Disagree, for once he had the upper hand, if you have irrefutable proof you don't settle.
There can never be irrefutable proof that you haven't given or received a proverbial backhander. I could say that I have proof that I have received one from somebody, if I had. However, I could not possibly prove that you haven't, at some point in the last ten years, slipped me an envelope full of cash.
'Settling' is something you do to make a case go away, and to save yourself a bucket load of time, cash and risk. The unfortunate reality is that guilt is no guarantee of being found guilty and innocence is no guarantee of being found innocent. So, sometimes, it makes sense to agree to disagree, settle, and move on.
What we likely have here is a case and a series of charges that cannot be proven one way or another. However, unlike in a court, the bar for proof in a hearing is a little lower than 'beyond reasonable doubt', and so both sides may wish to concede that a 'settlement' is the best way out for them both, with both believing they have saved face.
Much as we'd like to clear our name completely, I don't think that is possible. Much as they would like to prove our guilt, I don't think that's possible. Even if we were found innocent of all 115 charges (which we won't be, because some of the minor ones are likely stone-wallers), the reality is that the Red Tops, the likes of Jordan, and football fans at large will simply see it as an OJ Simpson or 'Stephen Lawrence five' botched investigation. We are absolutely guilty in their eyes, whatever the verdict. A settlement may reinforce that opinion, but it won't change it. An innocent verdict will never waiver their belief that we are guilty. In that sense, the smear has worked, so we simply must do what we must do to bring this matter to a close as soon as possible.
