You're the one who said it wasn't a worthwhile discussion. Yet you're continuing it...That's what people that run away with ott conclusions based on an inability to underatand a few sentences tend to say.
Ok, you go celebrating us being cleared, not much need for the thread. I'll point out we haven't been. Till we hopefully are.You do you and let others do them, then.
No he didn’t. What were the exact words that quite clearly stated this?More than uncomfortable silence by Goldbridge jrb, i have seen the clip on youtube, Goldbridge quite clearly states that he has been legally threatened.
Two reasonably reliable and well regarded members of this forum, @tolmie's hairdoo and @Prestwich_Blue, who both have good track records on this subject, have indicated that there is a high degree of confidence within the club that City will beat the allegations.
On the 'balance of probabilities' I'd say that was reaon for cautious optimism.
Your talk about the presence or absence of 'proof' is irrelevant nonsense.
I’ve dipped in and out a bit but I thought he was saying there was a lack of proof about the alleged letters. While I’m inclined to believe they may have been sent and that this is an indication that we will be cleared of the charges it is all still speculative until we are told for def
It’s not as straightforward as that. Whether they are time barred is significantly down to the presence (or otherwise) of associated fraud. If there is an absence of civil fraud then the six year limitation period will strictly apply from the date of any alleged breach, whereas if fraud/concealment are verifiably present then the limitation period commences from the date of discovery, or when discovery could reasonably have occurred. That can only be properly established in the presence of relevant evidential material.The Pl would have to be monumentally inept to bring charges that are clearly time barred. Are their lawyers really so incompetent?
Yeah, but all that said is it not about time for a new “It’s Quiet” thread? ;-)Absolutely, and I haven't been given the list of names, either.
Others may want to claim or piggyback.
I haven't asserted we have been cleared, only the legals being sent are said to be from a position of strength, which would suggest we have a high degree of confidence.
Absolutely, and I haven't been given the list of names, either.
Others may want to claim or piggyback.
I haven't asserted we have been cleared, only the legals being sent are said to be from a position of strength, which would suggest we have a high degree of confidence.
Read the room. There's 1000s of folk on here that have had one of the most precious things in their lives being questioned as cheaters for over a decade.Ok, you go celebrating us being cleared, not much need for the thread. I'll point out we haven't been. Till we hopefully are.
Never heard of off the ball?I understand the rules and take your point but a penalty given for a foul committed after the forward has completed his play cannot be right in logic. Perhaps in those situations an indirect free kick would be appropriate. Minus you VAR would probably cock that up too
Read the room. There's 1000s of folk on here that have had one of the most precious things in their lives being questioned as cheaters for over a decade.
Truly horrific comments levelled at the club and, by proxy, us fans (actually even directly at the fans).
We now have the 1st chink of light that could bring the situation to a positive resolution.
The light we see at the end of the tunnel could be our exoneration... it could also be a proverbial train coming straight at us (figuratively), we don't know right now.
The general nuance is positive and folk will cling to that.
You may be a realist with ice in your veins not getting too upbeat about things, but please don't preach to the rest on how to process this information.
You do you, and we'll do us, until such point as further information comes to light.
Let's all try to be cautiously positive, shall we?
Countless fans of rival clubs.Anyone think the first penalty yesterday was a bit iffy?
Evans did though!No journalist, TV pundit, or Youtuber is going to show their cease and desist letter from City in public. It would be career suicide. They will have all taken legal advice, and will have been told not to comment. So for anyone waiting for proof the letters have gone out that way, forget it.
I’ve been playing and watching football since 1975. I think I’ve seen enough to know the rules.Never heard of off the ball?
Keeper might have got a hand to it if he dived the right way you mean? Second one was betterAnyone think the first penalty yesterday was a bit iffy?
Would that be the investment that Fosun made in 2016.Wolves fans making money hand signs yesterday. They’d fucking love it if their club had the investment our club has had, and the trophies or club has won. That goes for all the away fans who keep on making the money hand signs. Love it! :-)
I'll buy that.The biggest bit of proof needed is nearly every outlet theat kept mentioning it have all gone very quiet about the charges and all at the same time
And you say that without fear of contraception...Are you Hylda Baker in disguise?
We have all been through the mincer and all we want now is for this whole debacle to be put to bed.Fair. 'This proves we have been cleared,' is not 'cautiously' positive though. People overreacting to me pointing that out and the pile-on thereafter is not 'you do you' either.
I maybe got defensive in the volume of responses, but it is all good. I've said and clarified what I had to for anyone willing to read beyond their own take. It has been exhausted, and is hardly worth it.