True. One small aspect still causes me a touch of concern. CAS did clear us, great, but as those still circling snidely point out some of that was because some issues became time expired. Unlike in this open ended prem witch hunt. Am happy to be corrected.Only thees.
The proposition that Mansour had to provide Etihad with funds to pay a fair market value sponsorship is just ridiculous when you stop to think about it.
OK, the thread starts by quoting slbsn saying no one should be certain about the outcome of any legal case …….What has this got to do with anything? Launch another thread on food standards if you want
The 2023 one? Don't think so.Has anything happened on this since the FA Cup Final?
"Once and for all"This is my interpretation too. I think the quotes can’t be read too much into because his English is not perfect. If you read them literally, although he doesn’t sound worried about anything major, to me it sounds on 2 occasions like he’s expecting us to get some sort of punishment (potentially non cooperation) hence talking about the club accepting it x 2.
Obviously, the club aren’t accepting any serious sporting sanctions without an appeal. But they’d probably “accept” a fine for non cooperation if not guilty of the rest.
It's in effect 5(?) charges and being found guilty on 1 charge out of the 115 plus can automatically mean being found guilty on multiple others as they're spread over multiple seasons. So it could be any combination out of the 5 categories.As I don't understand any of this nonsense, is it possible to found guilty for example say 50 charges & innocent on 65??, or basically it's 115 or 0??
Oh....I forgot to include camel rides and falconry displays sponsored by ETIHAD AIRWAYS."Once and for all"
A conditional 'sanction' for the record, based on a technicality,accompanied by explanatory narrative written by the club/Pannick.
Khaldoon (City) don't want any lack of clarity, uncertainty or opportunity for malicious misunderstanding at the end of this process.
"Once and for all"
Moving on to the the day that we're are cleared of all material charges -:
Let's have a huge turn out at the ground and round town.....the 115 party.
Fireworks,flares,smokies,klaxons,burning effigies of Masters & Gill, face masks of Khaldoon, cavalcades of cars blocking Deansgate and Gt Ancoats St....a right fucking day and night piss up & shimozle.
Apart from that I'm not really bothered !!
But paid by Sheikh Mansour ;)Oh....I forgot to include camel rides and falconry displays sponsored by ETIHAD AIRWAYS.
The bolt was probably the healthiest part of the sausage.That was a bolt from the blue.
But paid by Sheikh Mansour ;
.....as usual.But paid by Sheikh Mansour ;)
But your irrefutable evidence isn't irrefutable at all. It was just angles and testing conducted post facto. That is not irrefutable it's circumstantial. So I've got no idea why you even brought it upOK, the thread starts by quoting slbsn saying no one should be certain about the outcome of any legal case …….
City claim to have irrefutable evidence to support their case …… I believe them ….
I give an example of a case I was involved in where I thought (and still do) that the evidence in favour of the defence was irrefutable but for probably emotional / humane reasons the magistrate gave a verdict that defied the facts of the case.
After some questioning by Kinkys Left Foot I give an example of another case where I think the prominence of media attention may have swayed the verdict, despite evidence to the contrary.
The details may be complex but I think the message in relation to City’s position and this thread is fairly clear.