walker_is_faster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2015
- Messages
- 1,158
So levy already crying
So levy already crying
So levy already crying
Nothing directly. Using their media mouthpiece instead. Dodgy Dan was last seen at a shredder.Can't find owt online. What has Conte/Levy said?
Former footballer from Ireland calling it out as well https://www.buzz.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league-clubs-dissing-manchester-29193391
People believe what they want to believe...Difficult to change thatThese bits are fun, but it's more important that the club actually combat the misleading narrative that's been created and Pep can't do that on his own.
If you speak to non CIty fans, they have all been convinced that "City got off on a technicality" because that's what half a dozen journalists, who were convinced it was a slam dunk, fell back on when they got shown up.
The truth as we all know is that only 1 email/sponsorship/charge was time barred, and from the panel's conclusions on the other issues it's impossible to conclude anything other than it would have been thrown out as well if it was actually looked it. They decided emails weren't proof of action, and all UEFA had was emails.
But that narrative of City surviving on a technicality was hammered home and spread and now it's what the average person thinks. Not that all but one of the charges were looked at and dismissed.
Hopefully they have gotten smarter, and have a strategy for getting their version of events - which by the way is the fucking truth after all, not some half truth excluding most of the verdict - into the papers and into the public consciousness.
The same point was made about UEFA’s case. However once looked at property they had nothing more than der spiegel leaks.In general I don't disagree with this, but to be fair..something has come out, hasn't it?
First we had the Der Spiegel leaks, which of course the club says were misquoted and taken out of context (very possible, but I don't think we know the full picture) and then there's the very real possibility that the PL have had information from a whistleblower.
There's also the separate question of how widespread the conspiracy would actually need to be here. I'm not sure it's as wide as some are saying.
Of course this is going to be extremely difficult for the PL to prove, and the inherent implausibility will be a big part of City's defence. But we must admit the possibility that the PL do have some good evidence. I think that even if they were pressured into taking this action (and again that's very possible), it seems very unlikely they'd do so without a respectable basis. Personally, while I do think on balance City are more likely to be successful, I'd be surprised if the PL don't have a respectable case.
For what it's worth I say this as an experienced professional in an adjacent field who has investigated and litigated fraud and misrep cases of this magnitude.
Don't know whether this has been answered later (trying to catch up), but we would have needed income to improve the results, not loans to give us more cash. The problem was never cash, it was that we weren't earning enough income so we were making losses.I've never understood this either. Biggest legit loophole there is because neither uefa or pl can deal with debt because it will hit the old guard. Rather than all the faff with sponsorship and 'fair values' we could have just been 'loaned' a billion in perpetuity like abramnovitch and just recently the Leicester owner has done.