Search results

What's the reputational damage of APT1 vs APT2? Genuine discussion this, btw.

This is not aimed at you specifically, @slbsn has used the term lots too. I don't really see the significance of this 'free hit' arguement. Surely the APT1 challenge was a free hit too. And APT2. And CAS, and challenging the 115 charges. Surely any challenge to anything is a 'free hit'. In...

Unless it really is as simple as, there will be no changes because City have accepted the rules. More or less as that joint two sentence statement claims.

The panel ruling claimed we weren't treated unfairly (not that I agreed at the time). Do you think we will now suddenly be treated fairly, or even say differently?

If that were the case, would they not need to put the rules back to the other 19 clubs? Imagine if we were one of the other clubs, and this same scenario happened with one of the top 6. The same posters pounding their chests would be screaming it stinks and corruption.

What is the context, who are the two guys in the video?

I accept his point is valid and binding.

I think you may have misunderstood that last one.

Unrelated, but generally related, give yourself a spin of Ruins by Wolf People. A bit if Kasabian had a love child with Jethro Tull, while Josh Homme watched through the window.

Worth pointing out again, the reason cited by the club for removing the crest is to stop it impeding views from the skybar. Rather than not to offend coop goers, which I doubt the club would care about that much. Maybe it was the interior designers that had the issue, who knows ;).

Totally agree. I keep saying this, but I think it gets lost in my take on the statement itself.

Yea poor choice of words from me, I was meaning more the volume of simultaneous responses, rather than the tone. In fairness, people have been on the whole polite and genuine. As have I too. No issue there, other than struggling to keep up with the worms out of the can I seem to have opened.

What might maybe be more telling is the aftermath, and the reports of clubs clambering to find out more detail of the settlement. It does leave the club in a bit of a damned either way perception. Either they dropped the challenge because, as the statement says, they accept the rules are...

Sure.

Fair and valid, but some distance between that and the claim that the statement is this clear sign of a big victory for us and a loss for the PL it is made out to be.

Again just to be clear, I am not arguing the club didn't get what they might have wanted out of it all. Nor event hat the statement is a genuine reflection of the club's stance. But I also think people are too readily using it to celebrate some imagined behind the scenes victory, when the...

They weren't though. The Previous rules were, the new rules were not determined unlawful, nor lawful. But we have accepted them as valid, by dropping our challenge and publicly declaring them as such.

Depends on how good their lawyers are. And if they see their hypothetical challenge through, or drop it.

They can't, and you haven't. You have just said some stuff. But it is both wrong and irrelevant. That's not debating it. Am I irrate, of course I am, simultaneously being ganged up on by multiple posters (who in fairness I do generally value and trust on here, hence I bother responding). All...

Or maybe we dropped our challenge because it was futile and all we got out of it was the shred of dignity to release that statement without getting our arse publicly handed to us. Nobody can know. For the record I don't for a second believe that, but no speculation is any less valid than any...