UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%
  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%
  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%

  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, he's an Arsenal loving **** who is going to find his mobile number posted on here before much longer.

Allegedly, of course.

He's a simpleton. Conveniently, for a supposed expert on the subject matter, he elected not to mention that the hacked documents relate to the period already sanctioned for.

He's in big trouble, as he accused us of failing twice and still manipulating the books.

He's finished.


Good because last week I was ready to drive to Talksport Fucking Towers and see what he had to say face to face !

Good that’s he’s finished but I’d like to know where City’s stance is with Talksport this year ! It’s been beyond a joke .

I know some
Say what does it matter it’s a shut station , but it does matter when it’s constant bullshit with no apparent evidence or facts to back up his quotes !


Peps rattled them calling them out in it , and now hopefully the club will finish the job.

My only wish is that we stand firm and refuse to talk deal with some of there tin pot journalists when they come grovelling , because believe me they will
 
But the specific wording City used in quotations is not in the article??

I'd suggest it's probably in the correspondence between City and NYT? The important thing is the article has not been edited to take away anything to do with a source at UEFA.
 
I’ve decided on...

The-hills-gif-kristen-fuck-you.gif
 
It wasn't edited, the original article is still there in which they claim sources close to the investigation believe we will get a 1 year ban. I don't think the club have mentioned anything about it been edited but who are these people close to the investigation that is suppose to be confidential
The one I just read stated "...with knowledge of the investigation..." and later on refers to those "...with knowledge of the discussion...". That i,s the word 'knowledge is used not the word 'close'. Don't know if this has any relevance, but there's no reference to anyone 'close' to the investigation in the version I've just read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.