@JustDSK He isn't wrong. Only two logical explanations:
1. City were the intended target from the beginning.
2. He got threatened to not expose other teams.
He did release some docs about Benfica and PSG but nothing major.
@olubamidele@nrmarxs@themagic_tophat@bernardooooV3 Nearly every club that had a long period of domination was through owner investment. The only one that may be different on face value is Man United, because of the whole stock market story. But even then, they did a lot of things off the pitch that no other clubs could do.
@olubamidele@somefilmstudies@themagic_tophat@bernardooooV3 It's hyper-biased rival fans that keep saying "city voted for the rules" because of their extreme low iq. I'm not claiming it means anything. Calm down with your hyper bias.
@somefilmstudies@themagic_tophat@bernardooooV3 Exactly, so the point is invalid. I said rejected, not voted no. City have outsmarted everyone, from UEFA to the dumb American owners. In the end they win, around 30-31 season there will be a settlement where they agree to back down if PL pays their legal fees and cancel PSR.
@nrmarxs@themagic_tophat@bernardooooV3 Mansour isn't a nation state. The "only people who's opinion matters" "independent panel" say that. They also said Mansour didn't know he paid £1b to Etihad hahahahahahahahahahah. When city win the appeal I will be here.
@nrmarxs@themagic_tophat@bernardooooV3 Even if we go back 1000 years, it doesn't change the logic. Now you have shifted the goalposts and said the only issue is nation state. That wasn't the original argument. You automatically concede the argument by moving goalposts. Emojis won't help.
@nrmarxs@themagic_tophat@bernardooooV3 Arsenal didn't started in 1996. Look up Henry Norris. They were known as "the Bank of England club" for a reason.
@mitch1029@LiamYates19891@themagic_tophat@bernardooooV3 He didn't say they were the biggest spenders, he said they could outspend their rivals. They could, and they did. And it was allowed. Over 90s and 2000s combined, only Chelsea spent more than United, but that's because their spending began in 2003, prices increase over time.
@nrmarxs@themagic_tophat@bernardooooV3 It's easy to generate money when your owners invested pre-FFP and then you blocked other clubs from doing the same. Shit argument.
@nrmarxs@themagic_tophat@bernardooooV3 1. You can't earn a financial advantage from success if the success required financial input, it makes no sense. It's anti-comletitive, weak. Might as well be the super league.
2. Arsenal, Liverpool, and many other clubs' best eras were caused by owner investment. Learn history.
@themagic_tophat@bernardooooV3 Your analogy is the exact opposite of the reality, literally. Using your analogy, it would be like Armstrong openly using PEDs for years and then when (an Arab) Phelps arrives, suddenly they get banned, but Armstrong can continue to compete despite the lasting benefits. Logic.
@jonmufc44 Every single tweet of his, he spins things in the most anti-City way possible. Nothing to see here. Yesterday he said something would destroy city's appeal, and backtracked after getting refuted.
@realrxAFC Yeh like 99.9999% of fans of the loser clubs crying about the one well-run club all the time for allegedly breaking rules that were only brought in to specifically target them. 1st September 08, Mansour buys City. 3rd September 08, first ever UEFA FFP meeting took place. Hahahaha