Ha ha isn't it just. I'm not on it I just have Rabin's tweets on my home page and got them off there.Do you read this left to right? Right to left? Upside down?
Do you need an enigma machine to decode it?
What a fucking awful platform twitter is.
Quote from the article:
“With all the evidence at our disposal, it is evident that City broke the rules”
that links to another article by Conn, where he states “Internal City emails published by Der Spiegel in November 2018, which prompted the CFCB investigation, did suggest that Mansour substantially paid the £67.5m sponsorship stated to be from the Abu Dhabi airline Etihad. However, as the AC’s ruling will not be published until Cas issues it’s decision, it is not known whether this formed part of the charges or guilty finding.”
so Rushden claims it is evident we broke the rules, and “all the evidence at our disposal” of that is fuck all - nice one.
the annoying thing is is that fuckwits will read the first sentence, be too lazy to read anything else and take it as fact.
in either case, a proper journalist wouldn’t use the phrase “all the evidence at our disposal” for one piece of questionable evidence, and if there were multiple pieces of evidence at your disposal max, why not write them in your fucking article?
I only hope that once we win our appeal, we start to pursue these media outlets and or individuals through the courts.What’s really interesting is that Conn repeatedly says that there’s evidence to say Sheikh Mansoor paid the sponsorship BUT he himself published an article the other day proving it was the EC of the UAE that paid it!. I’d suggest Con is either stupid or isn’t letting facts interrupt his anti City agenda.
He's 100% referring to Barcelona, who's president is on the verge of resigning because it was discovered he secretly hired a PR company to create twitter accounts with up to 65,000 followers that attacked his enemies at the club including Pep, Xavi, Messi (and his wife) & Puyol.
Ok. Now put the shovel down.I see I’ve come in for some fair abuse on here for an apparently stupid comment.
However, let me just explain why I’m concerned. Reading the 2000 plus pages on here has given me the assurance that City are on safe grounds and will win the case. Ranging from, UEFA didn’t even look at our defence to proof that the Etihad sponsorship was clearly paid by the Executive Council from Abu Dhabi and not from our owners.
The lawyer we hired is famous for a technicality in fighting Brexit. So while I’m as concerned as everyone else here on the outcome, I’m merely questioning the need for this kind of approach for our case. Obviously I don’t want the shittiest lawyers but just asking why we really have to get the best at 20k if we’re sure of our case?
If you’ve got a three billion quid asset you need to protect it. Makes prefect sense.Fair play to them as well.
Top of their game,they should earn the top money.
What was your old username?Twice now you've mentioned his mental health in this way. Even for someone like Harris, you're bang out of order to be doing that
I know you're flavor of the month at the minute which you must be really enjoying but not everyone has forgotten your stance on our ownership and hierarchy for much of the past decade
No doubt for the same underlying reason Rob Harris and David Conn take exception
Is Max Rushden the guy who has the show on Talksport with the very, very odd Barry Glendening(sp)?
Twice now you've mentioned his mental health in this way. Even for someone like Harris, you're bang out of order to be doing that
I know you're flavor of the month at the minute which you must be really enjoying but not everyone has forgotten your stance on our ownership and hierarchy for much of the past decade
No doubt for the same underlying reason Rob Harris and David Conn take exception
What was your old username?
Fair play to them as well.
Top of their game,they should earn the top money.
Who do you suggest?Having to hire the best lawyer in the business does set off a few alarm bells for me. If we’re so sure of our defence, why do we need a clever lawyer to present it?
I only hope that once we win our appeal, we start to pursue these media outlets and or individuals through the courts.
Once got involved in a complex employment case - regarding “protected rights” for older employees a few years ago and whether they were consistent with age legislation. Employer said they weren’t and Union (CWU) said they were. Our side (the Employer) hired a QC Andrew Hochhauser - Essex Chambers. Christ he dismantled our side for breakfast before beating the living daylights out of the other side. His grasp of facts was immense, his power of argument something to behold - but Christ was he scary. Dunno what he cost but never been in a room with anyone as good as him before or since.
Who do you suggest?
Genuinely hadn’t seen him post before. Someone had liked my reply to him which prompted me to reread his post and it occurred to me that Bruce must have been on here a while.I thought it was pretty much known that it is fantasy.
I thought it was pretty much known that it is fantasy.
I suppose one or the other is likely to be right so take your pick cos he willWhat’s really interesting is that Conn repeatedly says that there’s evidence to say Sheikh Mansoor paid the sponsorship BUT he himself published an article the other day proving it was the EC of the UAE that paid it!. I’d suggest Con is either stupid or isn’t letting facts interrupt his anti City agenda.
Genuinely hadn’t seen him post before. Someone had liked my reply to him which prompted me to reread his post and it occurred to me that Bruce must have been on here a while.