PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
You know differently?
no, just doesn't surprise me that something important happens involving the club and relevant people aren't ready and waiting to respond in timely fashion.
You know differently?
WTF?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 such as:
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?
Jorge Chumillas in particular gave the anti-city agenda plenty to work with but he also said "I need to understand the mechanism" when asking for Simon Peirce's guidance, showing he was indeed confused.
Did all the money from Etihad go directly to the club or did some go through ADUG as the owner of CFG?
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 several other clubs, that all take Etihad sponsorship funds. I thought our defence would be, that a third party paid the £59.5m deficit into ADUG, who then distributed this money between CFG clubs accordingly. What I've read so far is making second guess that now. Which I guess is still ok because they still had no proof but how do we explain what the phrase "ADUG contributions" meant if everything was coming directly through Etihad? Surely I'm missing something there, our legal team wouldn't make such an obvious blunder. 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.
PB said months ago that the only evidence UEFA had were the Der Spiegel newspaper articles. I think many of us found that very difficult to believe, not because we didn’t trust what he was saying but because we found it almost impossible to comprehend how they could bring charges based solely on “evidence” that you, I, or anyone could’ve come up with.
I wonder who told Colin;)
I thought I read on here that they are all on hols this week.no, just doesn't surprise me that something important happens involving the club and relevant people aren't ready and waiting to respond in timely fashion.
Not in this case obviously not . What do you think she should do? Pretty sure she'd soon be out of a job if she decided any club response, of her own back. Don't know why you have an issue with her, the club don't seem to, so she must be doing something right. At least in the opinion of those who employ her and know what her job is.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 mail
Maybe in 3 card brag...A pair of 2s? That good a hand?!
Exactly, click bait survival needs a complete disregard for the truth.That's not going to be easy when these same red clubs in England have the press in their pocket.
There comes a time when the person or people defending the club in front of the media should not be limited to the first team coach.