Totally agree. The stance Prof Haas took at CAS was very harmful to us - and actually shameful when you read the piece written up in support by his Research Assistant. Ludicrous and illogical are other words that spring to mind. Corrupt even.After CAS, instead of "City Exonerated" we were hit with "City Escape Punishment" headlines. Behind the scenes the cartel would have seen a copy of the leaked ruling. The "1" as in the 2-1 verdict was critical for them to maintain their "well organised and coordinated" campaign. The bizarre interpretation of non cooperation by Haas, quickly followed by his opinion peice where he called out the integrity of CAS, makes me wonder wtf was in it for him. I have my suspicions about his politics, not for BMF. We know Teabag is RM's man in La Liga and his constant attacks have damaged us but for me Prof Ulriich Haas has caused us more damage than anyone apart from Gilll. If anyone has photos of Haas and David Gill having a good old chin wag in a plush Swiss (where UEFA and Haas are based) restaurant send it to Lord Pannick now !
Isn't a firesale when everything is cheaper than advertised? So theoretically you don't need to save your pennies up.I see Magic Hats latest hot take is top clubs have saved the cash this Summer in order to buy City players in the January/summer fire sale after we are relegated.
Starting to think she is on a big wind up of her simpleton Arsenal fan followers.
I really hope she and her followers believe that. It’s the crushing lows for them that makes my day.I see Magic Hats latest hot take is top clubs have saved the cash this Summer in order to buy City players in the January/summer fire sale after we are relegated.
Starting to think she is on a big wind up of her simpleton Arsenal fan followers.
whilst you're at it can you do a substack on the hypocrisy of other clubs like liverpool doing it the proper way (no investors at all if you listen to their fans) and united not being cheats ( the liverpool v united match fixing clearly never happened ) etc. Liverpools low crowds in their european heyday etc.I have been toying with the idea of writing a sub-stack on all this stuff and so, for my pains, I have been reading the thread back (or at least, posts from the more "informed" posters). There are some cracking posts in here, full of intelligent thought based on relevant experience.
Many putting me straight on legal issues, including a 1,700 word reply when I was in my "I can't believe the PL has really effectively alleged fraud after CAS" phase, one entirely in shouty capitals when I suggested the reasons we were bang to rights on non-cooperation, and another that started "Jesus Christ! Not this again" after I dipped my toe in the fraud water again. You can decide for yourselves which of our lawyers sent each message.
Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who has contributed to what has become a huge roller-coaster of a thread in four hundred sizzling chapters.
Incidentally, skim reading the whole thing, I noticed it was like the five stages of grief in reverse: first acceptance (we are fucked aren't we?), then depression (Oh God, League Two here we come), then bargaining (they won't land the serious charges), then anger (wtf are the PL doing?) and finally denial (in its nicest possible sense - we will be found innocent).
Anyway a few thoughts apropos nothing.
Not sure I will finish this sub-stack .....
I don't hang around Piccadilly Gardens anymore, I moved to the Arndale - so there.Why are we regurgitating this arsehole’s nonsense on here?
It’s akin to asking a Piccadilly Gardens spice head’s opinion then posting it on here.
Ignore the **** and starve him of oxygen.
I don't hang around Piccadilly Gardens anymore, I moved to the Arndale - so there.
I feel that as it's got this far the PL must have something on us, otherwise only absolute cretins would spend this much time and money on taking us to court - right, back to the spice.Well yes, but what's your opinion on the charges?
At this stage in the UEFA charges you could have said exactly the same thing; "UEFA must have concrete evidence agsinst us, etc. etc...".I feel that as it's got this far the PL must have something on us, otherwise only absolute cretins would spend this much time and money on taking us to court - right, back to the spice.
I think the explanation is that this is an attempt to get the redshirts off the PL’s back.At this stage in the UEFA charges you could have said exactly the same thing; "UEFA must have concrete evidence agsinst us, etc. etc...".
Fortunately in that case we had recourse to genuinely independent arbitration with CAS. Just hope the IC is genuinely independent.
God, I hope you're right.I think the explanation is that this is an attempt to get the redshirts off the PL’s back.
When it is all over, the PL can reply to every email and phone call from the redshirts “Shut the fuck up.”
So do I !!God, I hope you're right.
I don't hang around Piccadilly Gardens anymore, I moved to the Arndale - so there.
I know some time has passed since you posted this, but presumably (obviously?), all these witnesses will testify in the upcoming case?The CAS witness evidence on this was broad and unequivocal:
Mr James Hogan, former President and CEO of Etihad: “The sponsorship obligations were paid out of Etihad’s own funds”
Mr Simon Pearce, Non-Executive Director of MCFC: "Neither ADUG nor [HHSM] funded any of Etihad’s sponsorship obligations”
Mr Ahmed Ali Al Sayegh, Board Member of Etihad Aviation Group and Chairman of the Board Finance and Investment Committee:
"[Etihad] did not receive any payments from ADUG or [HHSM] or any person or entity controlled or influenced by them, whether directly or indirectly in relation to any of the Sponsorship Agreements, whether by way of advance funding or subsequent reimbursement."
Mr Henning Zur Hausen, General Counsel and
Company Secretary of Etihad Aviation Group:
"All sponsorship fees payable by the Company under the Sponsorship Agreements have been and are being paid from the [Etihad’s] general funds and from sources available to the Company…[Etihad] did not receive any payments from [ADUG] or [HHSM] in relation to any of the Sponsorship Agreements.
Mr Tony Douglas, then Group Chief Executive Officer of Etihad, now CEO of Riyadh Air confirmed that Mr Zur Hausen's evidence was entirely correct and stated:
"For the avoidance of doubt, I also confirm that the sources available to the [Etihad] have never included (whether directly or indirectly) [ADUG], [HHSM], or any person or entity controlled or influenced by them.....I confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that [Etihad] has never received any money whatsoever from [ADUG] or [HHSM] or any person or entity controlled or influenced by them, whether directly or indirectly."
Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan in writing confirmed:
“I can confirm that I have not authorised ADUG to make any payments to Etihad, Etisalat or any of their affiliates in relation to their sponsorship of [MCFC], nor have I authorised or arranged or anyone else to make any such payments to them. I can also confirm that I have not made any such payments myself."
No because that would be St Ann’s Square.Posh Spice.
Impossible to know. But if key witnesses don’t give evidence you can try to use it as hearsay evidence but its impact will not be the same. The other way is worse though because a key witness who doesn’t now turn up here risks the PL asking the Panel to make an adverse inference. I assume those required will be there this time.I know some time has passed since you posted this, but presumably (obviously?), all these witnesses will testify in the upcoming case?
Last seen on the dance floor.Is anyone tracking Pannick on flightradar?
Impossible to know. But if key witnesses don’t give evidence you can try to use it as hearsay evidence but its impact will not be the same. The other way is worse though because a key witness who doesn’t now turn up here risks the PL asking the Panel to make an adverse inference. I assume those required will be there this time.
Presumably as part of our irrefutable evidence.Impossible to know. But if key witnesses don’t give evidence you can try to use it as hearsay evidence but its impact will not be the same. The other way is worse though because a key witness who doesn’t now turn up here risks the PL asking the Panel to make an adverse inference. I assume those required will be there this time.
Would the panel not raise questions as to why the pl investigations didnt make every attempt to speak to these people before bringing the charges?Impossible to know. But if key witnesses don’t give evidence you can try to use it as hearsay evidence but its impact will not be the same. The other way is worse though because a key witness who doesn’t now turn up here risks the PL asking the Panel to make an adverse inference. I assume those required will be there this time.
I feel that as it's got this far the PL must have something on us, otherwise only absolute cretins would spend this much time and money on taking us to court - right, back to the spice.