If City were to have done what we are being accused of the last thing we would have done would be to leave behind a trail of emails to show our guilt to everyone.
Wouldn't we have been a lot more careful than that.
Sports washing anyone.They’ll be back when we are cleared
We provided one at CAS.
Not just that either. We’ve had people from ourselves and the sponsors now go on the record at CAS categorically stating the allegations were false. I highly doubt anyone would have risked perjuring themselves, the consequences of that for the individuals are potentially huge.
I was under the impression that the particular emails in question where we are seen to "admit" what we're being accused of were only released into the public domain after the CAS case, hence why Pearce and others are now being accused explicitly of lying?
IE, original emails which were hacked showed alleged intention, this was subsequently explained at CAS, now the more recent emails are alleged to completely contradict the explanation our representatives provided.
My recollection of the emails published by der Spiegel - and it is only recollection - is that some of the phraseology appeared highly incriminating but was explained to the satisfaction of the court by City, who also provided other evidence in support of our explanation. One of the more sinister remarks made was that "we (City) can do what we like" in regards to the payment of a sponsorship contract. Taken together with remarks about getting "the Sheikh" to make the payments I think we would have all agreed that some explanation was required. City pointed out that "doing what we like" was simply an explanation that the sponsorship deal need not involve payments of equal sums each year over the length of the deal but could be front loaded, as Arsenal's deal with Emirates had been. "The Sheikh" referred not to Sheikh Mansour but to the head of state and could only do so by UAE protocol. I'm not aware of any new emails which appears as incriminating as those put before CAS - but perhaps some know better?I thought we explained all that at CAS? Well, certainly for the e-mails that were under scrutiny at CAS. They accepted our explanation, hence us winning the appeal.
The e-mails themselves can be interpreted a multitude of different ways. Sure, they can look bad if you interpret them a certain way, but there are plausible explanations that have already been put forward and accepted. In fact, it's utterly ludicrous and downright stupid to think that we'd have employed disguised owner funding to make up most of the Etihad deal because there literally was no need to ever do that as the perfectly legal route of using central funds was available to us, which is what we demonstrated at CAS.
I think Pearce testified that he had never arranged for funds to be paid back into the club by ADUG or ADEA or anyone else. Sneaky twats that they are, Der Spiegel, who appeared to have held one email back from the original batch that formed the basis of UEFA’s case, then released that email. It pretty much directly contradicted what Pearce had told CAS, which was, erm, awkward. I seem to recall @Prestwich_Blue at the time deeming it not an issue though……although I stand to be corrected…….so unless the PL have got something else, Magic Twat can, in the words of Dean Edward Rooney, come on over and smooch my big ol’ white butt!I was under the impression that the particular emails in question where we are seen to "admit" what we're being accused of were only released into the public domain after the CAS case, hence why Pearce and others are now being accused explicitly of lying?
IE, original emails which were hacked showed alleged intention, this was subsequently explained at CAS, now the more recent emails are alleged to completely contradict the explanation our representatives provided.
Not to piss on an obvious joke on your part, but the emails in question state that we've already done X, not that we plan to do it.
Unless I'm badly misreading the situation which is possible, we will have to explain why those emails exist if we didn't actually do X. I can't think of a plausible explanation but I trust that we have one. If we don't provide an explanation, the balance of probabilities suggest we've done exactly as we've admitted to doing on the emails.
i sent a utd fan at work a e mail saying i was putting a grand in his bank account ,that was a week ago ,he is still waitingEven if the emails show intent, which I don’t think they do, they are not confirmed by any action unless you believe we uttered false accounts. The chances of that are NIL.