What is Newcastle stance? It impacts us so we challenged it, yes Newcastle might have been able to as well. Remember they are finding their feet still, it has taken us over 10 years to say enough is enough.I cant be the only one who is pissed off at Newcastles stance on this, it seems to me that it was the amendments aimed to stop Newcastle that pushed us to go down the legal route. Not to say that we shouldnt have pushed it but why not Newcastle.
Came across this experiment. It’s called the werewolf game. Created by a Russian 1986.
The Werewolves win if they achieve parity, or an equal number of remaining Werewolves and Villagers. The Villagers win if they are able to kill all of the Werewolves.
Dimitry Davidoff wanted to show that an informed minority (the werewolves/city fans) when pitted against an uninformed majority (the villagers/cartel/media) will usually win.
The game has two alternating phases: first, a night-phase, during which those with night-killing-powers may covertly kill other players, and second, a day-phase, in which all surviving players debate and vote to eliminate a suspect. The game continues until a faction achieves its win-condition; for the village, this usually means eliminating the evil minority, while for the minority, this usually means reaching numerical parity with the village and eliminating any rival evil groups.
115 is the end game for the red cartel.
Extra: as per slbsn it’s just posturing by the media for the clubs anyway, as a club cannot Sue another one, as per the PL’a own rules (ironic).
On what harebrained ground do these lunatics imagine clubs can sue city?
You can play this as a forum game. The caf used to run them for awhile.Came across this experiment. It’s called the werewolf game. Created by a Russian 1986.
The Werewolves win if they achieve parity, or an equal number of remaining Werewolves and Villagers. The Villagers win if they are able to kill all of the Werewolves.
Dimitry Davidoff wanted to show that an informed minority (the werewolves/city fans) when pitted against an uninformed majority (the villagers/cartel/media) will usually win.
The game has two alternating phases: first, a night-phase, during which those with night-killing-powers may covertly kill other players, and second, a day-phase, in which all surviving players debate and vote to eliminate a suspect. The game continues until a faction achieves its win-condition; for the village, this usually means eliminating the evil minority, while for the minority, this usually means reaching numerical parity with the village and eliminating any rival evil groups.
115 is the end game for the red cartel.
Try 60 years !!!!But will their fans be happy with that? I suppose the answer is yes as they've been doing just that for the last 20 years without any fuss.
It must be part of our defence that rules we are alleged to have broken were created to ensure we broke them. I'm not sure how an independent panel would regard that if we had technically been in breach.Not a chance it would get to a situation where the case is discontinued. This will play out 100%, it was said all along that the recent case has nothing to do with 115, whichever way that goes. We can't think because we won (even though the prem doesn't think they lost) that they will then buckle?
I don't think that will be enough though, as our agreement isn't about why the rules are there, it is simply we haven't broken the rules? We can put it forward and it wouldn't do any harm winning this recent case but I don't think much of it will link. Had we lost this recent case would we be pessimistic with the 115?It must be part of our defence that rules we are alleged to have broken were created to ensure we broke them. I'm not sure how an independent panel would regard that if we had technically been in breach.
The analogy would be a magistrate asked to give judgment against a motorist with a parking ticket after the council had put yellow lines under his parked car