Search results

Yeah - I don’t like the look of that midfield at all! I get that Gonzalez is clearly not fully fit, but I’d rather have Kova in there alongside Bernardo if that’s our only option - and lose one of Foden/Reijnders. Looks very lightweight as is!

Gundo and KDB have produced absolutely fuck all for City this season. No way either should be starting this game, IMO.

‘Dip’ Very clever!

Read my posts - at no point did I say it was gospel. I relayed what they’d said, and - again, if you actually read my words, rather than making wild assumptions based on absolutely fuck all - included plenty of caveats that in my view it clearly wasn’t based on any recent material updates or...

I don’t recall flagging anything to any specific posters at any point during my posts that day, but if I’m wrong - let me know. There were quite a few of them in the end, granted!

Having read that article, Gaughan’s actual words read like a fairly anodyne, unsubstantiated statement from a much wider Q&A that City’s view is as it always has been: we’ll clear our name. Definitely not presented as a hot of the press update based on recent developments/knowledge, so I’m...

I’m well aware no-one with more than half a brain looks to craven lickspittles like Ronay for objectivity - but did he genuinely say that?

Funny you should mention that - my PM feed isn’t showing anything just yet, but I’m sure that’s simply down to people taking a bit of time to find the right wording before sending them over.

I’m staying out of this one! ;-)

We didn’t get into a deep dive on the case, so I can’t say how exhaustive their knowledge on any of this stuff is - but they definitely seemed informed, and clearly understood the broad arguments in play. But I’d expect that, given their positions. This is a very high profile case for them...

Mate - I’m honestly surprised you’re surprised that a bunch of senior PL Execs are guilty of displaying overconfidence bordering on arrogance when discussing deeply questionable legal cases they’ve decided to pursue against their own member Clubs. They’ve done this repeatedly in pretty much...

I appreciate my post wasn’t delivering the feelgood hit of positive news that everyone wants to hear, which is why people are so quick to attack it - but if you actually take a moment to read the words, rather than just leap straight to a defensive position, you’ll see I’m not claiming this was...

Great - then we take them at their word. Like I said - I’m not doubting the panel’s independence. I’m doubting the PL’s independence in bringing the charges in the first place.

These are my opinions, so yes - they are theories. I’ve not presented them as being the result of any conversations I’ve had with anyone better informed on the case than me. I’m hoping people can tell the difference between a post that explicitly says: ‘these are views that were related to me...

I’m not necessarily saying that. I don’t have a clear view on the individuals on the panel to comment on their neutrality, but I have no specific reason to doubt their independence. But certainly the PL’s approach in bringing these charges was partisan, lacked balance, and was - in my opinion...

True fact.

You’re absolutely right - in theory. But the PL have clearly taken a partisan approach to this case from the start, abandoning any opportunity for neutrality to stridently side with the protectionist US-owned lobby within the Clubs it represents. The PL has clearly taken a strategic decision...

Sorry mate - we went through this at length yesterday, and I’d prefer not to share the context. They were aware I’m a City fan though - yes.

Fat ****

Thanks mate. You hit on the point that the ‘hard of reading’ seem to have misinterpreted in my original post, which is that these guys weren’t saying ‘the PL has won, City are fucked’, or claiming they’d seen the judgement yet. They weren’t claiming to be sharing a confidential legal decision...