All of them have made poisonous public statements, especially FSG and Klopp. You can only imagine what they have been saying in private. I also think Masters is not very smart. I wonder if the emails will include communication to those candidiates who rejected the CEO job before Masters came in. It was reported at the time that there were fears that the job was a poison chalice because of persistent interference from clubs (LFC, MUFC, Arsenal and Spurs).The Red Tops have been very bitter even in public at times. I’d be surprised if there aren’t emails highlighting their agenda and collusion, particularly ahead of PL Exec meetings.
Seems a bit pointless tbh. They will just delete anything dodgy
Did CAS request all such communications from UEFA? I cannot remember hearing or reading that they did.
I do not know whether or not this is standard procedure, but I can't think of a disciplinary matter when the complainant has been required to disclose all correspondence about the respondent, especially over such a long period.
I would not be surprised at all if City already know exactly what has been discussed by the PL and with whom. And I don't think it's an exaggeration to state that if it is proven that the PL has been working in cahoots with clubs to plot our downfall, that it is a bigger scandal than Calciopoli in Italy in 2006. Lots of assumptions and conjecture admittedly, but I sense that the tide is turning. The ferocious response to Lawton's piece earlier this week was completely borne out of fear that we're starting to show our teeth. We're entering the beginning of the end.
We must know something…. HopefullyHaven't City brought two cases, the second of which is for damages? Maybe I'm just putting two and two together but.....
I thought that myself, we must be confident.Haven't City brought two cases, the second of which is for damages? Maybe I'm just putting two and two together but.....
That will depend on the content, but it is standard procedure as part of disclosure. WhatsApp's too from personal and work mobiles of the selected individuals.Nah. This is a can of worms.
It looked malicious from the word go. UEFA said there was no evidence and the Spiegl emails were discredited. But it looks like the PL are trying to rely on the Spiegl emails for a second time. The splitting up of the allegations into "115 charges" even though there are essentially four or five alleged offences repeated over a decade looks malicious. The briefing of the Times newspaper with the 115 charges soundbite just hours before City even received the letter looks malicious. The constant private negative media briefing culminating in our detailed submissions to the APT case being leaked (also to the Times) also looks malicious. If it looks malicious perhaps it has always been malicious.When CAS indicated multiple times that Uefa had no evidence I still don't understand why there was no comebacks for what everyone would consider a malicious prosecution.
Defcon 1?Haven't City brought two cases, the second of which is for damages? Maybe I'm just putting two and two together but.....