[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  El Capitano⚪ [@_izodlalaiTv](/creator/twitter/_izodlalaiTv) on x 27.1K followers Created: 2025-07-23 14:21:05 UTC Out football needs impartial reporting. This would have been a good article if it was on the official website of Cape Town Spurs or from a Cape Town Spurs fan, not a journalist. It started as "follow-up" to a "Spurs are victims" article. ■ XX July 2025 [Monday], you wrote an article where you were presenting a platform for the CEO of Cape Town Spurs to have a go at Kaizer Chiefs. Everything in that article was about how Baartman and Velebayi can not leave as free agents, and Kaizer Chiefs as a big institution can not stoop as low as stealing Spurs players. That was the tone. There was nothing about Amazulu who signed Liam Bern as a free agent from Spurs. ◇ You ended that article by trying to justify the CEO throwing tantrums and focusing on Chiefs only by saying there was no set date for the Amazulu vs Spurs dispute, hence the exclusive focus on Kaizer Chiefs. ■ XX July 2025[Wednesday], you are back again telling us that the PSL DRC that was supposed to sit for a case that only involved Kaizer Chiefs and Cape Town Spurs has demanded additional documents from "all parties involved" and this includes Amazulu. This is supposed to be a follow-up on the proposed sitting scheduled for Tuesday, which failed according to your article. Spurs vs Chiefs couldn't happen, and the feedback includes Amazulu. Why? They Chiefs submit similar documents to Amazulu? How is the PSL suddenly asking for additional documents from Amazulu if the Cape Town Spurs CEO is still waiting for the hearing date and the Tuesday hearing didn't include them? Chiefs and Spurs made their initial submissions for Tuesday. Instead of asking for "additional documents" from these X clubs, they include Amazulu. How does this make sense? You wrote like a true spokesperson of Cape Town Spurs. Your narrative is clear. You are trying so hard to position Spurs as victims in this at the expense of Kaizer Chiefs. You didn't even make efforts to get a comment from Amazulu and Kaizer Chiefs on this issue. From reporting about why the hearing didn't happen to trying to justify why Spurs are victims. You're back to Monday's article where you were trying to sell Spurs' story. Terrible journalism.  XXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [bern](/topic/bern) [spurs](/topic/spurs) [cape town](/topic/cape-town) [Post Link](https://x.com/_izodlalaiTv/status/1948025578973516131)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
El Capitano⚪ @_izodlalaiTv on x 27.1K followers
Created: 2025-07-23 14:21:05 UTC
Out football needs impartial reporting. This would have been a good article if it was on the official website of Cape Town Spurs or from a Cape Town Spurs fan, not a journalist.
It started as "follow-up" to a "Spurs are victims" article.
■ XX July 2025 [Monday], you wrote an article where you were presenting a platform for the CEO of Cape Town Spurs to have a go at Kaizer Chiefs. Everything in that article was about how Baartman and Velebayi can not leave as free agents, and Kaizer Chiefs as a big institution can not stoop as low as stealing Spurs players. That was the tone. There was nothing about Amazulu who signed Liam Bern as a free agent from Spurs. ◇ You ended that article by trying to justify the CEO throwing tantrums and focusing on Chiefs only by saying there was no set date for the Amazulu vs Spurs dispute, hence the exclusive focus on Kaizer Chiefs.
■ XX July 2025[Wednesday], you are back again telling us that the PSL DRC that was supposed to sit for a case that only involved Kaizer Chiefs and Cape Town Spurs has demanded additional documents from "all parties involved" and this includes Amazulu. This is supposed to be a follow-up on the proposed sitting scheduled for Tuesday, which failed according to your article. Spurs vs Chiefs couldn't happen, and the feedback includes Amazulu. Why? They Chiefs submit similar documents to Amazulu?
How is the PSL suddenly asking for additional documents from Amazulu if the Cape Town Spurs CEO is still waiting for the hearing date and the Tuesday hearing didn't include them? Chiefs and Spurs made their initial submissions for Tuesday. Instead of asking for "additional documents" from these X clubs, they include Amazulu. How does this make sense?
You wrote like a true spokesperson of Cape Town Spurs. Your narrative is clear. You are trying so hard to position Spurs as victims in this at the expense of Kaizer Chiefs. You didn't even make efforts to get a comment from Amazulu and Kaizer Chiefs on this issue.
From reporting about why the hearing didn't happen to trying to justify why Spurs are victims. You're back to Monday's article where you were trying to sell Spurs' story. Terrible journalism.
XXXXX engagements
