PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I was discussing this with a rival fan and he said, so how is the general feeling amongst city fans about the charges?
and I said well we think we are innocent as its basically the same case that CAS found us innocent, and his response was 'but they found you guilty it was just that it was time-barred'...so I responded (because I'm sure I read it on here), that actually they said, 'although some evidence is time-barred, from what they have seen there is no evidence to suggest it would be any different to what they have seen' or words to that effect....have I got that right?
 
flapjack said:
I was discussing this with a rival fan and he said, so how is the general feeling amongst city fans about the charges?
and I said well we think we are innocent as its basically the same case that CAS found us innocent, and his response was 'but they found you guilty it was just that it was time-barred'...so I responded (because I'm sure I read it on here), that actually they said, 'although some evidence is time-barred, from what they have seen there is no evidence to suggest it would be any different to what they have seen' or words to that effect....have I got that right?
Click to expand...
theres about 6000 pages which will show why thats correct but all the evidence in the world wont make a damn bit of difference to a rival fan, its much easier to say well you're a fucking idiot and move on with your day.
 
mancboy said:
theres about 6000 pages which will show why thats correct but all the evidence in the world wont make a damn bit of difference to a rival fan, its much easier to say well you're a fucking idiot and move on with your day.
Click to expand...
I've found this too. I've taken to just winding them up about it by just asking leaading questions like "so peps built the best premier league team ever off the back of cheating?". The smoke comes out there ears as they try to figure out a way to call us cheats and also avoid admitting the levels of success. Its actually surprising how long it takes for them to figure out the piss taking
 
Zapcity said:
It's a bit like when someone says they've had a few beers but have actually been drinking lager. Lager is an alcoholic drink but isn't beer imo (which is Real Ale, Bitter etc.) and Gridiron/NFL is a sport but not football imo.. Got to say I've never had a conversation with any other foitball fans who call it soccer, but a neighbour of mine from Ireland did refer to it as soccer once as he was into Gaelic Football.
Click to expand...

All just opinions but to me lager is definitely a beer, it's the king of beers, the equivalent of breakfast tea.

and all those fancy belgian beers are the equivalent of fruit teas. bloody awful. for the laa-de-daa, ooh look at my drink, in their led zep tee shirts. if you can't see through it, bin it.

think this is my first off subject post and i hate myself for it.
 
Any chance of mods clearing this up? Threads a mess and a few posters blatantly couldn’t give a fuck about ruining other city fans experience on this site. Like everyone else, pressed for time and it’s really unhelpful to spend 10 mins reading about beer and American sport
 
forevermancity said:
Any chance of mods clearing this up? Threads a mess and a few posters blatantly couldn’t give a fuck about ruining other city fans experience on this site. Like everyone else, pressed for time and it’s really unhelpful to spend 10 mins reading about beer and American sport
Click to expand...
Just do what I do. Go to last page, quickly skim first couple of posts and when confirmed it’s the BM knitting club still talking a lot of shite give it a swerve for a few days and repeat.
 
flapjack said:
I was discussing this with a rival fan and he said, so how is the general feeling amongst city fans about the charges?
and I said well we think we are innocent as its basically the same case that CAS found us innocent, and his response was 'but they found you guilty it was just that it was time-barred'...so I responded (because I'm sure I read it on here), that actually they said, 'although some evidence is time-barred, from what they have seen there is no evidence to suggest it would be any different to what they have seen' or words to that effect....have I got that right?
Click to expand...
All that's needed.
dde21195b5b5963446a3706292e2c497.jpg
 
oldius said:
All that's needed.
dde21195b5b5963446a3706292e2c497.jpg
Click to expand...
isn't there a section that describes how if they had looked at the time-barred stuff, they see no reason why it would be any different to the other evidence provided? I did try reading through it all myself but can't find the specific section.... I'm sure I am remember reading that on here though
 
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