You tell us, because that's exactly what you did. Insinuating that City only got away with the UEFA charges because they were time-barred is the kind of made-up bullshit we've all had to deal with for years from morons who are incapable of reading beyond headlines. It's straight out of the "City Are Cheats" handbook and really isn't a good look for someone who's supposedly trying to be fair and balanced.In my original post I stated that Arsenal weren't exactly whiter than white and that there are skeletons in the closet.
I'm not here in a willy waving guise, I was just commenting on the whole charges thread as a whole. Clearly in hindsight that wasn't a wise move but I'm finding some members are ignoring the post as a whole but zeroing in on a few words of it and trying to spin it out like I've somehow been hiding under the surface on this forum for nearly a year and then right at the end, after all the prizes have been given out, have decided to come out screaming about charges Like a demented William Wallace. What would the point even be of doing that?
It doesn't assume guilt at all. It assumes both parties wanting to end the process quickly and cutting a deal to do so.Problem is, this assumes guilt & you haven’t suggested how the PL can prove it because you don’t understand the charges fully.
What happens to this PL “business” if we are totally exonerated of all allegations? Does it go bust? Your theory becomes unworkable.
If we are found not guilty I would like Pep or someone from the club blasts what Klopp has said about this case and the UEFA one " this is bad day for football". was discrase comment after we where found not guilty st CASThere’s no point in “counter-arguing” stupidity, that’s a never-ending job.
So to cut a deal we’d accept a 20 point deduction when we’re innocent leading to everybody assuming we were guilty all along…It doesn't assume guilt at all. It assumes both parties wanting to end the process quickly and cutting a deal to do so.
But we wouldn’t want to do that as we have irrefutable evidence of our innocence & so far the PL have been unable to provide evidence to support their ALLEGATIONS. The onus is on the PL to prove us guilty not us to prove our innocence Why would we settleIt doesn't assume guilt at all. It assumes both parties wanting to end the process quickly and cutting a deal to do so.
Thats what I think. Comes here extending hand of friendship to what he thinks is a fanbase that are disillusioned to the fact we are guilty. His assumption of guilt is based on the shit he reads on twitter and in the media, whilst being an Arsenal fan! wtfCompletely out of your depth. If I was you I'd fuck off sharpish. Embarrassing yourself.
Ok I'll explain why I think 20 points is a likely outcome. It's a penalty that is severe enough to be significant (and outweigh the penalties given to Forest and Everton, meaning fans of other clubs can shut up about City not having to take their medicine) whilst simultaneously not actually affecting City that much as with a 20 point deduction they are likely to still qualify for the CL etc.
My hypothesis is based on how businesses operate. Also regarding guilt or otherwise - there are shades of grey always when it comes to legal proceedings and even if you know you are totally innocent there's always the fear that the court/jury etc don't see it that way - maybe the opposition lawyer spins a great story, maybe there's inherent bias on the part of the jury etc.
Which is why I think they won't want to risk it. They'll take a penalty 'in the interests of putting the matter to bed' whilst simultaneously maintaining innocence and stating dissatisfaction with the whole process, both sides move on, and in a couple of years the City fans sit back with popcorn watching Chelsea get bent over a desk by the PL before they go in dry.
All opinion, probably worth fuck all, I've absolutely zero inside info etc.
The PL could easily cut a deal: Case dismissed and a statement saying they will no longer be run for the benefit of a bunch of cry-baby, red-shirt shites.It doesn't assume guilt at all. It assumes both parties wanting to end the process quickly and cutting a deal to do so.
Except that City have indicated and publicly stated previously that "we'll take the pinch this time, but never again". You know what they say about making assumptions, yes?It doesn't assume guilt at all. It assumes both parties wanting to end the process quickly and cutting a deal to do so.
This is where you are wrong, stories dont matter here, figures are finite and prove one way or the other who is right and who is wrong and basically what the pl is saying that everybody is lying except for them which in legal terms is the most ridiculous defence i have ever heard and will rightfully get laughed.Ok I'll explain why I think 20 points is a likely outcome. It's a penalty that is severe enough to be significant (and outweigh the penalties given to Forest and Everton, meaning fans of other clubs can shut up about City not having to take their medicine) whilst simultaneously not actually affecting City that much as with a 20 point deduction they are likely to still qualify for the CL etc.
My hypothesis is based on how businesses operate. Also regarding guilt or otherwise - there are shades of grey always when it comes to legal proceedings and even if you know you are totally innocent there's always the fear that the court/jury etc don't see it that way - maybe the opposition lawyer spins a great story, maybe there's inherent bias on the part of the jury etc.
Which is why I think they won't want to risk it. They'll take a penalty 'in the interests of putting the matter to bed' whilst simultaneously maintaining innocence and stating dissatisfaction with the whole process, both sides move on, and in a couple of years the City fans sit back with popcorn watching Chelsea get bent over a desk by the PL before they go in dry.
All opinion, probably worth fuck all, I've absolutely zero inside info etc.