Cobs

he's reffed us 3 times v them - W1 D1 L1

Hodgson played him for 90 in the week preceeding the derby in Nov 2013 - Rodgers was annoyed, benched Sturridge who then came off the bench to equalise late on the Joe Allen miss that game then in Sept 2014 Hodge made him train when the club said for him not to and he got injured and he didn't play for us again until the end of Jan 2015

Jacquet needs to retire from International football

This content is not viewable to guests.

Just saved a pen v N Ireland

great bunch of lads

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Let’s see how bullish their fans are

They couldn’t He’s in a purple patch alright - still missed an absolute sitter and we have plenty for his position

0-5 now. Kane is gonna get 100 goals for England

Lovely for England to be 4up by half time (and it should be more) but WOW Croatia are bad

Irrefutable. Clear material errors, of law, principle and fact. https://x.com/alexgildeatrott/status/2105744530209472575?s=20

if they want unregulated funding they can vote for it - as per the PL rules City throwing their toys out of the pram for being sanctioned for cheating doesn't change that If City get booted out of the league then someone else takes their place, the TV deal is already set until 2028, the money still comes in and is split. With City out of the way that's an opportunity to win/earn more of it. Villa/Forest may want the chance to put more money in - well, they can under the new SCR rules - they can even deliberately breach the restrictions with predetermined points penalties set. I don't think any of them want unregulated funding because if that ever happens then the Saudi Barcodes win everything, forever. And what's the point of watching that? and the High Court says no. Then what?

You need grounds to do it - legal misconduct - and they don't have any but even so - doesn't stop the PL from meting out its punishment

and i don't see how they can appeal to the High Court either On the one side City and everyone else on the other?

Over the years of investigation and disclosure, the Premier League believed it identified part of the mechanism behind the alleged disguised funding payments. On several occasions, the independent panel’s judgement refers to a body named the CPC but its function is not explained in the redacted version. In March 2025, The Athletic revealed that a mysterious figure named “Person X” by UEFA’s earlier investigation, said to facilitate sponsorship payments to Manchester City, had been identified as a man named Jaber Mohamed by City’s lawyers. Mohamed, at the time, served as the General Director of the CPC — the Crown Prince’s Court, an Abu Dhabi government body that runs the public affairs of the Crown Prince, and the country’s present ruler, MBZ. The revelations raised uncomfortable questions not just about the apparent links to City’s ownership, but also about the extent to which payments were known about within the highest seats of power within the UAE. These geopolitical implications also explain the ongoing sensitivity and ferocity of legal proceedings, as well as the potential criminal repercussions of City’s alleged misreporting of financial information. City have fought hard on the topic of the CPC throughout the UEFA and Premier League investigations. Mohamed’s name was redacted from the UEFA and CAS decisions, being blacked out or referred to as ‘Person X’, and references to the CPC are largely redacted within the Premier League panel’s decision. Though one crucial paragraph is redacted, the Premier League judgement states that City’s primary defence against the allegation of disguised funding is the “CPC Explanation”. According to those familiar with the club’s line of argument, City claimed the CPC, as well as operating MBZ’s public affairs, also acted as a provider of what they claimed was legitimate financial assistance to state-linked entities such as City sponsors Etihad and Etisalat. Effectively, City’s stance was that the money did not come directly from sponsors but was sourced by the state (via the CPC) rather than ADUG. The independent panel ultimately rejected this argument — which was not made in front of UEFA’s adjudicatory board or CAS — after concluding “it was an ‘explanation’ that the Club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the disguised funding scheme.” I don't see how any appeal is going to be successful based on this

This content is not viewable to guests.

makes you wonder why they didn't co-operate, doesn't it?

Bribery as well as fraud from these c****

This content is not viewable to guests.

Presumably they had another appeal written on the process being too short and therefore not properly considered bit like Johnson and his two Brexit columns Yes

It’s the flat-bat answer he should have given yesterday instead of the ‘great bunch of lads’ horsesxhit he came out with

NEW Downing Street issues fresh statement on Man City case in an attempt to clarify Andy Burnham's comments to @ChrisMasonBBC yesterday A No 10 spokesperson said: “As the Prime Minister made clear, the initial judgement is serious and there can’t be any suggestion that anyone is above the rules. He also stressed that it is an ongoing independent process. It is essential that it is allowed to run its course and the outcome respected. “If wrongdoing is established, those responsible should face the appropriate consequences.“ Dan Roan @danroan · 18m NEW | Treasury Committee Chair has written to the Permanent Secretary of HMRC, about any tax implications of the PL investigation into Man City including *whether HMRC is aware of the findings *if an unredacted copy of the report has been requested by the department