Did Stefan actually go as far to say City would be cleared? Or has the YouTuber added his own opinion?
Thanks
My hope with the premier case is that an agreement can be made before the tribunal is concluded.
Thanks for the reply.He said it was extremely unlikely that the club had entered into the most serious arrangements that are being alleged, but that, even in the unlikeliest case that they did, it is also extremwly unlikely that the PL would have the evidence to prove it.
I think that is a fair summation. And spot on, as always.
And it reflects the prevailing view these days on here as well which is healthy, I think.
Would be great if, when winning the champion's league again to do a double treble, the players lined up and pulled their shirts up to reveal Mario style T shirts saying WHY ALWAYS US?I’m going to start knocking out “what about city”? T shirts. Reckon I’d make a killing!
There is substantial material in the CAS findings to refute this rubbish.My WhatsApp group has lit up because of this Forest news, could any of you more intelligent people refute this?
The reason a lot of people think they are guilty is there were leaked documents which UEFA were given which showed there was false accounting (and I think City maybe even admitted to it?). But under UEFA's rules too much time had passed to charge them, whereas the Premier League doesn't have a time limit in its rules.
City did not deny the emails existed but not in the context that they were reported.
Once city showed CAS through the accounts and actual in person statements that what was stated by Pearce did not actually happen and that the sponsorships(ethiad) paid the full amount to City via a 3rd party, why this was done is not 100 clear unless you are an accountant, and that City’s performance on the pitch satisfied their contractual obligations to said sponsor.
All of city’s accounts are published and free to view. Nothing is hidden.
The time barred is a red hearing. City had the evidence ready to produce at CAS but CAS deemed it not necessary for to the time barred element. The premier league have a 6 year period of statute of limitation in uk law. It takes effect once the discovery is made so we ain’t sure when that will kick in.
I’m sure if any of this is wrong, someone will be along to correct it. I assume you mean the emails when you talk about leaked documents.
Just tell them to fuck off -:)
Send them this and tell them to read it for themselvesMy WhatsApp group has lit up because of this Forest news, could any of you more intelligent people refute this?
The reason a lot of people think they are guilty is there were leaked documents which UEFA were given which showed there was false accounting (and I think City maybe even admitted to it?). But under UEFA's rules too much time had passed to charge them, whereas the Premier League doesn't have a time limit in its rules.
And that is the thing that the eejits don't get.Close enough :)
The most important point, in my opinion, is that the emails in themselves don't prove anything. Ask any lawyer. What is important is what actually happened after the discussions in any emails. UEFA couldn't prove that what they thought was discussed in the emails actually happened. They couldn't even prove what they thought was discussed in the emails was what was actually discussed. So a combination of the accounting records which did show what actually happened abd personal statements from people who actually knew what happened, describing what did actually happen (and what UEFA thought happened) didn't along with some external financial evidence from sponsors and owner, all carried more weight than a few unsubstantiated allegations.
The same will happen to the PL allegations, imho.
And yes, the tine-barring is a red herring, the evidentiary situation is the same.
and because it's time-barred doesnt mean it's dodgy thats just straw clutching from mouthbreathing 115 mobAnd yes, the tine-barring is a red herring, the evidentiary situation is the same.
And that is the thing that the eejits don't get.
With my limited understanding...if I sent an email to you saying I was going to come round your house tomorrow and beat you up and tomorrow, you get beat up...does it mean I did it?
That’s mate appreciate the reply.
in essence, right or wrong no longer is relevant. City deny the charges and the league is pissed they are not able to access the material they deem would incriminate city so fuck you here is 115 charges as a consequence because we know you did something but can’t prove it. The red teams are climbing up their bum with hysterical insanity. -:)
He’s already decided we’re guilty, he hates City our ownership model. “Frankenstein club” even if City are cleared he won’t accept it. He’s a posh speaking tosser!!Jordan turning into his usual shithouse when talking about City, @projectriver as always responding with facts which Jordan can't accept on the topic of City.
Why would the club choose this course of action?I think it may be a little less insidious than that, more procedural.
Imho, the PL is pissed because the club hasn't provided them with information that the PL knows will counter the allegations and that they know exists because it, or similar, was presented to CAS. So they were stuck with unanswered allegations they either had to drop, or refer. They chose refer. probably under pressure.
Either way, I reckon they know they are on a loser.
To prevent sensitive commercial information falling into the hands of our rivals perhaps?Why would the club choose this course of action?
and because it's time-barred doesnt mean it's dodgy thats just straw clutching from mouthbreathing 115 mob
As you might be or have been from Salford, then probably yes;-)And that is the thing that the eejits don't get.
With my limited understanding...if I sent an email to you saying I was going to come round your house tomorrow and beat you up and tomorrow, you get beat up...does it mean I did it?
He virtually said yes due to the complicated and serious nature of the changes .Did Stefan actually go as far to say City would be cleared? Or has the YouTuber added his own opinion?
Thanks
My hope with the premier case is that an agreement can be made before the tribunal is concluded.
Its doesn’t seem worth it but I trust the club to have a strategy in place and if they deem it more important to keep the business plan intact then the 115 is shrapnel.To prevent sensitive commercial information falling into the hands of our rivals perhaps?
Exactly. Because certain things were time barred doesn’t mean that we would have been found guilty had they not have been; they were never scrutinised as it was pointless.and because it's time-barred doesnt mean it's dodgy thats just straw clutching from mouthbreathing 115 mob