silva_is_gold
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 264
:-)True to form right up until the end. Lol
:-)True to form right up until the end. Lol
Due diligence? What do you think the purpose of twatter is?Excellently put my friend.
It’s baffling how many morons (@bridgeno1) do not do their due diligence and actually read the facts and findings from CAS. It’s all there in black and white yet individuals still don’t have a tube of glue what’s gone on.
Stupid is as stupid does.
This is where the genius stuff comes in. We picked all 3 judges and appointed the chair and didn’t want anyone to spot what we had done by winning 3-0. Therefore we channelled our inner QPR, and decided to instil a bit more drama into the proceedings with the ‘vote’.What about if we picked the judges & bribed them…..
In the pressers, when asked 'how do you feel about the effect of the charges...?' Etc, just reverse the question on them. Because at this time we are still innocent.Is it really up to a media department though, to do this? Not sure it is, or how far their remit goes.
I suppose the club Could occasionally reiterate a simple statement that would then have to be reported by other media outlets. But really, it is pointless, as it would just lead to more and more prejudiced 'takes', and would imo become a distraction more than it might help.
Remember when mere minutes after Pep himself came out swinging, factual and resolute, Melissa Ruddy who was put down for saying something stupid, was then standing on tv with her own version of it, putting 'innocent' in air quotes when describing the cas verdict etc. So, pointless engaging.
The problem is cultural with the media and broadcasting (not just with this btw), and is rooted much much deper, than any attemp at a PR war might reach.
He was genuine.A huge fine and a 20 point deduction is hardly the PL on the run !! If that’s what the PL think they may as well go ahead with their IC. Your information about settlement discussions is likely correct as is that Masters is a dead man walking but I wonder if your lawyer friend was winding you up with the £50m/20pts ?
He's not stupid.
and is a lifetime Ipswich supporter
If there's one thing I know about this City team, it's that they'd take that challenge on just to boil even more piss!He was genuine.
Maybe (this is just me speculating) the PL thought we would respond with £25m/10 points and "it's a deal". So the PL could appease the screaming masses with a potential ECL qualification fail and certain failure to win the PL.
The Americans might do plea bargaining but we don't in the UK. That 20 point deduction plus 50 million fine would leave us at least 150 million down on turnover and forever tarnished as cheats, it was never happening.I think everyone could deal with a 20 point deduction, missing out on Champions League and a level of impact on the clubs growth. It’s not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but admission of some kind of guilt or even enabling perception of guilt would be a serious kick in the balls that would be hard to deal with. That would enable questioning of our achievements on the pitch and would be rammed down our collective throats for years and years by social media morons, not to mention justifying the job that the media have done on us down the years.
100% correct decision by the club to tell them to stick their agreement where the sun don’t shine.
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.