You've not considered a word I've said. I've stepped away from the semantics long ago, so I could gain a better global overview.
I find it increasingly difficult to get past why the authorities haven't drawn down on City, & also the non-legal language the PL have carefully used when referencing City & these alleged breaches.
You've not proven your Premier League "charges" claim, nor have you considered City’s situation outside your personal opinion, which is your right.
On a positive note, there are two very distinct ways & approaches of viewing these breaches & hearings. Hopefully City fans have greater clarity through our discussions to consider both opposing views so they can draw their own conclusions.
I've already digested the FAQ's, but I'll give you an analogy off the top of my head to consider...
There's an argument whether Santa Claus's original costume was red or green. Both parties bring their evidence & spiritedly argue their views & opinions.
However, the point both are missing is Santa is a fictional character, so both points are moot in the big scheme of things anyway. That's me stepping away from the semantics, & leaving others to argue red or green.
Also consider why City are in favour of a statutory Independent Regulator for English Football (IREF), & the PL are bitterly opposed?
If we had something to hide from the statutory bodies (HMRC, SFO, Police) & the UK Criminal/Civil Law Courts, our stated position that we favour a statutory IREF body, belies any liability with the industrial scale fraud we're essentially being accused of.
Where I'm sure we can both agree, is a wish for a favourable outcome for City, & an end to the witchunts against us. )(
