dockers_strike

Yep.

Like Ive said, the league is won. It's over bar the shouting. Tonight was a tense game but this is what Champions do. They look to be under the cosh and on the back foot then pull the result out of the bag. Every title winning side from any club in England you want to mention, have done this to win titles. And we're no different now. Wolves are a decent side but I dont buy into this they're a great side. Defensively I thought both Trent and Andy were poor tonight. We can talk about lack of protection but Andy just has to do better on that ball. But both Trent and Andy have had great hard seasons so far so it's a bit harsh to be critical. Fucking Oliver gave them all the freekicks against Joe and Virgil. There was one late in the 2nd half were the wolves player pulls joe to the ground but he gives them the free kick! Bit surprised Jurgen put Minamino onas a sub in this game, I thought with Sadio going off Divock was the change. Mo had a nice touch for Bobby's goal but his decision and finishing was a bit off tonight. The Ox was a massive disappointment after his show of frustration coming off against the mancs. If you're going to do that, make sure you pull up a few trees in your next game. So onto west ham. Come on reds!

A zinger then!?

One or two dodgey moments at the back, we look uncharacteristically nervous. Being pedantic and super critical, Trent's passes are pretty appalling, corner excepted. Considering the Ox was pissed off about being subbed on Sunday, he's not looked good tonight. Joe needs to stop grabbing hold of the oppo he's standing next to. Mo's finishing has been poor. he'd have scored a hattrick if this was his first season again. Please Bobby and Mo, stop the little backheels. Made up Hendo got on the end of Trent's corner but fuck me, they cause controversy with VAR by checking every last thing. No doubt the mancs and everton fans will be calling it a handball goal. Need to tighten up in the second half. What's Sadio's injury, was it when he had that tackle with Neves?

Did joe cole really just say in that BT piece Liverpool will have trouble holding onto their star players in the summer with the players banging on the manager's door and bigger clubs coming in for them?!?! What the fuck is he drinking!?

Fernandes deal off according to the wail. Sporting wont let united push them around and negotiate a lower fee so united have baulked and walked away!

Ahem. Bobby Duncan's career is again in limbo with Fiorentina reportedly pleading to FIFA for the chance to offload the former Liverpool forward. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bobby-duncan-liverpool-transfer-news-17621042

Probably this. He's managed two PL clubs now. His record is 1 relegation and he's now got the so called biggest club in the world into relegation form. He's got absolute no idea how to turn the ship around because he's tactically inept. it wouldnt surprise me if the players are having a good laugh behind his back.

Im in the SKD Upper and I cant say the pitch looks in need of any real attention. The only places it looks a bit rough is where the oppos do those two lines of repeated 10 metre runs. Put some really furrows in the pitch just where Trent runs to and makes his crosses. I think its a deliberate tactic, the cunts.

They could spend shitloads under the gimp and apart from a cup final if they get easy draws like city last season, they arent going to be successful while he's there. The big question is, just how long will they persist with him? He surely cannot start next season as manager so I think he might be safe until the last 4 or 5 games when either he'll swallow his sword or their owners bin him. As a manager, he's utterly incompetent. Fucking your only decent striker like he has with rashford is just beyond comprehension. Since he was made permanent manager last year, it's funny how the papers and tv sports programmes had been trumpeting 'Ole wants' this play, that player etc. Now, ferdinand hints that these are players foistered on him and he's had nothing to do with signing them. Neither despite being there a full year has he established what ferdinand calls a 'clear pathway.' Again, ferdinand hints this is the owners problem, surely that's down to solskjaer? Some of the shit, well all of it actually, that solskjaer come out with in his pressers is pure comedy gold. The united fans probably swallowed his soundbite bollocks but you get the feeling even his most ardent supporters can see he's a bigger bullshitter than Moyes. After that, it is who they get in. Everyone seems to think Pochettino is the favourite but I think Allegri the former Juve manager might be a dark horse.

Exactly this. But my head wont fall off when it happens although I can think of two posters who'll be giving it large if we do. Really looking forward to this, tough game as it is.

Makes interesting reading but they'll just say we've cooked the books. Fuck 'em.

Well if you was in the ground (which I do not doubt) you were pretty much on your own not celebrating because everywhere I could see, people were falling over themselves celebrating. I was celebrating like fuck but I said to the lads next to me, united will moan like fuck about it which they did. The reality is it's the same as Gini's goal which was ruled offside by the lino. You celebrate the goal if you dont spot the infringement. The plain fact is you havent been legally able to challenge a keeper for a ball in the air for years. You cannot even stand near them while they take a drop kick. Shmichel used to get free kicks for far less than what Virgil did against de gea. But I agree, people have lost and are losing faith in VAR. And that's down to Riley and his PGMOL. Amongst all the shit Rileyhas managed to stir up, he could have aleviated the vast majority of it by a simple approach, one in part he hasnt stuck to. All VAR had to do was notify the ref if it spotted a clear error or foul the ref didnt. The VAR tells the ref what they think he's missed and go look for himself on the pitchside monitor. The ref stays the final arbiter. I admit some people will never accept VAR. It needs revision.

Financial cheats manchester city were found to have made inadmissible submissions to Uefa over financial fair play in 2014 and were reported for not making their bank statements available, the Guardian can reveal. City’s submissions for the 2012 and 2013 financial years were questioned in relation to £118.75m in sponsorships from companies in Abu Dhabi, the home state of the club’s owner, and their accounting methods over transfer fees and the formation of two new companies were rejected. Manchester City feel the heat over financial affairs – what’s at stake Read more Almost £60m was added to the club’s losses by the European game’s governing body as a result of findings relating to accounting methods, the Guardian’s investigation can reveal. The findings against City were made by consultants appointed by Uefa in spring 2014 to delve further into the accounts the club submitted. The Guardian can reveal Uefa concluded City had made losses totalling approximately €180m in 2012 and 2013, vastly exceeding the €45m FFP maximum deficit allowed, provided those losses were covered by an owner. Uefa’s first inquiry into City over FFP has been known about for six years. So too has the deal which City eventually and reluctantly agreed with Uefa to limit their transfer spending. But the detail of the process, revealed today by the Guardian, has never officially been made public. The Guardian understands that within Uefa there were people who believed the regulations should have been more strictly enforced in 2014 and one staff member working on FFP is said to have left shortly after the settlement was agreed. The exposure of these details has come as a second investigation into City’s FFP compliance, sparked by revelations in November 2018, is nearing completion. The Abu Dhabi sponsorships became bitterly contested issues in November 2018 when Der Spiegel published “leaked” internal City emails and documents which suggested the club’s owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, was largely funding the Etihad sponsorship deal himself, unknown to Uefa. The “adjudicatory chamber” of Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) is understood to be hearing the charges made against the club this week. If its panel finds the charges proven it could ban City from the Champions League, the trophy the club has most coveted since the start of Mansour’s £1.3bn project and transformational 2016 appointment of Pep Guardiola as manager. City are certain to appeal against any adverse finding to the court of arbitration for sport. In 2014 European football’s governing body was led by the now Fifa president, Gianni Infantino, and leaks published in 2018 by Der Spiegel appear to show he was personally involved in the settlement. The club risked severe sanctions for the scale of its deficit including possible exclusion from the Champions League, yet a controversial settlement was agreed in May 2014. City vehemently objected to the process and the conclusions, and were seriously threatening legal action against FFP, arguing that the break-even principle could be considered unlawful. The consultants reported to Uefa that City had not provided them with bank statements so that the payments, including from the sponsoring companies, could clearly be seen, the Guardian understands. Manchester City take the lead to face down Uefa over break-even rules Read more City did make available their online bank account, which went back 12 months to the spring of 2013, but that did not cover 2012 or most of the 2013 financial year, which together constituted the first accounting period of Uefa’s FFP regulations. City are understood to have replied that the paper bank statements were not accessible to the club’s management at the time the consultants came to Manchester. The club’s hierarchy suggested to Uefa that the consultants could have made further requests for statements before highlighting that they had not been provided. The consultants are also understood to have reported to Uefa that some multimillion-pound sponsorship contracts with Abu Dhabi companies had not been signed. City dismissed that as an issue, telling Uefa that they also had contracts with non-Abu Dhabi sponsors which had not been signed, and that it was clear the deals had been done because the sponsorships were being fulfilled. The FFP regulations, introduced in 2010-11, were aimed at dampening players’ wage inflation and encouraging European clubs not to make huge losses. Under FFP losses cannot be reduced by owners putting more millions in via excessive commercial partnerships with companies related to them. City were taken over by Sheikh Mansour of the Abu Dhabi ruling family in 2008 and he with his executives instantly transformed the club’s finances and ambitions. City faced a severe challenge to comply with the €45m loss limit when the club’s spending was escalating dramatically, with the multiple signings of star players; City’s sponsorships with the Abu Dhabi entities were examined closely by the CFCB. In 2011 City’s sponsorship by the Abu Dhabi state airline Etihad was converted into a 10-year deal, to include the stadium, and by 2013, after City had won the Premier League for the first time, it is understood to have gone up to £67.5m a year. The deals with three other entities from Abu Dhabi are understood to have been £15m a year from the investment firm Aabar, £16.5m from the telecommunications giant Etisalat, and £19.75m from the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority. In 2014 Uefa’s consultants, reported to be PwC, are understood to have advised the CFCB that Aabar and Etisalat were “related parties” to City because Mansour was the chairman of the investment funds which owned them. After further research Uefa was also advised that Etihad should be considered a related sponsor because of relationships of Mansour’s with members of the extended ruling family involved in the airline. City have strenuously rejected the conclusion that Etihad or the other two companies are related to City under the rules, arguing Uefa needed to show Mansour had substantial influence over their management, not just that he was the chairman of the funds owning them. Uefa is understood to have asked specialist sponsorship consultants to consider whether the money being paid to City by the Abu Dhabi companies was “fair value”. The Etihad deal is thought not to have been considered too excessive. In the ultimate settlement agreed with Uefa City committed “not to seek to improve” the value of two of the secondary sponsorships, which were not named, and Uefa is thought to have agreed not to press the argument that the companies are related. In relation to transfer fees the consultants added £31m to City’s deficit after rejecting allowances City had claimed for the cost of players signed before June 2010. The rules allowed a club to take off the wages of players signed before FFP was introduced but not the transfer fees. City are understood to have argued fiercely that despite Uefa issuing guidance that such annual accounting for transfer fees, known as amortisation, was not an allowance for FFP, the rules did not exclude it. A further £28m was put on to the club’s deficit by Uefa’s consultants regarding the formation in January 2013 of two companies, City Football Services and City Football Marketing. The companies were to provide resources including scouting, analysis and marketing to the group of clubs worldwide which Sheikh Mansour was intending to buy. City submitted that the club had in effect sold the companies, receiving approximately £11m for each, and that the companies had taken around £6m of staff costs off the club’s payroll. City argued strongly that this was a legitimate way of accounting for the companies but the CFCB’s consultants are understood to have concluded that it should not be allowed. Under a settlement with Uefa City undertook to repay €20m from the 2013-14 Champions League revenues, have a European squad limit of 21, constrain transfer spending, not increase their wage bill until 2016 and make a maximum €30m loss for 2014 and 2015. City’s chairman, Khaldoon al-Mubarak, made clear publicly that he disagreed with Uefa and the settlement but argued that given the club’s success they would comply with the break-even rules after 2014. The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email. Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar and the Abu Dhabi Tourism and Culture Authority did not respond to emailed questions from the Guardian about the sponsorship contracts. Etihad has previously stated that the City sponsorship is the airline’s “sole liability and responsibility,” and that it “continues to deliver important ongoing and accumulative returns on our investments”. Uefa declined to comment in response to any questions about the 2014 assessment and settlement, or the current proceedings. A spokesperson for City said: “The 2014 settlement agreement resolved all open matters between the parties and was based on comprehensive information disclosure. The settlement agreement contains confidentiality provisions that prevent Manchester City from commenting on both the agreement and the investigation that it settled. “It continues to be our position that we will not be providing any comment on out-of-context materials. The attempt to damage the club’s reputation is organised and clear.” https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jan/22/manchester-city-financial-fair-play-breaches-2012-13-accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league

Chris Sutton!

Arsenal are going to want £50m for him. He certainly knows where the goal is but I cannot see us paying £50m for the lad who's going to sit on the bench for the next 12 months.

Sutton nails it there, doesnt he?

Seeing as he said he puts the club ahead of himself, anyone thing he's going to resign tonight? Or does the gimp just talk the talk?

Why are they singing about us again?!

Like I said, united raised their game on Sunday just like they used to during the 70s and 80s. But the gimp's getting sack tomorrow if this result stands, isnt he? I thought he said they were making 'real progress'?

Ha, it gets complicated, nerdy or pedantic if you want to get right down to it and Im not following the game so dont know if it was the 4th minute or not. Official time for the 1st half ends when the clock hits 45:00. Added or injury time starts at this point from 0 minute 0 seconds. But if you score at 0 minute 35 seconds, you've scored in the first minute of added time. So, if they scored at 4 minutes and 15 seconds, they scored in the 5th minute of added \ injury time. If they scored at 5minutes and 48 seconds, that's the 6th minute of added time!

No, they've scored in the 4th minute of added time. Added time is deemed completely separate from each half which has 45 minutes official time, the second half starts from 45 minute and 1 second.

Id take a draw now but I think we'll win. Wolves are a decent side but they leak goals. Despite the hype, I dont rate that Traore. Yes, he's quick. Yes, he's strong but he has little end product most of the time.

From about 10:30 if it doesnt start properly.