Because they look like obsessed crazy loons, rolling Piers Morgan into it doesn’t give it credibility, discussing it on tv doesn’t either, as for banning them, I see it as an invitation for them to come round & watch their wife receive angry anal every other weekWhy doesn't the club defend itself more and
Start going after these cunts for defamation of
character.
Start banning some of these fuckers from the ethihad. Do something fffs.
Can you disclose which paper you worked for mate?
Ha, I feel for you mate. Can't make a decent one out of all of emAll of 'em!
It also dispels the notion of under the rug payments, money in brown bags, offshore payments etc etc, the payment is there in plain sight, they’re doing a fine job undoing that narrative, leave em to itAll I will say is if it is “only” £30m is that it dispels the myth to all of our accusers we have been fiddling hundreds of millions of sponsorships since we got took over . Anyone with half a brain must be thinking “is that it?” Two discrepancies going back ten years amounting to approx 5% of our then turnover is hardly mass fiddling is it ? And they all know this club is now watertight.
I guess UEFA had exactly that? I think we would all feel better about this whole process if we knew we had the ability to go to a higher body, should we get shafted like last time. Even after all these months, I still cannot believe that all the clubs sign up to PL rules knowing that should the shit hit the fan, the PL have the power to end your existence. It seems absolutely moronic to me that this is the case. £billions at stake and clubs leave themselves at the mercy of idiots, without having the ability to defend themselves at a truly independent body/court.So another big, fat nothing burger?
Etisalat was described pretty completely in the CAS award and, as far as I am aware, the facts aren't disputed. There is no mystery to me, other than why the club felt compelled to record the money from ADUG as a reduction of the receivable from Etisalat rather than through a current account from ADUG.
As far as I am aware, short-term funding and its repayment is allowed by FFP, so I am not even sure what the actual issue is.
There is no impact on the true and fair view given by the accounts due to the treatment of the Etisalat sponsorship. So that goes right of the window on day one. The rest is for lawyers to argue over. Fraud? Deliberate concealment? Good luck proving that when we can roll-out a dozen witnesses who were involved explaining why what happened happened the way it did. Would be a foolhardy panel to say all those witnesses were lying when the only evidence they have is a couple of "out of context" emails.
Maybe the PL is hoping the club will settle so everyone can say we were found guilty. I am not sure Mansour and Khaldoon are in the mood for that.
In the long run will this siege mentality last for all parties ie fans team and of course Pep?It's a weird one isn't it?
A couple of things.
I can't imagine the PL really expect that they can prove their allegations to any acceptable level of proof. So maybe, there is some credence to the view the "people" behind it were just out destabilise the club and to cause a stink. As you imply, I think, they didn't anticipate Guardiola fighting back the way he did, and as you say, since then the club has never looked back.
As for FFP as a whole, it is delicious that the clubs behind it are now struggling because of it. They are less successful than we are purely because we are more successful (and because they are badly managed as well, of course). So they make less money but have to spend more to catch up. It's a mini catch 22. Shame.
I guess UEFA had exactly that? I think we would all feel better about this whole process if we knew we had the ability to go to a higher body, should we get shafted like last time. Even after all these months, I still cannot believe that all the clubs sign up to PL rules knowing that should the shit hit the fan, the PL have the power to end your existence. It seems absolutely moronic to me that this is the case. £billions at stake and clubs leave themselves at the mercy of idiots, without having the ability to defend themselves at a truly independent body/court.
Can't see that being true, if it was they could say, city have been drug using, took a billion off a uae drugs barron to fund the take over, we obviously couldn't prove we haven't so according to you we would be guilty, doesn't make 1 ounce of senseUnfortunately, that is not case. The burden of proof on this could well be on City (I think the difference comes if the accusation becomes fraud which it could well be). It is not always the accuser who has to prove guilt.
My point is that the people on the independent panel, whilst not being unjust or corrupt they still have a slight side.
This is not a court and the panel are not there free of charge (paid by PL).
In work I have experience of this, one where I am on the board and we refer matters to an independent panel that we present to a long with the other party.
I have no doubt the integrity of the parties to make the correct decision.
However, there are small differences in us using our independent party to a truly independent party, not saying it would change the verdict but they are little differences you know from that situation.
All I will say is if it is “only” £30m is that it dispels the myth to all of our accusers we have been fiddling hundreds of millions of sponsorships since we got took over . Anyone with half a brain must be thinking “is that it?” Two discrepancies going back ten years amounting to approx 5% of our then turnover is hardly mass fiddling is it ? And they all know this club is now watertight.