That is our owners decision. We as fans feel aggrieved but he as an investor concentrates on making money.Sadly, we won't. We'll remain in a perpetual state, of dignified silence.
Oi, cheeky chops!!!As you might be or have been from Salford, then probably yes;-)
Thats an interesting point, no media outlet has managed to get a single legal or finance representative to come on and say why city will be found guilty and what the weight of evidence against city is and how they will be found guilty because of that weight of evidence.Has anyone noticed that the likes of Talksport and all these other rag/dipper slanted media outlets have not had someone versed in the legal side of football and football finance come onto their platforms and put forward a view why the Premier League will be successful landing all these charges and why a three man panel is the correct forum to adjudicate on industrial strength fraud? I may have missed it but all these outlets do is spin the line that City must be guilty and don’t outline anyway how they will be found to have done wrong.
There was er, Nick Harris …………Thats an interesting point, no media outlet has managed to get a single legal or finance representative to come on and say why city will be found guilty and what the weight of evidence against city is and how they will be found guilty because of that weight of evidence.
I’d say the opposite, every media outlet has tens of self proclaimed legal and financial representatives, which are always on/writing reams of stuff, that say City are guilty, without bothering to weigh up any evidence or say what we are alledgedly guilty of.Thats an interesting point, no media outlet has managed to get a single legal or finance representative to come on and say why city will be found guilty and what the weight of evidence against city is and how they will be found guilty because of that weight of evidence.
I suppose RE talksh Mr Jordan has put himself forward as legally competent so he may resist a proper legal / finance expert.Thats an interesting point, no media outlet has managed to get a single legal or finance representative to come on and say why city will be found guilty and what the weight of evidence against city is and how they will be found guilty because of that weight of evidence.
There was er, Nick Harris …………
Evidence? What evidence?Thats an interesting point, no media outlet has managed to get a single legal or finance representative to come on and say why city will be found guilty and what the weight of evidence against city is and how they will be found guilty because of that weight of evidence.
I thought that was the general feeling amongst City fans tbf.What if the actual game here (once again spearheaded by certain clubs) is to not actually get any of these charges to stick - because they know they shouldnt - but to just cause as much damage and make it seem that once cleared peoples minds will believe that City got off a technicallity and will be labelled cheats
Large scale reputational damage
This is why i hope we will not accept any charge, even a non-copperation charge
They made a utube doc with a false company name producing it with our greatest fans such as Panja,Tebas and Harris adding their two penneth.They also a Piers Morgan show with no new evidence and London journo Lawton and ex Arsenal chair Dein on the panel.Thats an interesting point, no media outlet has managed to get a single legal or finance representative to come on and say why city will be found guilty and what the weight of evidence against city is and how they will be found guilty because of that weight of evidence.
I think they felt at the time of the so called charges that City were at a low ebb both on the field and off so City were likely to fall apart completely and. look for a settlement because of the charges.I thought that was the general feeling amongst City fans tbf.
Its exactly from the uefa playback.
They do understand @CC1 , they just choose to ignore the point as it doesn't fit their narrative..That’s what the general media don’t understand. It’s not up to us to lead the case - it’s up to the PL to provide proof of guilt & it has to be substantial proof.
why do they keep suggesting that we should not be dragging out the issue when the time it’s taking is because the PL “ evidence” is not forthcoming
This is the stupidity that we're up against with some rival fans. "Go back to the drawing board and come up with something that stops Newcastle, and stops Man City, but doesn't hurt the rest of us". FFS.
Yeah. Some do but there are some who are too thick to understand the issue & have never read the CAS report for example ( Spitty for one & most Sky pundits) so as a result, most opposition fans haven’t a clue about any of it & just believe what they hear.They do understand @CC1 , they just choose to ignore the point as it doesn't fit their narrative..
Excellent take on the situation. The only legal expert they can get on is Stefan but as he presents an educated case in favour of City, they just talk over himThats an interesting point, no media outlet has managed to get a single legal or finance representative to come on and say why city will be found guilty and what the weight of evidence against city is and how they will be found guilty because of that weight of evidence.
SO TRUE. Why is this I wonder?Has anyone noticed that the likes of Talksport and all these other rag/dipper slanted media outlets have not had someone versed in the legal side of football and football finance come onto their platforms and put forward a view why the Premier League will be successful landing all these charges and why a three man panel is the correct forum to adjudicate on industrial strength fraud? I may have missed it but all these outlets do is spin the line that City must be guilty and don’t outline anyway how they will be found to have done wrong.
They don’t really do irony, do they?Everton …… “we voted for it to impact City not us, that’s not fair, it’s corrupt!”
Joe 90 was a fictional cartoon not a legal expert a bit like jordans fictional intelligenceI suppose RE talksh Mr Jordan has put himself forward as legally competent so he may resist a proper legal / finance expert.
The other reason is that a real expert is likely to agree with Stefan. Where's the reward for confrontation in that?