Pundits will praise Arsenal for that.
That was a smash and grab.
They got pummeled for 90 minutes, got away with murder, and hit the deck whenever we went near them.
Referee bought every bit of it.
Embarrassment.
What am I fucking witnessing here they're literally collapsing every time we go near them and the ref laps it up
The ball is going out, referee blows a second before the forces Kerkez to go off.
Embarrassing performance
Next time you get frustrated that a player goes down easily in the box
Remember that referees are forcing them to do it
He goes down here it's stonewall
This is the equivalent of faking your taxes to pay less, and when you're charged, telling the judge to:
"Consider another perspective, I thought I was uncovering something no one else had"
I watched the F1 film with Brad Pitt the other day, and there’s a moment where his character asks to add something to the car that isn’t really in the rules. The FIA punishes it, but the team can still race with the earlier car. It made me think.
In F1, the best teams live at the edge of the regulations. Sometimes the FIA allows what they’ve found, and sometimes it says that goes too far. Occasionally the rules are rewritten afterwards.
Now, City. I’m not defending them. A commission found they entered into sham agreements and broke the spending limits. A sham is an arrangement that isn’t what it claims to be, so that’s a different thing from using a gap nobody had spotted.
City deny it and will appeal. But I find it useful to ask/reflect on how people inside the club see it.
From their point of view, PERHAPS they believe they were doing what elite competitors do: looking at the rules, finding the limits, challenging interpretations and moving faster than the regulatory system.
From the outside, you might look at that and say, “That’s cheating.” From inside the organisation, they might say, “We found something nobody had thought of.”
If you believe you’ve found a way to bring money in, more or less within the rules (and the commission said it was not in the rules and it was cheating), you might tell yourself you’re just being a sharp competitor.
We are all asking “did City cheat?”. But I find this question interesting too: “how did City come to believe they weren’t?”
And understanding a mindset, or trying to, isn’t excusing it.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Manchester City were found guilty of 114 out of 115 charges by an independent commission. The comparison made is not in the same ball park to the level of rule breaking Man City have committed.
premierleague.com/en/news/472777…
You can't even call this exaggerating sponsorship. It's completely fabricating sponsorship.
For every £1 a sponsor paid, City paid themselves £8



