Search results

That has not been shown or found and was one of the PL win, that it would effect all owners equally. The timing is suss, but it is what it is If Newcastle can show that Pl stopped certain sponsorships due to poor procedures, deadlines they could sue for damages. Probably unlikely

It’s a new board so tough to know for certain, but they don’t have that much wriggle room to sack him and appoint someone who doesn’t want those players. I think he stays unless something unthinkable happens. Will ultimately be another season wasted for them!

Be celebrating it in the car,

Be me tomorrow, going out at night and have to get back and my Son at the Grandparents. Hopefully winning easily and just miss a bit of passing around and at worse an additional goal to round of the win.

Think they will have advised on acting professionally and also that litigation should be handled in good faith. I’ve always thought a whistleblower who would go on record is the only way PL win this and never heard even a whisper off it. If they had one Arsenal would know and it would have...

I don’t but I think it is fairly universally accepted that for their to be a 10 week trail, that both parties are planning on demonstrating a substantial amount of evidence and witness statements. Think your question is probably whether it’s credible or of value. A large amount of evidence...

I am a City fan and I think we will be found innocent, but I also think we have to be balanced. There is clearly more being discussed in this case then at CAS. Our lawyers have agreed to the time frame for the hearing, must think that PL evidence must be at least 2 weeks worth, CAS was 1 day...

Think the level of evidence by both parties is a lot higher then at CAS which was just a 3 day trail (that finished slightly early). In the same way we can clearly laugh at Arsenal fans claiming we provided no evidence. We have to accept that PL have larger amount of evidence, you can argue...

It’s very unlikely to even work that way we have seen all there evidence and they have seen ours and we both seemed to have agreed on a 10 week hearing. The chances are is this is due to both parties putting up substantial arguments.

We didn’t wear T-shirts for him, that can only be a good sign

If only for the reaction from down the M62

Go on then… It’s happened season ended or not as bad as first feared. Can be a psychological tactic to leak 9 months and then if only 6 months, doesn’t seem as bad if told 6 months to begin with. But whatever, we need a solution and Pep will play one and not quite as we may expect. So what...

I still think he will play a part!! Believe in Rodri!!

Brilliant, think he likes having a bit of edge about him. Stay humble!!

Not really, Pep said it knowing it would be reported. The club could have advised no q’s on it. Not saying the beeb wouldn’t have run a different one, in which case your comment would be apt. However, this one we have made the story

Love him to, but he came out and said his piece last week. I think we should go with the line of respecting the process and therefore will not be making any further comment until after the trail has been heard and a judgment has been made. Give Pep a rest

The rest of the PL just do what they are told by the cartel clubs in my view. However, I don’t feel we are too far from an uprising as people have seen those views for what they are. I expect there will follow a relaxing of the rules to help the so called lesser teams (sure that was Masters word).

It’s the signed off audited accounts, of course we will have more to substantiate it (possibly including what you mention). But for me it’s posturing and building up the accounts. Have them at the start point and make them credible and then the PL has a hell of a job disproving them with I’m...

I’m not saying no to PL, I’m saying I don’t think it will be Masters.

I couldn’t see why he would be a witness. I think some misunderstand this case and expect Lord Pannick to put him on the stand and try and break the story of why PSR and the companies that control it. This seems to me to be different to what the case is and I think our witness evidence etc...