- Why is it that so many newspaper stories about Arsenal turn out to be untrue
- The Premier League is now teetering on the edge, but there is still a way out
By Tony Attwood
Here are the comments and ratings from the Guardian on the two Arsenal players, playing for England against Greece.
“Declan Rice Forced to deal with too many runners because of England playing playing too many attacking players. Overwhelmed on a confusing night. 4/10
Bukayo Saka Unable to get into the game and run at Dimitris Giannoulis. Arsenal fans will be fretting about their winger limping off. 5/10
And really, not for the first time one begins to wonder why players play these games. For the glory? For the money? Both seem unlikely. But they do it, and run the risk of not only getting bad reviews like those above, but also of picking up an injury and wrecking Arsenal’s chances of winning a trophy this season.
Yet of course the media don’t go into that. They cover international matches without any mention of the notion that internationals might be damaging to clubs and players.
It’s a similar situation with the ManC case. It would see the Guardian is trying to dig under the surface with its article, “Is Manchester City’s rage against the machine more a posture than a plan?” which suggests (I think for the first time) that ManC don’t actually have a well-thought out plan for the overthrow of English football and the rebuilding it in the image of ManC, but actually are just posturing.
As for why ManC might be behaving as they do, without having an underlying plan, that is explained in the sub-headling, “Club’s relentless railing against organisations that challenge them helps rally fans but do they really have an alternative?”
ManC has stated, “There remain significant unresolved matters raised by Manchester City FC as part of what the Club has found to be a wholly unsatisfactory, curtailed and hostile process.” And yes I suppose in their eyes they are unresolved, largely because they refrain from remembering that the case in which they took on Uefa, was only won because Uefa was judged by the Court for Arbitration in Sport to have left it too late to bring their case.
What was never asked by the media at the time (or any time since) was how on earth could Uefa be so stupid as to allow themselves to run out of time? The only answers possible seem to be a) ManC refused to release vital evidence in the case, knowing that if Uefa didn’t present the case in time, Uefa would lose, b) Uefa had, for some reason we can imagine but can’t say in print, no interest in actually beating ManC, or c) Uefa were grossly incompetent. Choose as many of those as you wish.
The media of course refused to investigate those options, and so ManC was found … well neither guilty nor not guilty, since the case was out of time.
But now to be back in the dock again seems at least to be a case of carelessness by Manc, carelessness which comes perhaps from a total belief in the righteousness of one’s case. And it raises the question, where do you go after that?
Now of course, we know. The club goes on the attack against any authorities that get in its way, and appeals to the rest of the League to support its “just cause”..
So what we have now, according to the Guardian report is ManC writing to all the other clubs in the Premier League telling them “not to trust the organisation’s word”. The “organisation” being the Premier League – of which the other 19 clubs are all members! And they should not be trusted because their summary of the case against ManC was “misleading and contained several inaccuracies”.
Following this, the view is formed that the new direction the League is taking is “unwise” and is likely to lead to further legal proceedings [presumably initiated by ManC] and more legal costs [which it is implied the clubs might feel to be an unreasonable drain on their finances.]
And this would be because…. well because ManC seem to be saying that any more action by anyone against ManC will lead to court, and the club will go on and on and on complaining and appealing until the rest of the clubs and the League runs out of money, and there is only ManC left.
It is also reported that ManC’s chief lawyer, Simon Cliff, has suggested that “it is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator.”
That is obviously true, but it is not going to happen under the current circumstances. For if the Regulator is one ManC likes, then it is unlikely the rest of the League will feel happy. And of course vice-versa.
The only way out of this is for ManC to leave the League and set up its own League which it can win regularly, or for the rest of the League to leave and set up their own new League without ManC, rather as the clubs did when they left the Football League to form the Premier League. They did it then and can do it again now.
Either way ManC can be left happy for they can be in a league they will always win.
Poor old entitled Arsenal (along with your fellow collaborators united and Liverpool).
It’s you through your puppet Masters that’s brought this upon yourselves. You lost on the field and now in the courts despite Masters letting you get away with loans being ignored.
You came looking for a fight now you’re seeing the consequences. We know what your game is and Masters is too dim to see it’s a European Super League. It’s going to get hotter down there
They already are, and your article is as inaccurate as the premier league rules
It is always interesting, and to a degree amusing, that whenever we run an article about the protests and actions of Manchester C against others in football we are told by Man C supporters that we have got the details wrong or not understood. And always the reply is, well, fine, please explain where and how.
Really not quite sure what you are saying Harry Berry. Untold supported the superleague when it was first proposed, although maybe you are criticising us without knowing what we have written. I suppose that is always possible
ridiculous,nonsensical and totally biased..The writer is so sick of City’s achievements AND the constant belittling of City by almost every other journalist, that this is his effort to try and be ‘clever’ and enjoy the slaps on the back from other ID it’s like himself. Get a life and report properly or go back to school and educate yourself..You are just Stupid to release what a Pratt you are
Tony,
Your article is clearly a self serving piece with a single objective of painting Manchester City in a manner that suits your own and your clubs best interests.
Take just one of your points:
The issue over accusations being ‘time barred’ during the UETA/CAS FFP cases. You imply that Manchester City were guilty but ‘got away with it’ because of the time limitation. This is a gross misrepresentation. Time barring means only that an allegation will not be considered and does not imply guilt or innocence.
The best advice I can give you, Tony, is don’t give up your day job!
It’s very sad (but perhaps understandable) that the arrogance of MCFC as a club is clearly rubbing off on its supporters. “We want everything done the way we want, for our benefit and to the detriment of everyone else and we think that’s fair……..oh and we’re always right.”
Jeez, it’s like being back in the school playground with a petulant bully!
What a stupid article clearly an idiot with very little up there, the bottom line is Richard Masters is taking kickbacks from his masters the red cartel and that’s always been his mission. City must not give up on on their heroic crusade against corruption and dictatorship.
On arsenal headed paper. Letter to
CAS. Please BAN MCFC. Before they app
eal..
There are E mails from the red shirted cartel and their white shirted bitch that are going to cause
Big trouble for one of them a top director of american owned club saying about city owners all being terrorist etc thats a gross rasism charge and along with other e mails could/ should lead to them being kicked out of the country.
American ownership is not positive
För the League,be interesting to find out how much they take out of football per year
Just like Arsenal deluded I will address 1 point the Time Barring. Cause you got this so so so so wrong and its OLD Uefa charged city with a number of Charges which where time barred> this was not down to cas not down to city This was down to incompetence of UEFA for charging city for something that was older than 5 years when they charged city. Also UEFA charged city for an FFP breach when the year was not covered by FFP. Now all the charges which where not Time barred Like the Eithad Sponsorship which Cas found city not guilty on. We was found guilty on 2 counts of not cooperating which carries no sporting sanctions like the PL none cooperation carries no Sporting Sanctions .
The prem league has bent over backwards to maintain the status quo power base of Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal. Everytime a club has the chance to finally get a cash injection and maybe challenge these bastards and rock their powerbase they change the rules…….supposedly for the good of the rest of us. Its not good for the rest of us……if an owner can not invest their own cash into their own club (business) the club will never have a chance to grow. Man City are charged with over inflating sponsorship deals (still not guilty yet)…….the court just announced that INTEREST FREE LOANS FROM THE OWNER IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS INFLATING SPONSORSHIP DEALS……..Arsenal are ALREADY guilty of this. So if you think City are evil scum for over inflating sponsorship deals (still not proven) then logically you must think your own team are evil scum. You cant have it both ways. Why should you be able to have gazzilions of dosh on an interest free loan to buy players but City can’t spend their own money. Doesnt make any sense……unless you are a bigot.
Hey City fans don’t you feel just a bit greasy supporting and celebrating a club owned by a petro state with values inimical to our own? Or maybe those are your values.
I just had not realised how many City115 fans were avid readers of Untold…..
I do remember the shitstorm that came to be some years ago about the Arsenal owners, who through their TV ventures, owned a TV channel talking of hunting. Then I guess animals rights are way more important then human rights….
And I am amazed by one basic hypocrisy : most of the fans go to the game and drink their beers…. and I guess City115 fans do the same. Alcohol however is banned or considered a major sin in muslim countries. So how can alcohol be sold at the Etihad or other stadia owned via gulf states organisations….
Man Shitty characterised by the bullying, arrogant and petrulant persona of Mr. Haaland.
Chris
Just one of their many layers of hypocrisy, not the least of which is how they try to take the moral high with the rather perverse claim that they are only monopolising the Premier League in order to break the Red Giants monopoly. You couldn’t make this shit up.
So, even if it was a three club monopoly, to try and claim that a one club monopoly is somehow better, is ridiculous in the extreme.
And lest we forget, Man city fans actually try to claim they are doing this for everyone else’s benefit, not just theirs.
You only have to read the City fans above to realise just how deluded they really are.
I’d like to apologize to all MC115 fans on behalf of all Arsenal fans who have an opinion – an unforgivable trait in this oil-rich world. We appreciate that, contrary to the opinion pf a certain protest group, oil is the answer to everything.
These MC thugs have drunk the kool-aid of their hurry-come-up team. One should not expect sound discourse from them.
Blaze we do get a lot of comments such as yours and we do publish some of them but because most are saying the same thing, and our reply would be the same, it does get a bit tedious to publish them all.
Ultimately the comment back from Unotold to your comment is always the same: please share your eviddence, rather than pure asserttion. After all if I said the moon is made of cheese, you would ask for evidence, I imagiine, because that point is contested. Your point is contested, so please supply some evidence to back up your claim
Ask yourself this question. Why do these charges all relate to events before 2019? What is the significance of 2018 in these proceedings?
What I find fascinating is that, Alan, you feel it is worth writing to express your views. I note that you have an Australian address, and it maybe that things are felt differently there, but do you really believe that writing in this way will have an impact on the people who run this blog? Do you have any evidence that writing as you do, achieves anything? Or do you write in this way for your own sake?