He is a dickhead because the English media have been singing his praises forever since he came. fecking charlatan
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th Sep 2024 | Concluded 9th Dec 2024 - Awaiting outcome
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
He is a dickhead because the English media have been singing his praises forever since he came. fecking charlatan
how can so many people get something so basic completely wrong?
City were found guilty and had to pay a fine. How this translates to completely innocent is beyond me.
And no one in the news conference challenges him - fecking parrot journalists
Sounded pretty stupid in that presser to me. Doesn't even know City were let off the hook on a technicality.
I didn't mean they started it off the back off the verdict, they started in 2018 when they literally saw the proof in Football Leaks. Both (UEFA and PL) investigations end of 18, start of 19.
I guess you won in not being found guilty if that's what you mean - will be interesting this time around to see how things pan out, the pessimist in me thinks there'll be the weakest of wrist slaps coming your way after all is said and done.
undoubtedly a brilliant manager, but also undoubtedly an insufferable dickhead.
In case it wasn’t already very obvious, he adores money. I’m not surprised he’s taking this stance.
Weak. A man with no code.
Come on Guardiola, everybody knows you never go full ‘Bert’.
Half the point of a super league is to exclude City, its not a very good threat
Were we really expecting some integrity from him? He and his brother are just as complicit
Of course not. But it’s still important to point out how much of a hypocrite and sellout the man is.
he needs to be called out for his hypocrisy and lies (like City being innocent in the UEFA case 
). Too bad British journalists are so far up his ass that it's never going to happen.
). Too bad British journalists are so far up his ass that it's never going to happen.Feck off.
No, you didn't. You got away on a technicality, you shameless, bald feck.
Embarrassing stuff from Pep, why does he think they were found not guilty by Uefa? They had to pay a €10m fine and got away with the rest as evidence was time barred because City refused to cooperate with the investigation. And just because his club are cheating he's assuming other clubs are doing the same
Between Pep and Jurgen what I'd given to have Fergie back for a few months (no disrespect to ETH). He'd be inside their heads in no time and pushing them even further
It's really not. There's no PL cartel, there's no vendetta, it's literally just 19 teams being swindled by 1 team and wanting some punishment. ESL is about making money and City were invited to the party.
There will be plenty of time for more detailed questions. Today they just wound him up and let him spin.
It was hilarious.
That says it all doesn't it.Fool no one, you only ran away with your lives on the technicality of time barred and the "sources of the evidence".
Picture the scenes. Pep Guardiola defiantly leads his Manchester City team out at Wham Stadium as Manchester City prepare to face fellow National League new boys Accrington Stanley.
cOmPlEtElY InNoCeNt.
Just to be clear on this- did the investigators actually say that City were guilty but they couldn’t do anything because of the time barring? Or did they just say they couldn’t look at it, full stop?
Say that in Spanish or shut up.
Catalan o morir cap de suro
This has gone quiet. Typical City.
If you're referring to CAS, the verdict was:
a) that certain (possible) transgressions were time banned. Meaning, it happened too long ago (as per UEFA's own rules). CAS did not comment on whether said (possible) transgressions would have been actual transgressions if they had been more recent (which is what you'd expect - it's not their function to make such comments).
b) that City were guilty of not cooperating with the investigation. Translated: they did all they could to obscure whatever they could obscure, and were anything but transparent/forthcoming.
In short, to present this as: "they said we were 100% innocent!" is utterly laughable.
You’d have to be an absolute sociopath to agree with City’s stance
If City have done anything untoward when it comes to paying Pep and his agent brother they will have the receipts so I’m sure they could make this very uncomfortable for him too. Especially if it would involve his taxes.
Probably best he plays along.
Probably best he plays along.
If a paedo within plain sight hid evidence of his shenanigans, and three of his 5 'files' "probably" contained damning pictures. Would you say it was in his interest to ensure all five files were clearly in the open to avoid any confusion? Or is he completely and utterly 'legally innocent' because those 3 files never got to court (time barred)?
Would you send your kids to his house to play?
Edit: would Pep send his kids because it was his loyal work colleague?
LIving up to your user name again. What the feck has paedophilia to do with anything.
Might be years before we next hear anything.
Again wong on all counts and I fully believe City are guilty.
City refused to cooperate because they said the evidence handed over was sufficient and with CaS it was.
Of course its like City are guilty as hell and trying everything possible cause thats whats happening.
Fool no one, you only ran away with your lives on the technicality of time barred and the "sources of the evidence".
Its right there in line viii.
Again just cause something was time barred or non admissable doesn't mean it couldn't be argued against.
I think we'll lose this time and I hope the punishment fits the crime. Don't mistake me thinking City could pull this off as we're not guilty.
I'm just saying an army of the best paid lawyers in the world goes along way on these things. I don't think theres any way for a slap on the wrist now. I think the softest punishment if found guilty is 30 point deduction, and transfer ban. I suppose that could be a slap on the wrist depending on how many charges we go down on, and more importantly which ones.
Last edited:
CAS said they weren't reasonably convinced that City's revenue streams were legitimate. It's in black and white.
And of course it isn't legitimate. They have had to hide payments for a reason.
Do you reckon your owners might not push as hard this time? If we are generous and don't call it sportswashing and just say a big part of the reason they brought you was to help their reputation. At which point do they feel the controversy is counter productive?
It says not comfortably satisfied that Man City disguised equity. It doesn't say anything about reasonably convinced city's revenue streams were legit. Or if it does, not in the circled part.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that City increased their sponsorship levels to match their needs; I suppose I just don’t have a problem with it, just as I didn’t have a problem with Blackburn doing it in the early 1990s. It’s the only thing that makes the PL exciting for me.
Regarding the ‘100% innocent’, if that’s what he said. I guess if it’s a binary choice then a not guilty verdict is exactly the same as 100% innocent. In legal terms at least. But as we all know it’s difficult to apply a black and white answer to a far more nuanced situation.
Thats my whole point though buddy, not guilty = innocent, thats where innocent till proven guilty came from.
I know theres a technical difference in the verdicts as in one is "We're 100% sure they didn't do this" and the other is "We can't prove they did" but in the grand scheme of things it matters feck all.
If it can't be guilty it will be presumed innocent. No one will ever find "Not guilty but we still think they are"
Did City do the crime? In my opinion abso-fecking-lutely. In the laws opinion? No, because they couldn't prove it. (With regards the Cas case)
It'll be the same with the next case if City win, I'll still think we did it, as will average Joe but it won't make one iota of difference.
Put it this way, OJ Simpson is walking around with a not guilty verdict. And no one can say 100% he's not innocent, so he should be presumed innocent. We all kinda know the reality though even if we can't 100% it.
I don't get this.
I understand the idea in theory but not so much in practice. Those who don't like FFP say it shouldn't be there as it results in the league becoming boring like the bundisliga with 1 team winning it every season.
Well City have ignored FFP and they have won the league 4 out of the last 5 seasons and probably 6 out of the last 8. It has basically been a one team league it just changed the team. As a nuteral what difference does it make it our version of Bayern wears Red, Blue or Yellow?
Does anyone actually think Pep is a man of morals and values? He’s fully in on the scam and a character fraud.