Absolutely. I had a plastic rag at breakfast saying exactly that. I said "If you were charged with murder and locked up before any trial but were innocent and every time you spoke to the police, they reported back to the family of the victim, the prosecution and the press - would you consider not commenting any further until court?"
He glazed over a bit and said something like "you must've done something dodgy".
It's like banging your head repeatedly against a brick wall. They all want to comment to say that we're cheats but when you point out we're not, then we must've done something. You explain it to them and it becomes boring. Well don't comment in the first place if you don't want to know why you're wrong.
Unfortunately that's the general attitude of too many people in this country, if you're charged with something it's not "innocent until proven guilty", it's "you must've done something". It's pathetic.Absolutely. I had a plastic rag at breakfast saying exactly that. I said "If you were charged with murder and locked up before any trial but were innocent and every time you spoke to the police, they reported back to the family of the victim, the prosecution and the press - would you consider not commenting any further until court?"
He glazed over a bit and said something like "you must've done something dodgy".
It's like banging your head repeatedly against a brick wall. They all want to comment to say that we're cheats but when you point out we're not, then we must've done something. You explain it to them and it becomes boring. Well don't comment in the first place if you don't want to know why you're wrong.
You think any response from the club would come from Vicky Kloss?So can someone summarise for me what Vicky Kloss has had to say on this matter, what she has said to counter the appalling things being said about our club? Has she been as strong as ever in condemning the lies?
You forgot the other longer term plan - keep winning trophies. I already see a larger number of City shirts on kids than I ever used to and that is obviously connected to the current success (no glory-hunting jibes - it's just a fact that kids are attracted to teams that win). The current media cohort grew up in the days of Liverpool and/or United success - you don't think they all have a deep personal connection to the cities of Liverpool or Manchester, do you? However, at some point the current crop of City-supporting kids will grow up and some of them will get jobs in the media. It's the long game, I know, but it's how the world works.
We could do worse than start with winning the one competition we are still in this season...
Do you mean in anything? Ever? You don’t think media relations has anything to do with her? Martin Samuel does a better job of our media relations than she does, and he is employed by the daily fucking mailYou think any response from the club would come from Vicky Kloss?
TokingToeing.
I know how the media works pal, and if they can get away with lies they will continue to do so. We won’t ever overtake the support of dippers and rags, which is what causes the click bait lies, so we need to take a hard legal approach
It's clear some people are happy to claim the emails were rock solid proof. Even though you'd think it would be easy to find supporting evidence if that was the case and they could not, instead City showed contradictory evidence to their claims from witnesses and accounting data.
Those emails do still make bad reading though. I still have thing's I'm not sure on and what our arguments were against them:
Is it the Club's position that certain people in the emails were unsure of how it all works, who incorrectly referenced things to be coming from ADUG. Which were instead coming from Etihad central fund in the main?
Did all the money from Etihad go directly to the club or did some go through ADUG as the owner of CFG?
Jorge Chumillas in particular gave the anti-city agenda plenty to work with but he also said "I need to understand the mechanism" asking for Simon Peirce's guidance, showing he was confused.
Was a 3rd party not named to make up the deficit as we originally believed happened for those dates in question?
Considering CFG is comprised of other clubs that take Etihad sponsorship funds I thought it our defence would be that a third party paid the £59.5m deficit into ADUG, who then distributed this money between CFG clubs accordingly. Some of the wording is making second guess that now. Which I guess is still ok because they still had no proof but how do we explain what phrase "ADUG contributions" meant if everything was coming directly through Etihad? Unless the defence really was only on the basis that suggesting something in a email is not the same as completing an action.
Maybe it's being picky I just would have liked some more conclusive answers to destroy the email led story outright.