Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
All our lawyers were members of The Barm Association.So you're saying we had 9 lawyers there trying to push the idea that it was a barm, when we all knew it was a muffin all along
All our lawyers were members of The Barm Association.So you're saying we had 9 lawyers there trying to push the idea that it was a barm, when we all knew it was a muffin all along
All our lawyers were members of The Barm Association.
The Liverpool defender handled it after taking out Sterling too - so a pen on two counts.
The game should have ended 2-2 (if pen converted), yet we lost 3-0.
Bent officials.
The game should have ended 3-0 to us because the Dippers should have been disqualified and banned for another half decade for the coach attack.
Exactly... and we should have been going in at h/t in the 2nd leg 2-0 up (4-2) with 2 away goals.
Was just going to post exactly what @levets posted that disallowed goal on the stroke of HT at home was the killer, had that have correctly stood I've no doubt we'd have qualified.
Interesting conclusions about UEFA competition, the way they share the prize money and the consequences in shaping a non "fair" and non "competitive" environment.
Nah Hoeness or anyone with anyone with political sway with the Bavarian Rags is a ****.Having read what he said in German (I can't play the original interview video) I suspect the UK press are spinning it as critical of CAS, especially those outlets saying things like "Former Bayern Munich president Uli Hoeness has criticized the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for overturning Manchester City's two-year Champions League ban."
He hasn't criticised CAS. it's criticism of UEFA for acting against us with "no substantive evidence". My translation: "If the CAS judges thought UEFA had acted badly there's no surprise at the outcome."
"Obviously UEFA's reasoning was just weak."
I can't see a basis in the original for "we must do with Manchester City" except for the possibility of meeting them in the semi-final.
Don't blame Hoeness. It's our press again.
The offside one was dubious and the double penalty was fucking criminal.None of the three liverpool goals were contentious. City had a goal disallowed for a very dubious offside, but the linesman gave that.
What were his actual stitch ups.