Investigation in Liverpool's 'hacking' of our computer systems

[MillionMilesAway]

Sheikh Mansour must have been told about the hacking..

The £1mill sign off must have been accepted and approved by Sheikh Mansour via Khaldoon.

The more you detach yourself from City, and the more you think about it, the more you think something fishy has gone on for City to accept a £1mill pay off from Liverpool to stay silent.

I doubt the decision went anywhere near the sheikh. That's what the board are there to decide.
However, you may be right that there was a quid pro quo somewhere.

 

[Corky]

We have a major rival who are an absolute pain in the arse, they wine, they moan, they’ve been getting preferential treatment for years (ask Portsmouth fans who had their European place stolen by the Dippers), they re-write history, they are media darlings and they have an ingrained culture of cheating. We had a potential opportunity to nail them - nail them once and for all and we seem to have declined the opportunity. Sure we mishandling and took a settlement but why not destroy them in the criminal courts? It’s mystifying.

I think that is you re-writing history there - it was pompy's fault going into administration and not bothering to apply for a uefa licence.

 

[nmc]

I think that is you re-writing history there - it was pompy's fault going into administration and not bothering to apply for a uefa licence.

The FA told Pompey they wouldn’t get one (fact). Then when Pompey found out there was nothing in the rules preventing them; they were out of time.

 

[Marvin]

Different organisations, different matters, no meaningful comparison to be made.

The FA reportedly that time was a factor and yet it is not deemed relevant in the UEFA case. Why relevant in one case but not the other?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The FA reportedly that time was a factor and yet it is not deemed relevant in the UEFA case. Why relevant in one case but not the other?

Maybe because it was within the scope of UEFA's regs on time - hence the rush to report up to the Adjudicatory committee.

I'd be a bit surprised if the FA had a reg that applied in this case, or presumably they or someone in the media would have quoted it.

 

[nmc]

The FA reportedly that time was a factor and yet it is not deemed relevant in the UEFA case. Why relevant in one case but not the other?

I think both organisations are ‘flexible’ in their approaches.... ie they make things up as they go along and tend to be dominated by crooks and fraudsters - which makes them notoriously unpredictable!

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I think both organisations are ‘flexible’ in their approaches.... ie they make things up as they go along and tend to be dominated by crooks and fraudsters - which makes them notoriously unpredictable!

But predictably corrupt and unreliable.

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

Wouldn't that be likely to create a "not enough information to proceed" outcome? .

You don't know, I don't know and neither do the FA, which is my point. It could have been referred and the correct authority would in a position to decide.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

You don't know, I don't know and neither do the FA, which is my point. It could have been referred and the correct authority would in a position to decide.

Yep, it was a question more than anything.

 

[mccity]

I just reckon this whole thing is far more complex than we realise as of yet.