PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

If the Premier League were so convinced it was a slam dunk case, I'd argue the longer it has gone on, the better.

Certainly a slam dunk doesn't take a year to conclude.

As recently evidenced by the coach and horses City ran through these idiots over sponsorships, we are not dealing with geniuses.
My thoughts exactly. The Premier League's job was to prove that our guilt was without doubt, whilst our job was to insert said doubt.

The extended period of time it's taken for the panel to come to a conclusion so far strongly indicates we succeeded in our task.
 
My thoughts exactly. The Premier League's job was to prove that our guilt was without doubt, whilst our job was to insert said doubt.

The extended period of time it's taken for the panel to come to a conclusion so far strongly indicates we succeeded in our task.

Alternatively, it would have been thrown out by now.

We had a woodwork teacher called Mr Chips. We didn't really. He was called Mr Brooks. He was always babbling.
 
Alternatively, it would have been thrown out by now.

We had a woodwork teacher called Mr Chips. We didn't really. He was called Mr Brooks. He was always babbling.
But even if thrown out, everything would need writing up and explaining, hopefully leaving no room for any doubt.

But, just to stay in topic - my daughter has a teacher called Mr Read.
 
My thoughts exactly. The Premier League's job was to prove that our guilt was without doubt, whilst our job was to insert said doubt.

The extended period of time it's taken for the panel to come to a conclusion so far strongly indicates we succeeded in our task.
The standard is not “without doubt”. It is on a balance of probabilities. I wouldn’t jump to your conclusion
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top