CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

[BringBackSwales]

There's no question we took legal advice on that. We didn't do it capriciously.

Legal advice on what?

 

[Ban-jani]

He’s just adding fuel to the fire of when he next bumps into a load of blues.

 

[markstephenhickey]

Still can’t quite believe he’s supposed to be a city fan. Stabbing his own club in the back time after fucking time.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

the whole article has been heavily edited I think. Someone on here has archived the original, can't remember who though

It's basically been rewritten, I agree. Roan's comments at the end have definitely been added, but the rest has been recast totally.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53571659

 

[kaz7]

Another turncoat who can't print the verdict,not guilty and go from there

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Another wankstain.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

If it's Roan, there'll be a long queue to assist in severely traumatising the c*nt.

A longer queue for Stone, and City let that cùnt have the first question at Peps pressers, winds me up mate.

 

[simon23]

Just on the first one, the emails were taken out of context as key information was omitted from them. They weren’t edited in terms of rewritten.

I thought I read somewhere that bits had been taken from various different emails and stuck together to make it look like it was saying something else?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Does it really say this?


"in the absence of particulars as argued by MCFC, UEFA's case with respect to funding being channeled through 3rd parties is based on innuendo. And does not meet the requisite standard of proof"

 

[Metalartin]

Don’t thing they even go to our ground but if they do we should ban them or just ban the paper because those people will not write anything positive whatsoever when they getting paid to damage our club.

Didn't Rob Harris claim in a tweet that nobody has shown him any animosity from City's side of it at the games he attends?

At the time I was thinking he was giving it large saying: "Nobody had the balls to all this I'm reading on twitter to my face at the game"

Having thought about it more calmly, it's more likely he was claiming the fact that nobody had pulled him up on his articles from the club's side, means he was right in his eyes.

Doubt many of them will be going to a City game, they're probably hoping for a ban themselves, so we can't say they bottled showing their face again and they can spin another false narrative from it("See they don't like the truth").

Part of me also thinks they'd use it to attack the fans in the press, if anyone did throw their sarnies at them or the like. So I'm torn between letting them go to games, in the hopes that they are spotted and given pelters(verbal) and wanting them banned publicly or indeed the companies they write for.