Manchester City under investigation for alledged financial fair play violations

[Wales-Bales]

The other Wales-Bales ended the grammar element to the thread half an hour ago (it's in red so you should be able to see it), now you want to carry it on. The pair of you need to have a word. One of you flounces, the other one doesn't care what anyone says. It's very confusing.

Either you can prove statement a) above is not true or you can't. I'm willing to admit I am wrong if you can disprove my logic. I can't be fairer than that

[Loramski]

Either you can prove statement a) above is not true or you can't. I'm willing to admit I am wrong if you can disprove my logic. I can't be fairer than that

Of course you won't admit that you're wrong, that's part of your condition. You had no idea Man City were being investigated for historical offences, that's why you put it in the present tense. You could've admitted you were wrong when Heisenberg pointed it out but instead of that you've spent over four hours coming up with grammatical gibberish to try and dig your way out of it and show you were right all along. It's painful to watch.

[Wales-Bales]

Of course you won't admit that you're wrong, that's part of your condition. You had no idea Man City were being investigated for historical offences, that's why you put it in the present tense. You could've admitted you were wrong when Heisenberg pointed it out but instead of that you've spent over four hours coming up with grammatical gibberish to try and dig your way out of it and show you were right all along. It's painful to watch.

Of course I read it before I posted it. Why else would I say "It's a current investigation, therefore the dates are immaterial"? It looks like your mind reading skills are even worse than your logic skills!

[Loramski]

Of course I read it before I posted it. Why else would I say "It's a current investigation, therefore the dates are immaterial"? It looks like your mind reading skills are even worse than your logic skills!

You've just proved my point though, that was your first reply to Heisenberg when he pointed out they were historical offences. As I've pointed out twice already (are there three of you?), that doesn't make any sense anyway, if it did then 'why does Michael Jackson still feel the need to (allegedly) abuse children?' would make sense. That's how ridiculous your argument is.

I know Mike hasn't got a duty of care to his posters but maybe he could do something to help you, you're obviously in a bad place.

[Wales-Bales]

You've just proved my point though, that was your first reply to Heisenberg when he pointed out they were historical offences. As I've pointed out twice already (are there three of you?), that doesn't make any sense anyway, if it did then 'why does Michael Jackson still feel the need to (allegedly) abuse children?' would make sense. That's how ridiculous your argument is.

I know Mike hasn't got a duty of care to his posters but maybe he could do something to help you, you're obviously in a bad place.

Michael Jackson is dead, yet you talk about him in the present tense. Your task is simple, prove statement a) above is not true because that example uses exactly the same logic. You keep talking about needing help, I think you are the one that needs it! You are more interested in derailing threads than talking about the topic!!

[Loramski]

Michael Jackson is dead, yet you talk about him in the present tense. Your task is simple, prove statement a) above is not true because that example uses exactly the same logic. You keep talking about needing help, I think you are the one that needs it! You are more interested in derailing threads than talking about the topic!!

Suffering Jesus.

I know Michael Jackson is dead, but the allegations and investigations are current so by your logic we still have to talk about him in the present tense. Harry Monk has already explained why a) doesn't make sense, the cheating was in the past. It doesn't make sense to ask him why he still feels the need to cheat if he hasn't for 35 years. There's no reason to ask Man City why they still feel the need to cheat when there's no evidence to suggest they have since 2015 that I'm aware of. I didn't derail the thread by the way, you were the one who started talking rubbish about grammar.

[Wales-Bales]

Suffering Jesus.

I know Michael Jackson is dead, but the allegations and investigations are current so by your logic we still have to talk about him in the present tense. Harry Monk has already explained why a) doesn't make sense, the cheating was in the past. It doesn't make sense to ask him why he still feels the need to cheat if he hasn't for 35 years. There's no reason to ask Man City why they still feel the need to cheat when there's no evidence to suggest they have since 2015 that I'm aware of. I didn't derail the thread by the way, you were the one who started talking rubbish about grammar.

God Almighty

Regarding M. Jackson (deceased), if there were ongoing investigations, then Jackson would have to be capable of committing allegded offences in the here and now for us to be able to talk about them in the present tense. Clearly he isn't capable of doing this as he is dead, so lets put that one to bed shall we?

Sombody posted in this thread that the allegations were all historical. This is bullsit, because the first two paragraphs state that there are multiple allegations regarding violations of the FFP rules. Besides the allegations about the historical transfers, there are also allegations regarding the club sponsorship, which could have occured at any point up until the present day. Anybody with basic research skills will have been able to find this out in a matter of minutes.

Also, I didn't start the thread derailment, there is another poster who trawls through posts looking for arguments in an attempt to make himself appear clever. You may recognise him from fact that doesn't seem to have many original thoughts of his own.

I hope this clears everything up, and thanks for your interest n this topic.