115 Charges - FAQs

[ChicagoBlue]

And that is a logical response. If we never deny, refute or argue the case, then yes, we must be guilty. If we wasn’t then we would surely oppose it? But we never do. For that reason people believe what they read and hear. Understandably.

Or, maybe, we choose to do our talking to real people in the real world of global business and, when necessary, in the courts, where bullshit is given its due!

 

[GaudinoMotors]

That's fine until the first time the club fails to refute an article.
"See, they are cheats because they haven't denied it"

Hmmm - you deny the lies in one well and the allegations in it from time to time and there's no need play whack-a-mole with others regurgitating it - just every now and then. Fans aren't completely stupid (I think). Not expecting a running commentary and showing of our hand - just something the make the baying mob think once in a while.

 

[citizen_maine]

Hmmm - you deny the lies in one well and the allegations in it from time to time and there's no need play whack-a-mole with others regurgitating it - just every now and then. Fans aren't completely stupid (I think). Not expecting a running commentary and showing of our hand - just something the make the baying mob think once in a while.

But you can't pick and choose which articles to refute. You either have to refute them all or say nothing. If you choose to refute all, then you're spending all your time/money doing that, rather than your day job of winning trophies. I'd rather have the trophies

 

[ganganvince]

That's fine until the first time the club fails to refute an article.
"See, they are cheats because they haven't denied it"

Refute what though, they claim there are 115 charges that allege xy and z which if proven could lead to certain potential punishments. Short of answering each charge publicly (which would breach more rules) not much we can do.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

But you can't pick and choose which articles to refute. You either have to refute them all or say nothing. If you choose to refute all, then you're spending all your time/money doing that, rather than your day job of winning trophies. I'd rather have the trophies

Yes - you can.
We should be doing more - imo re countering some of the libelous commentary.
And yes - who wouldn't "rather have the trophies" - obviously. But it's not an either/or.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

But you can't pick and choose which articles to refute. You either have to refute them all or say nothing. If you choose to refute all, then you're spending all your time/money doing that, rather than your day job of winning trophies. I'd rather have the trophies

We don’t need to refute articles. That would be daft and defensive. We should be getting an alternative narrative out by the back door.

 

[ganganvince]

One thing on this that I struggle with is as a manager if I was conducting an investigation into allegations made against an employee I would need to demonstrate that I had also checked the practice wasn't widespread or risk losing my case on grounds of discrimination. Would the PL not need to demonstrate due diligence?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Bumped for the hard of understanding.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

There's no need to deny it, nor to confirm it. It's for discussion behind closed doors which is the right and proper place to argue such serious matters as these allegations. For all we know, both sides may be under instruction to remain silent rather than let an inquiry to collapse through someone disclosing wrongful information beforehand.

 

[mexico1970]

I have read today that we are in arbitration with the Premier League, does this mean they want a deal or we want a deal?