Engage your fucking brain.
If they are open to changing their decision upon receiving further evidence it means they don't have all the evidence. Can we agree on that?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Investigation in Liverpool's 'hacking' of our computer systems
- Thread starter Franny's toilet roll
- Start date
Engage your fucking brain.
If they are open to changing their decision upon receiving further evidence it means they don't have all the evidence. Can we agree on that?
red 2 hats
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 2,072
There are presumably good reasons why they seem to be keeping the lid on this. But I can only reiterate that I'm confident that the lid will, at some point, be coming off.
That lid ain't coming off, if anything it's getting harder too open
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Or there's evidence that hasn't come to light yet, so no, we can't agree on that and you can go fuck a duck for all I care bud.Engage your fucking brain.
If they are open to changing their decision upon receiving further evidence it means they don't have all the evidence. Can we agree on that?
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
Engage your fucking brain.
If they are open to changing their decision upon receiving further evidence it means they don't have all the evidence. Can we agree on that?
No, it means they don't know whether or not there is any further evidence. There may or there may not be. Every single investigative decision is made on that basis.
Or there's evidence that hasn't come to light yet, so no, we can't agree on that and you can go fuck a duck for all I care bud.
No, it means they don't know whether or not there is any further evidence. There may or there may not be. Every single investigative decision is made on that basis.
This isn't a fucking murder mystery.
A cyber security team came over in 2012 and found all the evidence to prove who did it and for them to pay us a settlement.
There's a finite amount of evidence, and City have all of it.
So the fa knew about it back in 2013 and are now saying it's a historical caseProbably because neither club involved would tell them anything.
City found out they'd been the victim of a crime committed by another club and didn't tell anyone, why would they change that stance if someone at the FA reached out to ask if this story had any weight?
So the fa knew about it back in 2013 and are now saying it's a historical case
No. The FA might have heard about a story in the Daily Express in 2013.
That doesn't mean they knew what happened.
So the fa had heard about it in 2013, but did nothing about it, why do you think that is?No. The FA might have heard about a story in the Daily Express in 2013.
That doesn't mean they knew what happened.
So the fa had heard about it in 2013, but did nothing about it, why do you think that is?
I don't know how many times you want me to say this.
The probably didn't do anything because City didnt tell them anything. Just like they didn't tell them when they discovered it, or when they settled with Liverpool.
If you get burgled and you find out who did it but never report it to the police, preferring to sign an NDA for a trivial amount of money, it's not the police's fault that they don't investigate.
cjn
Well-Known Member
Probably because we accepted £1m (that we obviously didn't need) in exchange for not talking about it?So the fa had heard about it in 2013, but did nothing about it, why do you think that is?