Pingu the Penguin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 9,736
It could be very informative and funny. I’m shit at ping pong so Matthew Syed’s advice on the dark arts would be welcomedNah. They can all swivel.
It could be very informative and funny. I’m shit at ping pong so Matthew Syed’s advice on the dark arts would be welcomedNah. They can all swivel.
You'd have to assume a cybersecurity audit was carried out after the hack came to light, so they'd know exactly what data was stolen (even if it had yet to be made public).Just while you're here Stefan, if you could perhaps add your input to a point I made yesterday (apologies if it sounds obvious or may have already been made previously).
Much is being made regarding the second batch of leaked emails which have appeared since CAS.
However, under oath at CAS, with highly experienced lawyers and highly knowledgeable executives providing evidence in our defence, wouldn't it seem definite that they'd have been all too aware that Der Spiegel/Pinto may be in possession of many many more emails which had potential to be leaked in future (now have) so answered questions appropriately so as not to perjure themselves?
IE the potential for further leaked emails would likely have strongly been taken into consideration when they gave their testimony, so the likelihood of them deliberately lying reduces even further?
I see the value in that, but I've gone way past the point of caring what some charlatans think. They've never reported the news, just their opinions. Can't see it being any different from how they act on any other platform.It could be very informative and funny. I’m shot at ping pong so Matthew Syed’s advice on the dark arts would be welcomed
You'd have to assume a cybersecurity audit was carried out after the hack came to light, so they'd know exactly what data was stolen (even if it had yet to be made public).
If they all lied they are crazy. It is very unlikely. And only a very naive individual would lie assuming no further documents could ever come out.
Just while you're here Stefan, if you could perhaps add your input to a point I made yesterday (apologies if it sounds obvious or may have already been made previously).
Much is being made regarding the second batch of leaked emails which have appeared since CAS.
However, under oath at CAS, with highly experienced lawyers and highly knowledgeable executives providing evidence in our defence, wouldn't it seem definite that they'd have been all too aware that Der Spiegel/Pinto may be in possession of many many more emails which had potential to be leaked in future (now have) so answered questions appropriately so as not to perjure themselves?
IE the potential for further leaked emails would likely have strongly been taken into consideration when they gave their testimony, so the likelihood of them deliberately lying reduces even further?
Sunlight is the best disenfectantI see the value in that, but I've gone way past the point of caring what some charlatans think. They've never reported the news, just their opinions. Can't see it being any different from how they act on any other platform.
Stolen emails from a hacker are worthless or should be, The point is a hacker can also plant emails.
Also, it's still a crime to steal information so how can anybody use them,
Maybe the fraud they are trying to pin on the Manchester City owners is based on the hacked emails, So if they are you better have big pockets, It's crazy if the Premier League only have this to back the charges up because Uefa failed with the same information
Team viewer stopped their deal some time ago but the rags had no replacement so just left them on the shirt till the end of the season. Current shirt front ads income: nil.
Fuck it, you've changed my mind :DSunlight is the best disenfectant
Let them come and defend their views
Miguel for instance abhors sportswashing but works for a Saudi. I’d genuinely like to know how he squares that circle in his own head
For 'breaking' rules the PL set up themselves in an effort to hinder or, some could argue, destroy the club?IF were guilty they are done as owners of our club, there would be no comeback from a guilty verdict.
"Irrefutable evidence"For 'breaking' rules the PL set up themselves in an effort to hinder or, some could argue, destroy the club?
I guess they go about this by firstly offering City a deal. Which I guess City would or possibly have declined. At this point they are now struggling to extricate themselves without losing face. So have chosen to go down the route of the review panel, in the hope that they can get something to stick, such as the vague non cooperation charges?So if the premier league now believe they will not win this case, would it be in their interests to bring this to a closer before the IC or let the full process play out?
It won’t make any difference. We will still be labelled as cheats regardless if found guilty or notOf course, as a City fan, I would want City to win this case once and for all to protect the reputation of the club I care about.
But I would rather us win this case just to witness the sheer meltdown in Twitter, RedCafe and RAWK. Imagine the crying faces of our old friends Nick Harris, Miguel Delaney, Javier Tebas, and especially our beloved Mr Tariq Panja.
Mass Seppuku or Hara-kiri to follow.
Which they would defend enormously and turn it into a much bigger issue."Irrefutable evidence"
The stakes are huge let's not kid ourselves.
Who made the rules is irrelevant, however wrong and perverse they are.
But our owner and his Nation's reputation is on the line, guilty and that reputation is destroyed.
100% but as said IF we are found guilty our owner's reputation is destroyed.Which they would defend enormously and turn it into a much bigger issue.
A pokey little English sporting body would be directly insulting a diplomat of another nation. They'd be furious.
True, but if MBS can dump a journalist in an acid bath and then bounce back, you'd imagine SM could too.100% but as said IF we are found guilty our owner's reputation is destroyed.