It is in the eyes of our accusers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 16,992
- Team supported
- Manchester City
A settlement isn’t an acceptance of guilt.
Maybe but in every fans eyes it will be
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 31,859
And he appears to be creating a narrative that we will get off with it in spite of being guilty so he can perpetuate the slur after we are vindicated. Transparent as fuck.Sounds like he's trying to be clever by arguing with his alter ego and giving us the impression that he isn't Magic Hat!
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
Possibly but that’s another question. City could settle and state they do not accept they are guilty of anything.It is in the eyes of our accusers.
My personal opinion is that there is more pressure on the PL than City right now but it feels the other way around.
Brightwell Bros.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,394
Think that ship has long sailed whatever the outcome.It is in the eyes of our accusers.
Why do some people think that the whole period up to 2024 is being investigated rather than 2009-2018?
The investigation only covers the first two seasons under Pep.
Because the charges cover 2009-2023, the panel covers all the charges inc. non coop.
The non cooperation charges were issued because the PL was investigating up to 2023 but (in their opinion at least) got blocked from doing so. Also they are serious charges (and theoretically harsh punishments) even if people think they’re lesser than the main financial charges.
Only if it is a minor fine for non-cooperation and the PL state unequivocally that there is no evidence for any of the other stuff.Is a negotiated settlement still possible?
Come on your not that naive.Possibly but that’s another question. City could settle and state they do not accept they are guilty of anything.
Not per se but is likely to be interpreted as such in many quarters.A settlement isn’t an acceptance of guilt.
He's a good poster and I think the pile on is over the top to be honest. As you say, his only crime is that he's a bit misinformed but nowhere near as much as some of the other whoppers we've come across during this process.
Sorry, I don't think the reaction has been over the top at all. It's not even close to the top imo.
Read that particular paragraph again. The reaction is well and truly deserved.