I think there is something to be said for holding the moral high ground.If found guilty, there would be more hatred if we had gone more aggressive. As it stands, City are just letting the process take its course, and will no doubt react when the verdict is established. My guess is that if found innocent, they will compromise on expenses, move on and avoid further confrontation. If found guilty, this could be cataclysmic.100% agree there, we are a very soft touch, hopefully it's not because we have something to hide.
Agreed but if we were found to be 100% innocent and the panel believed that the charges brought were totally unreasonable, would the club not have to act?I think there is something to be said for holding the moral high ground.If found guilty, there would be more hatred if we had gone more aggressive. As it stands, City are just letting the process take its course, and will no doubt react when the verdict is established. My guess is that if found innocent, they will compromise on expenses, move on and avoid further confrontation. If found guilty, this could be cataclysmic.
You could spin that the other way to be fair in that the PL's evidence isn't irrefutable either!If the verdict takes a long time would it not suggest that our "irrefutable evidence" may not be irrefutable?
Interesting that Ziegler says this:
Interesting that Ziegler says this:
"The leadership of the Premier League, which is acting as the prosecutor in the case, will also be under close scrutiny when the hearing comes to a conclusion."
That's not something that any of the journalists - Martin Samuel aside - ever bother to state in their articles so I'm surprised Ziegler has mentioned it.
I think it's more likely that with billions at stake everyone wants to ensure the verdict is as airtight as possible, and even "irrefutable" evidence will be carefully examined. I doubt the timing is suggestive of the ruling going one way or the other.If the verdict takes a long time would it not suggest that our "irrefutable evidence" may not be irrefutable?
for this to have gone the distance and the teams to go away and come back for final deliberations, tells me it's not a slam dunk as we thought we may have.
On the flip side - its not the slam dunk that the haters assumed.
Nerve racking !!
Gone the distance? But that Tarquin on X said we had no defence and had folded faster than Arse in a title run-in!for this to have gone the distance and the teams to go away and come back for final deliberations, tells me it's not a slam dunk as we thought we may have.
On the flip side - its not the slam dunk that the haters assumed.
Nerve racking !!
Why start now?He's just trying to be balanced.
Yes but it's only half time.Yup, we’re winning in this thread.
for this to have gone the distance and the teams to go away and come back for final deliberations, tells me it's not a slam dunk as we thought we may have.
On the flip side - its not the slam dunk that the haters assumed.
Nerve racking !!
the finding or summing up have got to be watertight to or like APT still waiting for guidelines and votes being taken that might still be unlawfulIt was always going to go the distance as per timetabling and there was always going to be a break for deliberations its how these things work.
Absolutely they endanger the players’ and staff safety it also affected their preparation City’s security team could have been said to have made the decisionIf we'd have turned the coach around after the vermin bricked and bottled it,
I hope not, I am not sure I could stand another circa 76k posts :-(Yes but it's only half time.
The levels of intellectual dishonesty when reporting on this have been off the scale. Spinelessness writ large.Interesting that Ziegler says this:
"The leadership of the Premier League, which is acting as the prosecutor in the case, will also be under close scrutiny when the hearing comes to a conclusion."
That's not something that any of the journalists - Martin Samuel aside - ever bother to state in their articles so I'm surprised Ziegler has mentioned it.
My position is, in fact, an act of faith and trust. The owner of our club, the chairman and all those who run our club are honourable men who tell the truth. When they say they and the club have done nothing wrong, I believe them, not partially, not "quite a bit" but completely and utterly.
Or the "comprehensive body" of it is very comprehensive.If the verdict takes a long time would it not suggest that our "irrefutable evidence" may not be irrefutable?