Because everything the newspapers say is always 100% fact..

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...-a7322836.html

Looks like City could be in trouble.

If you continue to post negative things about a rival team, forum members may start questioning your neutrality in the neutral thread.

This week the media was full of "drinkwater to united" headlines. This is timed so that the player is unsettled immediately before the United v Leicester game.

How do you feel about the tapping up & unsettling United are doing, as well as the negative headlines about jose threatening arsene wenger that are todays headlines?

Where would you advise that particular post should have been posted about Man city?

Negative things??

All I have done is post a story that is in a major newspaper regarding City, or is that not allowed? Are we only supposed to post positive things about them?

I just wish to know, so as not to break any supposed rules.

As for us being linked with players, we get linked with players all of the time, what makes this link any more concrete then any of the others?

As for the book, well of course it is not the best of headlines, but an author, and a newspaper will always pick out the juiciest bits to try and sell more copies of both.

http://www.skysports.com/football/ne...ces-tell-ssnhq

Supposedly above board, can't see them being daft enough to mess up.

Mourinho is obsessed with Arsene Wenger, he really needs to let it go, he is making himself look very stupid. What is it with him

I don't think there is anything wrong with you posting the link about City on here

'Tapping up? ".

I presume you've got more than Sky Sports news for this accusation?

I agree it just seems a bit old hat now that particular rivalry.

Still though, you will always get the most sensational bits in a newspaper that is serialising the book, so as a headline without the context in which it is put in the book, it is a bit useless I feel.

Thanks for the last part, I did think that this was the best area to post that link, not that I think anything will happen with it though.

Mourinho is one of those guys who I think even his own clubs fans struggle to like at times.

From a clubs perspective he has to be winning as he hasn't got much else to fall back on.

Obviously he's been able to do that for the majority of his managing career but his last 12 to 18 months have been quite different.

Giggs is being linked with the Swansea job. Apparently he'd be interested.

I don't have high hopes for him if he got the job. I might even put money on them going down if he gets the job. He could be a success, of course, but I have doubts.

Swansea don't look that good a side as in previous years, and I thought that they might struggle this year anyway, so Giggs going there might not really affect things too much.

A Cardiff guy being their manager, might taking some getting used to though I would imagine.

He's already explained his reasons - he doesn't think Schweinsteiger can contribute anything and sees no point in him and his coaches spending time training a player they don't want so he's gone to the reserves to keep fit. Given Schweinsteiger has repeatedly stated he has no problem with Mourinho, it's very unlikely that he is 'treating the player despicably'.

As for the report on Mourinho's comments, who knows. The person who wrote the book has a history for just making shit up, he's had to apologise to Man City before for his claims about Mancini's appointment and he has a hell of a motive for making something up to gain maximum publicity. If true, it's pretty dickish but I'm not sure if it is.


I assume if you are accusing United of tapping up another team's player you have some sort of evidence?


Obviously everyone will just have to wait and see but I didn't think Barcelona and the two Madrid clubs would be daft enough to breach the rules either.

Literally just read this now.

Stuart Brennan ‏@StuBrennanMEN 5m
FIFA have decided #MCFC have no case to answer after they were reported by Velez Sarsfield over the transfer of Benjamin Garre in the summer

Ha, great timing.

No surprise there, it always seemed like a bit of a long shot, for them to get into any trouble over such a trivial matter.

I bet you're disappointed though.

Well I know I am.☺

Andre Gray of Burnley suspended by FA for 4 matches with immediate effect for misconduct in respect of social media comments.

I didn't know they had the authority to punish him for something he said four/five years ago. I think he was non-league then, too.

I guess the fact that it was still there meant they could punish him.

It's good that they're making an example of him to show zero tolerance towards homophobia.

You, like the rest of us, have no idea what's in yaya's contract. Of course clubs will have some form of standard contract, but when a star player is signed, I doubt it's a take it or leave it offer like you and I would get. Id imagine top players have a far greater say in what is included in their contract. For example Rooney's contract is said to include a clause which says he will always be the highest paid player and some believe there is a clause that he will always be in the starting lineup if fit. Although the latter may be tongue in cheek.

The opportunity to do that would have been back in 2012 when he actually made the comments and when he should have been punished for them, not now.

The most concerning aspect of this whole incident for me was how the FA actually came to be made aware of the comments, which I understand happened around the time Gray scored Burnley's winning goal against Liverpool - so presumably it was the case that a disgruntled Liverpool fan simply went through Gray's previous tweets, saw the offending one and decided to exact revenge by spreading it so far and wide that the FA saw it.

I'm not condoning the vile comments he made in the slightest but I think that the lengthy time since should have been taken into consideration when deciding the punishment - and I also think that football justice is on a slippery slope when it comes down to annoyed fans dredging up things from a player's past to get them into trouble simply because he scored a goal which beat the team they support.

Well after Roy Keane got a ban for what he wrote or said in his book, about the infamous "tackle" on Haarland, the precedent was there to ban someone for a past crime.

Or at least that is how I remember it happening anyway.

Fair point Jason C - it probably punishes Burnley more than the player himself.

Ironically he will miss some games against potential rivals of Liverpool for the top spots.

(I don't mean us!)

How do you know it wasn't taken into consideration? It's quite possible they would have given him more than a 4 game ban if he'd only just posted it.

Good to see the FA not letting it slide. Serves him right.

Sometimes its impossible to stimulate conversation on here, its just a binary "everything you say is wrong" kind of thread. Simple question, do you think a club paying a player £10m a year is going to wing it or actually have some sort of contingency written into contract (or like us lesser mortals in normal jobs a staff handbook and disciplinary procedure totally spelled out to us before Day 1)?

So i agree, i have absolutely no idea what is in Yays's contract. But at a guess something that stops him claiming the club has broken his contract and seeking damages should he be left out of the first team squad and/or made to train with the reserves or alone? Any suggestions appreciated because there's no sample contracts on google and the rarity with which you see High Court cases between players and football clubs makes me wonder how court cases never happen. These are huge money contracts, imagine Yaya could prove City had broke the terms of his contract and wants the rest of it paid in full now as damages. He'd then be a free agent to sign for any club of his choice. Surely something must be in place to stop this? Or perhaps not.