To me it’s beginning to look more and more like the PL didn’t care about us being found guilty.
They just wanted to destroy our reputation.
They’ve enabled our rivals fans and the scum in the media to abuse and defame us with impunity due to the agenda against us.
I hope Khaldoon brings down the PL and that fat **** masters for what they’ve done.
I think those authorities will just wait till the end and then review the data. Why would they give themselves a harder job?
The data will show that there is no chance of a criminal conviction and the authorities will then drop it.
The only thing to disrail rail us would be a smoking gun. I don’t believe there is one.
Hmm... I wouldn't say the PL want to destroy our reputation, but some clubs certainly want Mansour back in his box and in Masters they have a weak and easily manipulated patsy to make his mistakes for them.
It's quite a hole he has dug for himself, imho.
I get your point.Hmm... I wouldn't say the PL want to destroy our reputation, but some clubs certainly want Mansour back in his box and in Masters they have a weak and easily manipulated patsy to make his mistakes for them.
It's quite a hole he has dug for himself, imho.
I posted something in the APT case thread that Mad Eyed Screamer suggested I post in here, so here it is (slightly edited as I was replying to someone else):I'd be very surprised if we are guilty on ANY substantive measure because of the actions of the board in the last few months: there is nothing cautious, nor wary, in our activity.
Dont think anyone can deny they would love to stitch us up. We just have to trust the process. In the same way most of us have trusted the clubAnd if we are it's a stitch up?
I tried to rub lube on my face once but my wife said “ you’re on a one way street down the rocky cliff , happy landing “Lube, surely? ; )
If there had been a smoking gun, details would have leaked before nowI think those authorities will just wait till the end and then review the data. Why would they give themselves a harder job?
The data will show that there is no chance of a criminal conviction and the authorities will then drop it.
The only thing to disrail rail us would be a smoking gun. I don’t believe there is one.
If the authorities are alerted to a criminal act & the evidence is there to be had, they're duty bound to gather it & conduct an investigation.I think those authorities will just wait till the end and then review the data. Why would they give themselves a harder job?
The data will show that there is no chance of a criminal conviction and the authorities will then drop it.
The only thing to disrail rail us would be a smoking gun. I don’t believe there is one.
Well leonardo di caprio can swim and is still alive but his boat went down unfortunatelyTo me it’s beginning to look more and more like the PL didn’t care about us being found guilty.
They just wanted to destroy our reputation.
They’ve enabled our rivals fans and the scum in the media to abuse and defame us with impunity due to the agenda against us.
I hope Khaldoon brings down the PL and that fat **** masters for what they’ve done.
Yes, but they are not required to jump the gun. They could only be alerted when the current case reports. If the PL had a smoking gun would they not already have alerted the authorities?If the authorities are alerted to a criminal act & the evidence is there to be had, they're duty bound to gather it & conduct an investigation.
1. Acquire evidence
2. Review evidence
3. Decide if they've enough evidence for investigation
4a. Decide to arrest & charge
4b. Decide not to arrest or charge
It's the law.
When my granddad had a chill, I covered his back with goose fat. He went downhill very quickly after that.I tried to rub lube on my face once but my wife said “ you’re on a one way street down the rocky cliff , happy landing “
rest was history …
MOST blues would say they would love to stitch us up.Dont think anyone can deny they would love to stitch us up. We just have to trust the process. In the same way most of us have trusted the club
I know i shouldn’t be laughing but i’m done :)When my granddad had a chill, I covered his back with goose fat. He went downhill very quickly after that.
Is it? With the limited information in the public domain how can you be so sure as to what evidence does/doesn't exist and what that evidence does/doesn't prove?But it's overwhelmingly likely that we won''t be, because it's overwhelmingly unlikely that the PL will be able to prove the most serious allegations. So for all intents and purposes, the question is irrelevant.
Is it? With the limited information in the public domain how can you be so sure as to what evidence does/doesn't exist and what that evidence does/doesn't prove?
Yes, I read that in the other thread. It would just be bizarre to me that business people of the calibre that we have would be willing to sanction player purchases and lengthy new contracts at this time, should there be significant doubt as to the outcome of the 115. None of us would go ahead and buy a new kitchen if our jobs were about to terminate.I posted something in the APT case thread that Mad Eyed Screamer suggested I post in here, so here it is (slightly edited as I was replying to someone else):
When the charges were announced just two years ago, I thought that these were very serious issues. After a few days, when I'd thought about them more and gone back through all the source documentation, I was much more relaxed.
In the last 3 months or so, after the APT case and re-reading the CAS verdict, my view is what I expressed and that you responded to. I think that what looked like the most serious potential issue is actually nothing.
As I've said (and Stefan doesn't agree with, which is fine) I reckon the sponsorship stuff mainly boils down to the issue of whether Etihad & Etisalat are related parties that we should have disclosed in the published accounts. That was mentioned in the CAS verdict and appears to have been the driver in the APT rules that we're challenging.
The fact that the Etihad sponsorship was deemed fair value by CAS (and also by UEFA back in 2014) means that this is unlikely to be successfully challenged by the PL, alongside the issue of it being disguised equity investment. I can't see any way those outcomes could be disputed by an independent panel. So if the sponsorship was fair value, and properly accounted for, what's left? Related parties is the answer.
And if it was fair value and properly accounted for, what difference would it make if Etihad & Etisalat were related parties? None, other than we and our auditors would be judged as failing to recognise them as such. That would make zero difference to our ability to spend money and gain sporting advantage, but it would force us to declare the value of the contract, plus we'd be guilty of a technical accounting issue. So there could be no points deduction on that basis, and that's nearly half the charges.
I spent the afternoon with a journalist before the Chelsea game. He writes for the very prestigious New Yorker magazine (NOT the NY Times) and he's an Arsenal season ticket holder. So I went into this a bit nervous, given the mentality of Arsenal fans. But even he said the charges appeared to be theatre, rather than having any substance. David Conn, whose tune changed completely once the CAS verdict came out (probably under editorial orders) dismissed the original UEFA charges as not having any substance. And he was quite right.
Since that initial shock two years ago the scales have dropped from my eyes more and more. These charges are baseless and completely without substance.
Another "soft" signal re 115/130 or are you waiting for the IPO listing and full info?
Why do you say in the tweet "conroversially, City have never identified Etihad as a related party?"
I'm aware of the non-related/related debate on here over the years and, if Eitihad had been declared as related at the outset if anything our lives might have been easier and has always been accepetd as FMV in anycase (excluding the recent submission).