I know Buzzer is getting on a bit, but any UEFA committee man getting out of line, had better duck if he is around.Better still, maybe we can select our own representative in UEFA. I think Mike Summerbee would do a great job.
I know Buzzer is getting on a bit, but any UEFA committee man getting out of line, had better duck if he is around.Better still, maybe we can select our own representative in UEFA. I think Mike Summerbee would do a great job.
In other words they make us look guilt for about 5 mins and then say at the end one sentence that we deny wrong doing to which everyone non city fan says they would wouldn’t they
hardly impartial or informative. Seems we are being punished by the leaks and by the fact we are not leaking our defense
This might be a daft question but it’s been posted that the IC refused to consider our defence
Did we give them the evidence and they refused to consider it or did we offer it and they refused to accept it?
Now a thousand posts about the poll! Yes, we can all see it an interpret it
Think we offered a huge file and they had something like 24 hours to complete the investigation so they clearly didn’t read or consider it - maybe because they didn’t want to or because there really wasn’t time - or maybe both.
That’s the way it normally works yes.Im just thinking that if they actually had sight of it then they will know what’s in it
That’s the way it normally works yes.
It is probable that because they never considered it they then never passed it to the AC for consideration in their judgement. You have to remember the IC were tunning out of time to charge City and if City were entitled to present it it may have gone over the 5 year deadline. So it is my understanding the AC never even saw Citys dossier. Not a bad thing in my view.Think we offered a huge file and they had something like 24 hours to complete the investigation so they clearly didn’t read or consider it - maybe because they didn’t want to or because there really wasn’t time - or maybe both.
The impression I have got from reports is that they haven't seen it, as they deemed it too late. Hence their opinion that WE are the ones not co-operating with the process.So why all the talk of a big surprise for them regarding our evidence if they’ve already seen it?
The impression I have got from reports is that they haven't seen it, as they deemed it too late. Hence their opinion that WE are the ones not co-operating with the process.