PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

MBMB said:
That’s true, but there are some elements of those emails where it just seems really hard to conclude anything other than what is being alleged. I’m obviously hoping there’s a way of interpreting them in context that makes sense, but in that case why did we fight at CAS not to give the whole runs of emails as evidence ?
Click to expand...
Because they were not pertaining to the case, take any txt msg thread you have, take a couple out of it with zero context and tell me you dont look iffy, its impossible
 
Okay so on one side you have harris, de looney et al saying we are dodgy based on 6 emails and a case thats already been cleared once and on charges that were so badly thought out and rushed that they couldnt even get them right on the original charge sheet brought about by an organisation that hasnt got close to providing the level of proof provided and that has systematically damaged its product with ill thought out rules and on the other side you have royal family members, countries, one of the worlds largest investment vehicles, multiple global companies all being accused of lying, circumventing the rules and decieving 3 of the worlds pre eminent audit companies in order to benefit a football club that wouldnt even crack the top 50 on their list of investments, now take out the blue tinted glasses and city bias and ask yourself which one sounds more plausible
 
MBMB said:
That’s true, but there are some elements of those emails where it just seems really hard to conclude anything other than what is being alleged. I’m obviously hoping there’s a way of interpreting them in context that makes sense, but in that case why did we fight at CAS not to give the whole runs of emails as evidence ?
Click to expand...
20 posts in 5 years. Hi Miguel!
 
blueju said:
Not really, Edu at Arsenal apparently has “things he can’t say” about losing the league to us, then goes on to say”despite that, Pep has done a great job this season”.
Click to expand...
Things he can't say are that Arsenal have spent more than City on his watch and failed miserably as he would make himself look an even bigger twat.
 
Fuzzy80 said:
This is the guy who is heading up the IC not the PL lawyer.

Whilst I don’t know anything 100%, it would beyond ridiculous for someone who has reached KC, to do something like that on X for likes.

It is a journalist or it’s some kind of law student that has some inside track on one side (probably United fan given the name).

As has been already said, doesn’t mean what they have put on is not well researched or even quite convincing.

But you have only heard one side and I believe the next side will be more convincing.
Click to expand...


Hence the :)

I was taking the piss.
 
mancboy said:
Okay so on one side you have harris, de looney et al saying we are dodgy based on 6 emails and a case thats already been cleared once and on charges that were so badly thought out and rushed that they couldnt even get them right on the original charge sheet brought about by an organisation that hasnt got close to providing the level of proof provided and that has systematically damaged its product with ill thought out rules and on the other side you have royal family members, countries, one of the worlds largest investment vehicles, multiple global companies all being accused of lying, circumventing the rules and decieving 3 of the worlds pre eminent audit companies in order to benefit a football club that wouldnt even crack the top 50 on their list of investments, now take out the blue tinted glasses and city bias and ask yourself which one sounds more plausible
Click to expand...
In the history of longest ever sentences in the world, this is right up there mate, great work : )
 
Probably covered in the masses of posts here already but I struggle with the risk/reward on this.

I just can’t see what the benefit would be for them to risk as much as is alleged? It doesn’t weight up in my head for people as smart as they are to be that foolish and for what gain exactly for them? The sportswashing argument just doesn’t seem a plausible reason for them, what would the opposition propose is the reason they would take such drastic measures?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top