Or 'on the couch with Gary Neville'.how may times do we have to see the rooney goal , the cantana goal , how many do they show of our goals in our treble, four on the trot titles, utter shite now sky, gone down the nick rapid.
Or 'on the couch with Gary Neville'.how may times do we have to see the rooney goal , the cantana goal , how many do they show of our goals in our treble, four on the trot titles, utter shite now sky, gone down the nick rapid.
it doesn't make any sense. Accused of the most serious charges - Fraud, what the hell were we supposed to do? Roll over and have our tummy tickled? If we are found not guilty of the most serious charges then we have definitely won and no media spin will alter that.The article says that whatever the outcome, "nobody wins". It mentions quite a lot about how the big clubs (not just City) have ruined football. It's mostly about what happens if City win, and ends with just one token paragraph about us potentially losing.
"And if City ‘lose’? Well then we are into a world of asterisks and points deductions and glee from rival fans and the staining of one of the greatest club sides we have seen in the English game and punitive lawsuits that will last for eternity.
Whenever ‘imminent’ turns into now, both sides will claim victory and neither will be able to grasp that they have lost."
To me, that clearly indicates he's in Liverpool's pocket, like Delaney.He doesn’t hate City… he hates himself and the world. That’s why he writes bitter negative drivel at every turn. Look at how he reacted to Newcastle winning the League Cup - he just lives in a cycle of hate and bitterness that runs through his veins. I pity the man.
I might be wrong here but didn't Stefan say that not providing absolutely everything you have is a tried and trusted litigation tactic.
Think that would be incredibly rareIt’s baffling. Imagine being charged with murder, getting a not guilty verdict yet still getting sent down for 5 years because you answered no comment in interview.
It wasn't Victoria Derbyshire was it?Presenter on 5 live this morning plugging the Clive Myrie thing, ‘ well worth listening if you want to get across the whole story as we are expecting a decision really, really soon’
I’m paraphrasing, but that was basically what she said
A club that ‘knows it’s place’….‘Real club’. What the fuck does that even mean?
It is absolutely bizarre. The only grounds for a non-cooperation finding is if the panel were to specifically say that there wasn't enough evidence provided for them to form a firm conclusion as to our innocence but the evidence provided by the PL wasn't sufficient to meet the threshold for them finding us in breach.it doesn't make any sense. Accused of the most serious charges - Fraud, what the hell were we supposed to do? Roll over and have our tummy tickled? If we are found not guilty of the most serious charges then we have definitely won and no media spin will alter that.
not really, i think the pl asked for things way outside its remit so could say that we didnt supply the info they asked for but its the pls decision to decide if they had any right to ask for the information they wanted, by all accounts they were asking for such ridiculous things as the personal accounts of the sheikh and access to the etihads books which they have absolutely no remit to ask for.Nobody completely opens up everything to an investigation. You only provide what you are asked for, to the extent required by the law, or the PL rules in this case.
The question before the panel, I suppose, is if the club did that or not.
'Cliff is a faintly Musk-ish figure, who appears to be fond of shouting the odds and calling the shots. He tells the other 19 Premier League clubs what is legal and what is illegal and when to fall in line and when to disobey.'RemovePaywall | Free online paywall remover
Remove Paywall, free online paywall remover. Get access to articles without having to pay or login. Works on Bloomberg and hundreds more.www.removepaywall.com
For anyone who wants to read it.
Well she is deffo KFAPresenter on 5 live this morning plugging the Clive Myrie thing, ‘ well worth listening if you want to get across the whole story as we are expecting a decision really, really soon’
I’m paraphrasing, but that was basically what she said
It’s almost a circular argument. If they need us to provide ‘evidence’ and let’s assume we haven’t, whatever that means, how do they get to charge us in the first place?It is absolutely bizarre. The only grounds for a non-cooperation finding is if the panel were to specifically say that there wasn't enough evidence provided for them to form a firm conclusion as to our innocence but the evidence provided by the PL wasn't sufficient to meet the threshold for them finding us in breach.
I'm surprised they've still got the blue and white ribbons on the PL trophy when they break for an advert tbh.how may times do we have to see the rooney goal , the cantana goal , how many do they show of our goals in our treble, four on the trot titles, utter shite now sky, gone down the nick rapid.
hey we all can do that'Cliff is a faintly Musk-ish figure, who appears to be fond of shouting the odds and calling the shots. He tells the other 19 Premier League clubs what is legal and what is illegal and when to fall in line and when to disobey.'
And it turned out he was right, why didn't he write that?
Just a naive question, do you mean all the senior staff from City....?It is absolutely bizarre. The only grounds for a non-cooperation finding is if the panel were to specifically say that there wasn't enough evidence provided for them to form a firm conclusion as to our innocence but the evidence provided by the PL wasn't sufficient to meet the threshold for them finding us in breach.
Anyway, make of this what you will but I've heard, second hand, that all senior staff have been told to be in HQ today.
from a legal standpoint its bizarre because you simply cannot prove a negative, its them saying we know you have the information and us saying no we dont, and them saying prove you dont, how would we do that send them a picture of an empty filing cabinet and go see nothing there.It’s almost a circular argument. If they need us to provide ‘evidence’ and let’s assume we haven’t, whatever that means, how do they get to charge us in the first place?
Alternatively, they have enough evidence to charge us, so where does ‘non-cooperation’ fit it?
I can't help but have that sinking feeling WHEN we are told we are 100% found innocent he will still.come out with "it's not all it's seems" etcIm waiting for the soft signal from @slbsn of an imminent imminent announcement, 1 of these hopefully upcoming mornings... "just on my way to London. Be on here later blues. Have a nice day ;-)"
Hopefully they’ve not all been told to take a cardboard box in with them…..It is absolutely bizarre. The only grounds for a non-cooperation finding is if the panel were to specifically say that there wasn't enough evidence provided for them to form a firm conclusion as to our innocence but the evidence provided by the PL wasn't sufficient to meet the threshold for them finding us in breach.
Anyway, make of this what you will but I've heard, second hand, that all senior staff have been told to be in HQ today.