense of the other 19 other teams in the league. To me that surely should be something to be angry about?
Cheers, fair enough.I think he was making some sort of link between 115 charges being brought on City and them potentially not doing things entirely legally.
A bit of a stretch if you ask me.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Never knew this happened, that's hilarious and in hindsight thoroughly deservedHad forgotten this when they were 1st relgated from the PL
It's a massive failure of all stakeholders in English football that it won't be resolved this season and points deduction applied this seasonTheir hearing date has to be in the summer, probably only a couple of months to see how this is all resolved now...
It's a massive failure of all stakeholders in English football that it won't be resolved this season and points deduction applied this season
that's the thing, the 115 charges only take us as far as 2018 or so I think, can't remember the exact date.If they break on rules this last year, this year or going forward theyll be immediately punished for that, right?
It's a massive failure of all stakeholders in English football that it won't be resolved this season and points deduction applied this season
Goldbridge has been assuming guilt and speaking the same as the average Caf poster. Often saying things like cheats etc.. Most journalists have the ability to use tact but well Goldbridge is an idiot so of course he's spouting down the pub nonsense.What are they being asked to "cease and desist"? Simply mentioning the charges or actually flat out saying they are guilty?
Because they've never completed or are anywhere close to competing.I find it weird that more fans outside of United and Liverpool don't really care in my experience which is crazy. Surely every fan should be angry about this and want to see proper action but instead for years it's just been a bit of banter. There just doesn't seem to be the appetite for calling it out among football fans as a whole.
"Mark Goldbridge" is a fictional character played by someone.Goldbridge has been assuming guilt and speaking the same as the average Caf poster. Often saying things like cheats etc.. Most journalists have the ability to use tact but well Goldbridge is an idiot so of course he's spouting down the pub nonsense.
Word among City fans and I dunno how true it is, is that sentiment in the club is if City are found not guilty of these charges, which the club (not I, don't come at me) are confident of, quite a few journalists are in for far an unpleasant surprise. There is as many as 10 from 5 or so publication listed to be sued for libel.
They are threatening a SLAPP. It's obviously a public interest topic that we're all entitled to engage in discussion over. City, as many pricks who have too much money do, think they can abuse the legal process to chill people's freedom of expression.What are they being asked to "cease and desist"? Simply mentioning the charges or actually flat out saying they are guilty?
I think you should strongly share your club's opinion. Quite a few of us on here do.Goldbridge has been assuming guilt and speaking the same as the average Caf poster. Often saying things like cheats etc.. Most journalists have the ability to use tact but well Goldbridge is an idiot so of course he's spouting down the pub nonsense.
Word among City fans and I dunno how true it is, is that sentiment in the club is if City are found not guilty of these charges, which the club (not I, don't come at me) are confident of, quite a few journalists are in for far an unpleasant surprise. There is as many as 10 from 5 or so publication listed to be sued for libel.
The difference between Goldbridge and Coogan, is Goldbridge isn't trying to be a comedian, he's appearing on many football shows and has kinda put himself in that position. Nothing against his hustle, exploiting the biggest fanbase in the world whilst not even supporting their club is quite genius."Mark Goldbridge" is a fictional character played by someone.
Of course Brent Di Cesare (the guy who plays Goldbridge) can still get done for libel but he shouldn't be held to the same standards as a journalist. It would be like Steve Coogan being taken to court by the farmers of Norwich for the shit Alan Partridge said.
We don't live in a world where people can comment on things they read in Der Speigel without the threat of a life upending lawsuit by people with unlimited money? Why do you think that is?The difference between Goldbridge and Coogan, is Goldbridge isn't trying to be a comedian, he's appearing on many football shows and has kinda put himself in that position. Nothing against his hustle, exploiting the biggest fanbase in the world whilst not even supporting their club is quite genius.
I don't know all the ins and outs but the general rule is if you're in a position with an audience like he is you should be careful what you say. To take a common political phrase "Freedom of speech, isn't freedom from consequences"
For what its worth I think he should be allowed say what he likes as should everyone but we don't live in that world anymore.
Maybe not a comedian but he's trying to be entertaining. Obviously he's not as funny as Coogan but he's absolutely playing up to the camera, in character.The difference between Goldbridge and Coogan, is Goldbridge isn't trying to be a comedian, he's appearing on many football shows and has kinda put himself in that position. Nothing against his hustle, exploiting the biggest fanbase in the world whilst not even supporting their club is quite genius.
People who approach things with tact can comment on what they like. Take Miguel Delaney who never stops going on about City, but he does it without shouting "cheats" or saying they're guilty. Because he uses his brain and gets his point across without overstepping.We don't live in a world where people can comment on things they read in Der Speigel without the threat of a life upending lawsuit by people with unlimited money? Why do you think that is?
He's entitled to comment on the reporting from Der Speigel and the outcome of the UEFA investigation and the CAS ruling and the reporting of the 115 charges to form as strong an opinion as he likes.People who approach things with tact can comment on what they like. Take Miguel Delaney who never stops going on about City, but he does it without shouting "cheats" or saying they're guilty. Because he uses his brain and gets his point across without overstepping.
Why do we live in a world like this, fecked if I know. Money, corruption, take your pick, but public figures have never been free to throw statements like Goldbridge makes around.
But he wouldn't play up to the camera by starting Partey, Mendy, Greenwood is an r word (simply because it opens himself up to libel. I hate to keep using that example but its the easiest and quickest to come to mind),Maybe not a comedian but he's trying to be entertaining. Obviously he's not as funny as Coogan but he's absolutely playing up to the camera, in character.
He's got a wife and kids, that would be a surprise.Has he come out showing proof of the cease and desist?
You can't go around saying people are guilty of something that they haven't been proven guilty of, you don't have to like it but it is what it is. Should it be that way? no, but it is.He's entitled to comment on the reporting from Der Speigel and the outcome of the UEFA investigation and the CAS ruling and the reporting of the 115 charges to form as strong an opinion as he likes.
Its unethical to threaten people with civil action over widely available information. An obvious SLAPP to chill free expression and the solicitors involved should be held accountable by their regulator.
The fact he said he's received a cease and desist surely opens him to a counter libel suit if he never received it.He's got a wife and kids, that would be a surprise.
Be seriously, he said in a clip posted in this thread he'll show it on his podcast. The grift never ends.
I would call OJ Simpson guilty if I had seen incriminating documents though, in this analogy a photograph of him murdering his wife.You can't go around saying people are guilty of something that they haven't been proven guilty of, you don't have to like it but it is what it is. Should it be that way? no, but it is.
If I called OJ a murderer whilst he was alive on a huge public platform he wouldn't be long silencing me.
A more apt one is perhaps if I called Lance Armstrong a cheat before it was proven, he wouldn't be long silencing me either. Obviously after proven guilty that changes.
But whether people like it or not and regardless of how, City are guilty of exactly nothing so far. CAS overturned Uefa and the PL is just charges and until that changes stating they are on a public platform is incredibly stupid.
All of this is nothing to do with my own personal beliefs by the way, just the way it is.
Is that website reliable? It's quoting an unknown source from Man City where you would think in something like a flat denial, nobody would need to hide their identity.Also for what its worth City say they've sent him nothing. So could be some either deluded fan or someone winding him up.
https://onefootball.com/en/news/sou...ntact-with-youtube-channel-presenter-39450360
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Has he come out showing proof of the cease and desist?
No, he showed nothing.
Again you haven't, you've seen emails that are being used as evidence but nothing proven. I mean we have the Greenwood footage, go on a platform with hundreds of thousands of viewers, presume his guilt and call him what you think he is and see how it works out for you. What you think doesn't matter or have any implication on what you can or cannot say.I would call OJ Simpson guilty if I had seen incriminating documents though, in this analogy a photograph of him murdering his wife.
I don't need a court to tell me if I've seen evidence. Which we all have in City's case.
CAS overturned based on time barring evidence, as you probably know. There was a statute of limitation on the offence so City got off on a technicality. People are entitled to their view about whether that means they cheated or not..You can't go around saying people are guilty of something that they haven't been proven guilty of, you don't have to like it but it is what it is. Should it be that way? no, but it is.
If I called OJ a murderer whilst he was alive on a huge public platform he wouldn't be long silencing me.
A more apt one is perhaps if I called Lance Armstrong a cheat before it was proven, he wouldn't be long silencing me either. Obviously after proven guilty that changes.
But whether people like it or not and regardless of how, City are guilty of exactly nothing so far. CAS overturned Uefa and the PL is just charges and until that changes stating they are on a public platform is incredibly stupid.
All of this is nothing to do with my own personal beliefs by the way, just the way it is.
No idea will be interesting to see if any reputable places drop it.Is that website reliable? It's quoting an unknown source from Man City where you would think in something like a flat denial, nobody would need to hide their identity.
He's said he'll be reading it out today on his podcast. Why he would lie about this is a mystery.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That's a half truth. Some stuff was time barred, other stuff was just purely quashed by City including the famous Aabar letter. A lot of Uefa's claims were deemed "not established" as in they couldn't be proven (or disproven for that matter).CAS overturned based on time barring evidence, as you probably know. There was a statute of limitation on the offence so City got off on a technicality. People are entitled to their view about whether that means they cheated or not..
People cannot comment on criminal trials before the verdict as it can lead to influence on the jury, but of course people have an opinion on verdicts and the fairness of trials etc